First of all, I want to premise this by saying that this is one in a long line of ideas that I've churned out in my head to try and solve this complex social issue. I am an experimentalist and pretty much like throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. So if I change my mind on this later, I don't want to hear people accusing me of "not sticking to my principles" or whatever.
I hate traditionalism. There, I said it. Enforced monogamy, anti-homosexuality, toxic masculinity (yes!!! I said it! waiting for the
in the comments), religion, competence requirement, "responsibility to live", resistance to change, hatred of systemic explanations and solutions, the whole bit. I wish I could hate more of it- but I know reality, am sane, and don't want the West to fall to the much worse Muslims, or similar masculine barbaric groups that always rise up when great civilizations go "soft".
I hate the boring, inflexible, stifling, and oppressive to the point near evil nature of restrained patriarchy, but I understand that there are three primary modes of being that humans have operated under at least since the Great Bottleneck- restrained patriarchy, unrestrained patriarchy, and feminism.
Unrestrained patriarchy emerges in an environment where some groups have bountiful plenties and do not for whatever reason adequately stand up for themselves and do what feels "mean" in the short term to save their own superior way of life in the long run from those who would seek to plunder it[UWSL]. It's just barbaric tribes of [/UWSL]bolgads[UWSL] (dominant assholes) and warlords, with most men dying young in clan battles and a small minority of survivors raping the women of their conquered village, with the chieftain keeping all of the women in his harem. It's little but war, violence, and cutthroat competition, always having to be on guard, very rarely getting pussy when you rape an enemy but otherwise watching your more competent leader fuck his harem for you. For women, it's little more than rape and life as a concubine treated like utter trash, with abuse unimaginable. Children seen to be raised collectively in this environment. In the absence of order, thugs and ISIS and any other group of violent, low IQ males out for pussy and glory are going to act this way. It's a terrible, miserable, evil system for both men and women, and is only really good for the chief warlord of the victors (and even he has to constantly watch his back and will eventually get killed by a stronger and more youthful challenger). It should be our goal to avoid this way of life spreading or conquering our own at all costs.[/UWSL]
Restrained patriarchy involves a collective realization by men that they are tired of unrestrained patriarchy. The first thing men do is decide that they want to seize the means of reproduction to encourage behaviors that they notice lead to less suffering in men. Since women still have no authority, this is no issue. They overthrow the harem king. They institute enforced monogamy. Men are the breadwinners, women are the homemakers. To ensure women don't breed bolgads, they make draconian punishments for sex outside of marriage. They create institutions to deter aggression. They make a religion that emphasizes "wisdom of the ancients" and extreme punishments for defying these moral codes. They build walls to keep to bolgads out. They invent things, they make long-term plans. Children are raised by family, not the community. Wars become less frequent. Women are treated with chivalry provided they be good homemakers, mothers, and wives. Things get better.
In fact, things get a LOT better. People get comfortable with the way things are going, and begin to expect better and better all the time. Men get nicer and nicer, and whole [UWSL]generations are raised with little contact with bolgads and historical tyranny, and little to no sociological understanding. But what they DO notice is this: "Women are people, too! [/UWSL][UWSL]Resources are plentiful, so women don't need no man! Why can't they be equal![/UWSL][UWSL]" By having men continue to support society (because they have to to survive), women abdicate their part of the social contract and take away men's authority, more of men's money, womb-access for non-bolgads, children, sex, housework, you name it, while men continue to largely be responsible for them. They do so individually, as it is their "right" because "men do it, too!" With the help of thoroughly cucked men, women succeed. Children seen to go back a bit to bring raised by the community as opposed to families. This system is called feminism.[/UWSL]
But that's not the end of the story, is it? No. Scroll back up to the top of the "unrestrained patriarchy" paragraph. What environment creates a perfect breeding ground for barbaric bolgads? Literally, breeding ground. From both within and without- but mostly, from without. Bolgads are always lurking, looking for opportunities to strike, and destroy "weak" societies with lots of resources and pussy for the taking. So obviously, whores are disloyal to their nation, the nation lets the bolgads in to be more inclusive , the society forgets what made it great and how to do it, and falls into unrestrained patriarchy again- chaos.
There is clearly a civilizational cycle that oscilates between 3 major systems in a particular order for a particular reason, and has done so for thousands of years.
So, from all this (and I'm sure many of you are thinking, "water is wet, just get to the point"), it might seem like we just need to return to restrained patriarchy, right? Wrong. Not only does the cycle seem inevitable (meaning restrained patriarchy nearly inevitably leads to feminism), it also- and let me make this clear- sucks. I may have just described restrained patriarchy in a rosy-sounding way, but that's only in comparison to the two other options.
The truth is, feminism sucks for 80% of men, but the main issue with feminism is that it enables and collapses into unrestrained patriarchy (a substantially worse system in terms of lived experience for most men and all women). Unrestrained patriarchy is the true evil, feminism only paves the way for it. Restrained patriarchy, however, sucks for both men and women in a unique way, in how boring, hard and stifling it is. The toiling labor required for upkeep of restrained patriarchy, the social resources wasted, the needless worry on all the excessive social cues- or is it needless? is incredibly GRUELLING. While physically safer and less painful than unrestrained patriarchy, and more sexually and familially secure than either feminism or unrestrained patriarchy, restrained patriarchy tends to have the highest upkeep cost. The strict rules stifle individuality in some ways more than either of the other two. At least feminism honestly allows for the most individual expression (even for men, ie you can be a furry or a wide variety of identities) and usually involves the most material luxury due to being at the end of an empire. Restrained patriarchy doesn't work that way. In other words, restrained patriarchy? It SUCKS, too, and it seems to always lead to something resembling feminism (which, in turn, leads to unrestrained patriarchy, etc).
In fact, when the cycle stops, with the exception of some odd Tibetan matriarchy out there, it usually stops at unrestrained patriarchy, so it can be argued that unrestrained patriarchy is the MOST sustainable of the three. This is because the feminism/unrestrained patriarchy parts of the cycle decimate the gene pool, and unrestrained patriarchy takes active effort and initiative to overcome. However, it still trends towards restrained patriarchy.
So, the cycle sucks. The question is, what can be done to STOP this cycle? Well, there are a few ways:
1) Extinction. This one is one that we've come close to several times- as long ago as the Great Bottleneck and as recently as the Cold War. There are a million ways this could go down, but it will probably come down to human retardation and ideas that disagree with mine. It could be through nuclear war, through straight up dysgenics, but it will most likely have something to do with new technology. Maybe robots will kill us all. Maybe AI will arrive at the singularity and either kill us for it's convenience or put us into an unrecognizable state. Maybe a superbug modified with CRISPR will wipe us all out. Maybe transhumanistfags will convince everyone to give up our humanity and become one with the "global machine" (I consider this to be extinction).
2) Gene modification makes sex obsolete
This is another possibility. What if artificial wombs, synthetic waifus, synthetic females, gene modifications to change women's brains, gene modifications to make men reproduce through mitosis...there are near infinite possibilities. I hate gene modification because of its ethical and foundational implications. Additionally, I'd prefer natural eugenics anyway over being dependent on civilization for my genetic health (the capacity to return to monke if one chooses is a human right). Do I want to allow our underlying genome to deteriorate so much that we would die instantly if not for daily CRISPR "booster updates" administered by the pharmaceutical/Monsanto government Corp? No thanks.
3) We come up with a sixth way, one that does not involve repeating any of the same three steps in the cycle but also does not fundamentally alter or destroy humanity
To me, this is the only option. I have made it a hobby to come up with certain ways to solve this problem.
Specifically, I want to create a system that maintains 90% of the benefits of restrained patriarchy, such as:
-Understanding that people are more likely to get more of what they want when they behave in a way that, if everyone behaved that way, they would be more likely to get what they want
-Understanding that males must work hard enough to sustain themselves and produce additional, surplus value to support women and children, for anything good to come out of society or for it to even function
-Understanding that females must make and raise the children of the man who takes care of her so that productive, intelligent genes are injected into the gene pool
-Understanding that women must provide womb-access to good males and make their children and take care of them early on, especially breastfeeding
-Understanding that bolgads are terrible for everything
-Understanding that men are entitled to the "fruits" of their labor in the form of womb-access and should rise up in revolt and fight for it if it is denied them, and that women are entitled to the "fruits" of their labor (literally, labor), in the form of safety, security, protection, provision, and privilege.
-Understanding that policy action that hurts people in the short run must be implemented to keep out bolgads in the long run
-Understanding that making babies with more than one person in life is bad
-Understanding that taking care of someone else's kid is bad
-Understanding that transgenderism is retarded
-Treating women with care rather than throwing acid on their face for "disrespect"
-In other words, keeping bolgads out and being sustainable and not evil
while:
-Not being inherently religious, because religion is cringe
-Promoting self-awareness and critical philosophical thinking to come to better conclusions instead of promoting blind loyalty to tradition
-Not being toxically masculine
-Understanding that liberation is desirable and only unfeasible for practical reasons
-Supporting cooperation and opposing forcing hierarchy where it doesn't belong (ie constant fistfights, constant need to belittle and one up others and "you're a pussy if you don't participate")
-Understanding that parents are not entitled to anything from their children and their job is to raise adults, not create a picturesque family the way it's "supposed" to be
-Understanding that spanking and other instances of aggressive physical punishment except as to relocate to a different part of or off of one's property are bad, deprivation is a better motivator
-Being eugenically aware
-Understanding that male homosexuality is a gene mutation and is beneficial to allow as long as they don't flirt with guys they know are straight because not only do they weed themselves out of the gene pool, but they make competition easier for heterosexual males
-Having the BASED take that self-harm and suicide are never wrong and you don't owe the world for existing
-Exterminating the "bootstraps" mentality (while still looking rationally at people's options)
-Understanding that competence and morality are both tools, not virtues
-Abolishing gender, using sex instead
-Stopping sayings like "man up" that give validity to transgender theorists by implying that the other person isn't already a man to begin with
-Not leading to feminism by:
-Having BETTER OPTICS and not look like a society that oppresses women even if you're not
-Openly privileging women beyond chivalry, looking optically more gynocentric than the modern West, while not actually being
-Allowing them to provide labor freely, not only to boost productivity but to not openly discriminate
-Understanding that single fathers work fine after age two and that living apart can still raise a fine child
-Understanding that human sexuality is not one-size-fits-all and love is a chemical that literally disappears after 2-3 years, thus attempting to repress promiscuity that does not result in pregnancy with more than one person is paranoid and while efficient to repress, does more harm than good (call me Jewish, but promiscuity is natural, healthy, and as long as good guys are getting something at home from their promiscuous partners, helps women and the top 20% of men more than it hurts the 80% of men). Sex isn't zero-sum if you force it. Basically what I'm saying is that an open relationship with one man and one woman where both partners are allowed to have sex that doesn't result in children other than with each other on the side, the woman still fucks the man, and neither party minds is not bad and in fact a great bargaining chip.
-Getting rid of the concept of "prestige" as a virtue
-Embracing individual expression
This is what I seek to do (for now). Now for a (brief) government policy prescription:
When a man impregnates a woman, the woman should be able to request that he be her "caretaker for life" ON THE CONDITIONS THAT she follows through with the pregnancy and child-bearing and takes adequate care of the child for at least the first two years after birth- unnecessary use of formula is an example of inadequate care, that she has NEVER gotten pregnant from a man other than the man she is requesting from, that she will never get pregnant with another man's child, that she gets pregnant with the man she is requesting from's biological baby within one month of his request- he can get a "ticket" to request this after 3 years of caregiving, and that none of these rules were broken.
The mother gets custody over her children during the first two years after birth but also has the responsibility to take care of them during that time only. The father gets custody over his children between ages 2 and 15, as well. Since a woman agrees that she will take care of her children at least 'till they're two by requesting that the male WHO IMPREGNATED THEM be her caretaker for life, women not taking care of her children while participating in this system not only will result in jail time but also strips their right to participate in this system permanently.
If a woman has gotten pregnant with more than one man's baby, she may not request that any man be her caretaker for life, ever again. By requesting that the man who impregnated her be her caretaker for life, she agrees not to get pregnant with any other man's baby in the future as well- if she does, it will not only will result in jail time but also strips their right to participate in this system permanently.
If a man is a woman's "caretaker for life" and impregnates ANOTHER woman, he is jailed as well as he is not being a good caretaker, either of his girl or of society.
One can only have one caretaker ever (if you lose them, that's it) and one can only be the caretaker for one person, ever.
Beyond that, I think we should abolish all other forms of welfare and privatize medicine as well as removing cucked minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws, quotas, Affirmative Action, and get the government out of marriage entirely (I have many other opinions, don't worry, but these are the most relevant to this post). This would help scrub away the bullshit pedestal and make it more obvious to women that they need men- the return of their actual need and society's sustainability.
I think men would do well with "sexual unions" to voluntarily prohibit its members from giving of money and resources to females other than the woman which they caretake and/or prohibit impregnation of females over 29, because men value womb access as a service more valuable than essentially any GDP-increasing labor women could provide. This would make it so that young women HAD to make the babies of worthwhile men and put them on an adequate path to adulthood to SURVIVE. I think banning all giving of money to females except for from her caretaker (officialized ban on women surviving without getting impregnated by a man and raising his kids) would be a massive government overreach, create an underclass of simps and a black market, and be the worst possible optics. But a sexual union in general could be quite effective.
Thoughts? [UWSL]Is it enough to keep women from choosing bolgads, or at least prefering them, in the process of choosing a caretaker? Is it enough to keep women from delaying pregnancy into their thirties? You tell me. It seems to minimally coercively create some kind of sexual redistribution and be eugenic while if anything appearing like a privilege to women.[/UWSL]
I hate traditionalism. There, I said it. Enforced monogamy, anti-homosexuality, toxic masculinity (yes!!! I said it! waiting for the
in the comments), religion, competence requirement, "responsibility to live", resistance to change, hatred of systemic explanations and solutions, the whole bit. I wish I could hate more of it- but I know reality, am sane, and don't want the West to fall to the much worse Muslims, or similar masculine barbaric groups that always rise up when great civilizations go "soft".I hate the boring, inflexible, stifling, and oppressive to the point near evil nature of restrained patriarchy, but I understand that there are three primary modes of being that humans have operated under at least since the Great Bottleneck- restrained patriarchy, unrestrained patriarchy, and feminism.
Unrestrained patriarchy emerges in an environment where some groups have bountiful plenties and do not for whatever reason adequately stand up for themselves and do what feels "mean" in the short term to save their own superior way of life in the long run from those who would seek to plunder it[UWSL]. It's just barbaric tribes of [/UWSL]bolgads[UWSL] (dominant assholes) and warlords, with most men dying young in clan battles and a small minority of survivors raping the women of their conquered village, with the chieftain keeping all of the women in his harem. It's little but war, violence, and cutthroat competition, always having to be on guard, very rarely getting pussy when you rape an enemy but otherwise watching your more competent leader fuck his harem for you. For women, it's little more than rape and life as a concubine treated like utter trash, with abuse unimaginable. Children seen to be raised collectively in this environment. In the absence of order, thugs and ISIS and any other group of violent, low IQ males out for pussy and glory are going to act this way. It's a terrible, miserable, evil system for both men and women, and is only really good for the chief warlord of the victors (and even he has to constantly watch his back and will eventually get killed by a stronger and more youthful challenger). It should be our goal to avoid this way of life spreading or conquering our own at all costs.[/UWSL]
Restrained patriarchy involves a collective realization by men that they are tired of unrestrained patriarchy. The first thing men do is decide that they want to seize the means of reproduction to encourage behaviors that they notice lead to less suffering in men. Since women still have no authority, this is no issue. They overthrow the harem king. They institute enforced monogamy. Men are the breadwinners, women are the homemakers. To ensure women don't breed bolgads, they make draconian punishments for sex outside of marriage. They create institutions to deter aggression. They make a religion that emphasizes "wisdom of the ancients" and extreme punishments for defying these moral codes. They build walls to keep to bolgads out. They invent things, they make long-term plans. Children are raised by family, not the community. Wars become less frequent. Women are treated with chivalry provided they be good homemakers, mothers, and wives. Things get better.
In fact, things get a LOT better. People get comfortable with the way things are going, and begin to expect better and better all the time. Men get nicer and nicer, and whole [UWSL]generations are raised with little contact with bolgads and historical tyranny, and little to no sociological understanding. But what they DO notice is this: "Women are people, too! [/UWSL]
[UWSL]Resources are plentiful, so women don't need no man! Why can't they be equal![/UWSL][UWSL]" By having men continue to support society (because they have to to survive), women abdicate their part of the social contract and take away men's authority, more of men's money, womb-access for non-bolgads, children, sex, housework, you name it, while men continue to largely be responsible for them. They do so individually, as it is their "right" because "men do it, too!" With the help of thoroughly cucked men, women succeed. Children seen to go back a bit to bring raised by the community as opposed to families. This system is called feminism.[/UWSL]But that's not the end of the story, is it? No. Scroll back up to the top of the "unrestrained patriarchy" paragraph. What environment creates a perfect breeding ground for barbaric bolgads? Literally, breeding ground. From both within and without- but mostly, from without. Bolgads are always lurking, looking for opportunities to strike, and destroy "weak" societies with lots of resources and pussy for the taking. So obviously, whores are disloyal to their nation, the nation lets the bolgads in to be more inclusive
, the society forgets what made it great and how to do it, and falls into unrestrained patriarchy again- chaos.There is clearly a civilizational cycle that oscilates between 3 major systems in a particular order for a particular reason, and has done so for thousands of years.
So, from all this (and I'm sure many of you are thinking, "water is wet, just get to the point"), it might seem like we just need to return to restrained patriarchy, right? Wrong. Not only does the cycle seem inevitable (meaning restrained patriarchy nearly inevitably leads to feminism), it also- and let me make this clear- sucks. I may have just described restrained patriarchy in a rosy-sounding way, but that's only in comparison to the two other options.
The truth is, feminism sucks for 80% of men, but the main issue with feminism is that it enables and collapses into unrestrained patriarchy (a substantially worse system in terms of lived experience for most men and all women). Unrestrained patriarchy is the true evil, feminism only paves the way for it. Restrained patriarchy, however, sucks for both men and women in a unique way, in how boring, hard and stifling it is. The toiling labor required for upkeep of restrained patriarchy, the social resources wasted, the needless worry on all the excessive social cues- or is it needless? is incredibly GRUELLING. While physically safer and less painful than unrestrained patriarchy, and more sexually and familially secure than either feminism or unrestrained patriarchy, restrained patriarchy tends to have the highest upkeep cost. The strict rules stifle individuality in some ways more than either of the other two. At least feminism honestly allows for the most individual expression (even for men, ie you can be a furry or a wide variety of identities) and usually involves the most material luxury due to being at the end of an empire. Restrained patriarchy doesn't work that way. In other words, restrained patriarchy? It SUCKS, too, and it seems to always lead to something resembling feminism (which, in turn, leads to unrestrained patriarchy, etc).
In fact, when the cycle stops, with the exception of some odd Tibetan matriarchy out there, it usually stops at unrestrained patriarchy, so it can be argued that unrestrained patriarchy is the MOST sustainable of the three. This is because the feminism/unrestrained patriarchy parts of the cycle decimate the gene pool, and unrestrained patriarchy takes active effort and initiative to overcome. However, it still trends towards restrained patriarchy.
So, the cycle sucks. The question is, what can be done to STOP this cycle? Well, there are a few ways:
1) Extinction. This one is one that we've come close to several times- as long ago as the Great Bottleneck and as recently as the Cold War. There are a million ways this could go down, but it will probably come down to human retardation and ideas that disagree with mine
. It could be through nuclear war, through straight up dysgenics, but it will most likely have something to do with new technology. Maybe robots will kill us all. Maybe AI will arrive at the singularity and either kill us for it's convenience or put us into an unrecognizable state. Maybe a superbug modified with CRISPR will wipe us all out. Maybe transhumanistfags will convince everyone to give up our humanity and become one with the "global machine" (I consider this to be extinction).2) Gene modification makes sex obsolete
This is another possibility. What if artificial wombs, synthetic waifus, synthetic females, gene modifications to change women's brains, gene modifications to make men reproduce through mitosis...there are near infinite possibilities. I hate gene modification because of its ethical and foundational implications. Additionally, I'd prefer natural eugenics anyway over being dependent on civilization for my genetic health (the capacity to return to monke if one chooses is a human right). Do I want to allow our underlying genome to deteriorate so much that we would die instantly if not for daily CRISPR "booster updates" administered by the pharmaceutical/Monsanto government Corp? No thanks.
3) We come up with a sixth way, one that does not involve repeating any of the same three steps in the cycle but also does not fundamentally alter or destroy humanity
To me, this is the only option. I have made it a hobby to come up with certain ways to solve this problem.
Specifically, I want to create a system that maintains 90% of the benefits of restrained patriarchy, such as:
-Understanding that people are more likely to get more of what they want when they behave in a way that, if everyone behaved that way, they would be more likely to get what they want
-Understanding that males must work hard enough to sustain themselves and produce additional, surplus value to support women and children, for anything good to come out of society or for it to even function
-Understanding that females must make and raise the children of the man who takes care of her so that productive, intelligent genes are injected into the gene pool
-Understanding that women must provide womb-access to good males and make their children and take care of them early on, especially breastfeeding
-Understanding that bolgads are terrible for everything
-Understanding that men are entitled to the "fruits" of their labor in the form of womb-access and should rise up in revolt and fight for it if it is denied them, and that women are entitled to the "fruits" of their labor (literally, labor), in the form of safety, security, protection, provision, and privilege.
-Understanding that policy action that hurts people in the short run must be implemented to keep out bolgads in the long run
-Understanding that making babies with more than one person in life is bad
-Understanding that taking care of someone else's kid is bad
-Understanding that transgenderism is retarded
-Treating women with care rather than throwing acid on their face for "disrespect"
-In other words, keeping bolgads out and being sustainable and not evil
while:
-Not being inherently religious, because religion is cringe
-Promoting self-awareness and critical philosophical thinking to come to better conclusions instead of promoting blind loyalty to tradition
-Not being toxically masculine
-Understanding that liberation is desirable and only unfeasible for practical reasons
-Supporting cooperation and opposing forcing hierarchy where it doesn't belong (ie constant fistfights, constant need to belittle and one up others and "you're a pussy if you don't participate")
-Understanding that parents are not entitled to anything from their children and their job is to raise adults, not create a picturesque family the way it's "supposed" to be
-Understanding that spanking and other instances of aggressive physical punishment except as to relocate to a different part of or off of one's property are bad, deprivation is a better motivator
-Being eugenically aware
-Understanding that male homosexuality is a gene mutation and is beneficial to allow as long as they don't flirt with guys they know are straight because not only do they weed themselves out of the gene pool, but they make competition easier for heterosexual males
-Having the BASED take that self-harm and suicide are never wrong and you don't owe the world for existing
-Exterminating the "bootstraps" mentality (while still looking rationally at people's options)
-Understanding that competence and morality are both tools, not virtues
-Abolishing gender, using sex instead
-Stopping sayings like "man up" that give validity to transgender theorists by implying that the other person isn't already a man to begin with
-Not leading to feminism by:
-Having BETTER OPTICS and not look like a society that oppresses women even if you're not
-Openly privileging women beyond chivalry, looking optically more gynocentric than the modern West, while not actually being
-Allowing them to provide labor freely, not only to boost productivity but to not openly discriminate
-Understanding that single fathers work fine after age two and that living apart can still raise a fine child
-Understanding that human sexuality is not one-size-fits-all and love is a chemical that literally disappears after 2-3 years, thus attempting to repress promiscuity that does not result in pregnancy with more than one person is paranoid and while efficient to repress, does more harm than good (call me Jewish, but promiscuity is natural, healthy, and as long as good guys are getting something at home from their promiscuous partners, helps women and the top 20% of men more than it hurts the 80% of men). Sex isn't zero-sum if you force it. Basically what I'm saying is that an open relationship with one man and one woman where both partners are allowed to have sex that doesn't result in children other than with each other on the side, the woman still fucks the man, and neither party minds is not bad and in fact a great bargaining chip.
-Getting rid of the concept of "prestige" as a virtue
-Embracing individual expression
This is what I seek to do (for now). Now for a (brief) government policy prescription:
When a man impregnates a woman, the woman should be able to request that he be her "caretaker for life" ON THE CONDITIONS THAT she follows through with the pregnancy and child-bearing and takes adequate care of the child for at least the first two years after birth- unnecessary use of formula is an example of inadequate care, that she has NEVER gotten pregnant from a man other than the man she is requesting from, that she will never get pregnant with another man's child, that she gets pregnant with the man she is requesting from's biological baby within one month of his request- he can get a "ticket" to request this after 3 years of caregiving, and that none of these rules were broken.
The mother gets custody over her children during the first two years after birth but also has the responsibility to take care of them during that time only. The father gets custody over his children between ages 2 and 15, as well. Since a woman agrees that she will take care of her children at least 'till they're two by requesting that the male WHO IMPREGNATED THEM be her caretaker for life, women not taking care of her children while participating in this system not only will result in jail time but also strips their right to participate in this system permanently.
If a woman has gotten pregnant with more than one man's baby, she may not request that any man be her caretaker for life, ever again. By requesting that the man who impregnated her be her caretaker for life, she agrees not to get pregnant with any other man's baby in the future as well- if she does, it will not only will result in jail time but also strips their right to participate in this system permanently.
If a man is a woman's "caretaker for life" and impregnates ANOTHER woman, he is jailed as well as he is not being a good caretaker, either of his girl or of society.
One can only have one caretaker ever (if you lose them, that's it) and one can only be the caretaker for one person, ever.
Beyond that, I think we should abolish all other forms of welfare and privatize medicine as well as removing cucked minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws, quotas, Affirmative Action, and get the government out of marriage entirely (I have many other opinions, don't worry, but these are the most relevant to this post). This would help scrub away the bullshit pedestal and make it more obvious to women that they need men- the return of their actual need and society's sustainability.
I think men would do well with "sexual unions" to voluntarily prohibit its members from giving of money and resources to females other than the woman which they caretake and/or prohibit impregnation of females over 29, because men value womb access as a service more valuable than essentially any GDP-increasing labor women could provide. This would make it so that young women HAD to make the babies of worthwhile men and put them on an adequate path to adulthood to SURVIVE. I think banning all giving of money to females except for from her caretaker (officialized ban on women surviving without getting impregnated by a man and raising his kids) would be a massive government overreach, create an underclass of simps and a black market, and be the worst possible optics. But a sexual union in general could be quite effective.
Thoughts? [UWSL]Is it enough to keep women from choosing bolgads, or at least prefering them, in the process of choosing a caretaker? Is it enough to keep women from delaying pregnancy into their thirties? You tell me. It seems to minimally coercively create some kind of sexual redistribution and be eugenic while if anything appearing like a privilege to women.[/UWSL]
Last edited:
