Rethinking the marriage wage premium.

A number of commenters on my last post wanted more evidence that marriage as an institution motivates men to earn more. Commenter Drew asked:

I think the jumps from correlations to narrative/causation is a little sloppy. For example, do the married men make more because they are higher motivated to do so? Or are they a fully developed and self motivated character that naturally results in more financial success and able to attract women in general to marriage?

This is a very common question for the academics who study the marriage wage premium, and numerous studies have found that the differences in wages between married and unmarried men can’t be explained solely by the selection bias regarding which men are able to marry.  A 2004 article by Professor Hal R. Varian in the New York Times titled Analyzing the Marriage Gap describes one such study.  Professor Caplan reviews the competing theories in his article What Is the Male Marriage Premium?

However, while selection bias can’t explain the entire difference, there are a number of plausible reasons to believe that selection bias explains part of it.  The NY Times article linked above focuses on several selection related hypotheses, including the possibility that better looking men are both more likely to earn more money and to get married.  But Drew’s conjecture is for a more direct selection bias, that women are selecting husbands based on their estimated future income potential.  This certainly makes sense, but notice that nested in this question is the assumption that men are competing to be picked for marriage by signaling provider potential.  Put another way, men are competing for sexual access to the most attractive women.  Under a marriage based system men compete for sexual access by competing to marry, and men compete to marry in part by signaling their ability to provide.  This of course fits my original assertion, that marriage motivates men to work harder and earn more.  There is no conflict between my original assertion and Drew’s question;  we are saying the same thing in different ways.

The problem we have is as large numbers of women continue to postpone marriage past their most attractive years (and marriage is more and more debased) signaling provider status becomes less and less an efficient strategy for men competing for sexual access to the most attractive women.  This is of course what Roissy and Roosh have explained in great detail.

Commenter GK Chesterton raised another common theory regarding why married men earn more money:

I’d like to see more on this especially pushing further back. I know people have done studies on the economic benefits that families afford in specialization. That is, mom can take care of the kids exclusively and dad can earn. It might be interesting to see household output in economic activity based on married or not married. That way you can tally single men and women against married couples.

While traditional wives certainly add great economic value to the family as a whole, the specialization argument falls flat in my opinion when considering the question of married men’s higher earnings.  The problem with the argument is it assumes married men are free to focus more of their time and mental energy on paid work than unmarried men.  If this were correct, married men should then be free to work longer hours and travel more for business than unmarried men.  The basic assumption is that bachelors are too tied down focusing on housekeeping, cooking meals from scratch, and doing their laundry to really focus on paid work.  This is to put it mildly, counter-intuitive.  I did a quick google search on the question and the top two results (here and here) refute the specialization theory.  The fundamental problem with the specialization theory is that it overlooks what marriage provides to men (aside from sexual access).  Marriage is the way men set out to have a family, and the economic value of a traditional wife is greatest within that context.  Having a family increases the demands on the man’s time, but the specialization benefit of a traditional wife helps to offset the extra demands the married man has taken on.  Either way, the economic benefit of specialization would show up in greater household wealth, not in greater earnings for the man.  Just to be clear, I’m not questioning the substantial economic contribution of traditional wives;  I’m merely pointing out that it doesn’t plausibly explain why married men earn more than unmarried men.

But there is a more simple way to test whether marriage motivates men to earn more.  Starting roughly 40 years ago western society decided to dismantle marriage.  Core to this process has been to address the issue of motivation for men.  Family courts know that if a man is ejected from his family he will have less incentive to financially provide for his (now ex) wife and children.  The same goes for men supporting illegitimate children and their mother.  This is the whole point of child support and alimony, to replace the motivation marriage would otherwise create.  When the family is intact the man has an incentive to provide not just for himself, but for his wife and children.  While most men would still provide for their children even if they aren’t part of his household, it is widely accepted that his lack of status as husband and head of household will mean a reduction in his willingness to provide for his children.  The same is even more true regarding support for the wife.  But the courts know that just mandating child support and alimony aren’t sufficient to make up for the former motivation provided by the institution they replace (marriage).  Coercing men to make these payments lacks the ability to motivate the man to earn as much as he would have earned were he head of household, so there is less income for the courts to transfer to the woman and child(ren).  As a result, family courts now take the extraordinary measure of calculating the amount of income they believe the man is capable of making, and then imputing that income to him when calculating how much child support he must pay, as Dr. Stephen Baskerville explains:

Though ostensibly limited by guidelines, a judge is free to order virtually any amount in child support. 40 A judge who decides that a father could be earning more than he does can “impute” potential income to the father and assess child support and extract attorneys’ fees based on that imputed income.

If marriage didn’t create a substantial incentive for men to earn more, there would be no need to artificially reproduce this incentive when creating a system to replace marriage.  While economic studies are helpful, this is a matter of basic sense.

Commenter They Call Me Tom offered another common sense explanation for the differences we see in the earnings of married vs unmarried men:

Wow… to put it shortly. I mean some things seem to make sense… I always said during the layoffs in architecture over the last few years, that I’m certain it was easy enough for me to absorb four or five months out of work, but that I could only imagine how rough it was for the men with wives and children. It’s easy to tighten your own belt, but to tighten the belt of your wife and children? It has to create a sense of desperation (and as put in the article above… more ambition). 

That married men are under significantly more pressure to produce earnings than unmarried men is something nearly universally understood, yet when the topic of the marriage earnings “premium” comes up this basic fact is somehow overlooked.  This comes from the all too common interaction between the feminist and conservative viewpoints.  Feminists view marriage as enslaving women, and are generally reluctant to acknowledge the efforts of husbands.  The posture of conservatives however is less intuitive, but they also tend to greatly downplay the sacrifice of husbands.  This flows out of the chivalrous view of conservatives, where men taking credit for their sacrifices is seen as in poor form.  However, we know that conservatives do know men are taking on a significant burden when they marry, as they are very open about this whenever they scold unmarried men as slackers.  As Pastor Driscoll puts it:

Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load. Young men are supposed to load themselves up first by being responsible for themselves and not expecting their mom to fill up their sippy cup with beer and push them in a stroller to the unemployment line. Young men who take responsibility for themselves are then ready to marry and take responsibility for the life and joy of their wife.

The problem is the denial from both feminists and conservatives has lead to a widespread failure to recognize how important to society marriage really is.  Child support and imputed income can’t replace marriage, and the sooner we are honest about this the better for all involved.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Child Support, Mark Driscoll, Marriage, Patriarchal Dividend. Bookmark the permalink.

199 Responses to Rethinking the marriage wage premium.

  1. adiaforon says:

    The Pastor Driscoll comment comes across, to me, as condescending.

    As a bachelor who forewent marriage many years ago, it was challenging enough to take responsibility for myself when it was hard to find a stable and sufficiently remunerative job in my 20s,having taken some time to “find myself,” and after living through three economic crises, starting when I was about 21 years old, and graduating with a bachelor’s that couldn’t get me shit in the small city in which I was living at the time.

    Now, more than 20 years later and making more than sufficient money, I’m not about to risk it all in a game that’s rigged against me. After all, aren’t more ‘spherians waking up to this fact with each passing month?

  2. Dalrock says:

    @adiaforon

    The Pastor Driscoll comment comes across, to me, as condescending.

    I would say you are reading him correctly then. Just to clarify, I’m not in Driscoll’s camp. I’m merely pointing out that conservatives know men take on a burden when they marry when the context is different.

  3. Bill D says:

    Imputed income… “As a result, family courts now take the extraordinary measure of calculating the amount of income they believe the man is capable of making, and then imputing that income to him when calculating how much child support he must pay,…”

    If there ever was one good reason for men to avoid marriage this is it. Don’t go there, chaps. Don’t go there. Pay for sex if you must, but do not enslave yourselves. Poor, boring, and indifferent sex simply isn’t worth it.

  4. Dalrock says:

    When I hit publish on the post I hadn’t clicked through to see what Roissy and Roush’s current posts are. They are quite fitting. Roosh’s current post is Freedom, and Roissy’s current post is Marriage Down, Ho’s Up.

  5. orion2 says:

    The German word for “Imputed Income” is “Anspannungsprinzip”.

    I find it amazing that the very same measures are applied across the pond.

    It is almost as if some ideas follow a certain inescapable logic, if put into practice.

  6. Alan K says:

    “married men are under significantly more pressure to produce earnings….”

    And helpful tools like Pastor Driscoll are quite happy to add to his crushing burden by setting the man’s wife and children in opposition to his headship, characterizing him as merely a bumbling child in need of remediation. Such a help. Does anyone wonder why the middle class has gone missing?

  7. earl says:

    “As a result, family courts now take the extraordinary measure of calculating the amount of income they believe the man is capable of making, and then imputing that income to him when calculating how much child support he must pay,…”

    So the courts don’t live in reality…they live in fantasyland where I’m a rock star making millions of dollars.

    And people think I’M insane.

  8. MaccAodh says:

    I’m not married, but I can say that the most productive time of my life was the year before I met my girlfriend. I was single, enjoying the benefits of learning Game, and spending a lot of time on self improvement (read up on the classics, travelled a bit, got my grades up, started learning Russian, and still had time to relax in the evenings before going out). Now about half that formerly-productive time goes to my girlfriend. I can’t imagine how marriage would make men more productive unless it’s a driving force to focus everything on work rather than spending that same amount of time on a variety of enjoyable or self-improving activities.

    For a purely GDP-based analysis, that focus would look more productive, but what if we’re talking about quality of life and personal contentment?

  9. Dalrock is absolutely right that PROPERTY RIGHTS are at the center and circumference of civilization.

    To tax a man to raise the children of other men, or to make him pay to raise children he cannot directly Father is to enslave him and his body and rob him of his property and NATURAL RIGHTS.

    As the elite fiat masterzlzlzlzlzlzooz destroy property rights with a fiat currency, the destruction of property rights via the destruction of the family is no problem for them. By empowering women to follow their butt and giana tiznznzgznztztzzllzoz instead of the GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ the elite fiat masterzlzlzoo are able to destroy the family, by which they profit massively.

    HOMER, MOSES, and JESUS all exalt property rights, which is why the churchians generally detest the GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ zllzlzlz.

  10. tz says:

    Surreal becomes Sir’s reality.

    There is a telos, an end, a purpose when married. I’m not so my highest maintenance item is my Harley. Others work on their mancave or media room.

    When there is no future, why work extra instead of enjoying now? The only reason I work extra hours is I consult so there are downtimes, and if one occurs in the summer I’ll be off on my motorcycle somewhere.

    Vox Day noted civilization depends on a long “time preference” – that you want to invest and build for later. Feminism destroys that. Why gather wealth that some barbarian will just take away?

    Marriage is inherently a long time preference institution. With divorce, contraception, child-support, and man-fault, it has become short time preference, like Weimar or Zimbabwe inflation. Government will pay for the kids, the Wife will rob your wealth, and you don’t have kids anyway (except for two, usually when her clock starts ticking loudly).

  11. Dr. Faust says:

    Why is marriage so important to civilization? Haven’t there been societies without marriage?

  12. Ton says:

    This reminds me to reiterated to my son the pain I will inflict if he ever marries

  13. “Dr. Faust says:
    July 21, 2013 at 7:01 pm
    Why is marriage so important to civilization? Haven’t there been societies without marriage?”

    Can you name any? It’s about property rights.

  14. Dr. Faust says:

    So young men don’t work hard. That’s obvious. Empowered women will pick up the slack and we’ll all live in a matriarchal utopia.

  15. Michael says:

    @ Bill D

    “Pay for sex if you must, but do not enslave yourselves”

    -I must admit. I’ve thought about this more often than I would like to admit. I live near a college with a huge female population. The escort sites are full of 18-21 young, hot, stunning girls looking to “pay for college”.

    On one hand I feel like I’m justified in doing it. I’ve been been denied marriage. I’m alone. In a system that is against me. I never asked for this. But I’m too freaked out. I cannot bring myself to pay. I’m afraid of what might happen. Like, In the afterlife or something. If anything would happen at all.

    I just wish I knew the physical and spiritual consequence(s) for hiring an escort so I could do a cost benefit analysis.

    Also, it’s repugnant to think, even if the escort is new, simply by virtue of her age; you at best are still one of hundreds of “customers”. There is no way to trust her words, or discretion when it comes to other “customers” she has “serviced”. She probably has been with repulsive guys. It would make me sick just thinking I “shared” a women with such repulsive scum men. It’s just to much. I cannot do it.

    But yet, at the same time, a perfect young female nine, exactly what I want, physically, is only a phone call away from my front door, for only $250.00-$350.00/hr. I’m the kind of “customer” she would want to see on a weekly basis. Respectful, physically fit, clean well dressed, nice, good place, younger looking, money is not an issue etc. I would probably be offered a volume discount.

    But no, I cannot do it. This sucks.

    RAAAHH !!!

  16. orion says:

    @ Michael

    I am glad to live in a country where prostitution is perfectly legal.

    You are blowing this up out of proportions.

    Its a service, no more, no less, with some you will “click”, with mostyou wont.

    There, thats the long and short of it.

  17. joeG says:

    I think child support via a co-parenting agreement, as means of reproducing, might be a motivating factor for some older (over 30) men. That possibility is motivating me to get my act together. Co-parenting would allow my child(ren) to have both parents in their lives on prearranged amicable terms. Also, unlike surrogacy in some cases, the process of creating a child via co-parenting (turkey baster) doesn’t require the destruction of embryos. In the great state of florida where I live, statutory guidelines allow me to estimate how much a kid will cost if i don’t have custody http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/childsupport/florida/default.asp

    It turns out for my current income situation, 1 kid would cost me roughly $800/m. If I quit saving for retirement and continue my subsistence living, I can afford 1 kid. If I plan carefully and work a little harder, I might be able to afford two at round $1200/m. Personally, I think these numbers are twice as much as they should be, so I am also considering co-parenting with foreign women and visiting my child(ren) regularly (as well as very very frequent digital communication) if I can’t get custody. I am assuming cost of living will be less and so will be my child support obligation.

    Absent finding a trustworthy christian woman in the next couple of years, that’s my plan for reproducing while avoiding marriage 2.0

  18. joeG says:

    @ Micheal

    celibacy is indeed very hard (pun intended). I have found that interacting with prostitutes doesn’t necessitate engaging in sex (or swapping any fluids) in order to satisfy my urge for feminine comfort. Sometimes the physical appearance of the prostitute can intentionally be used as a limiting factor (ie older and/or fatter), or one can simply go to body rub girls who are self limiting. I am not telling you to go this route as I am unsure of its morality. Its probably best to simply pray to God for strength.

  19. Buck says:

    I’ve always said, if prostitution were legal, the rarest sound on earth would be a wedding bell!

  20. Dr. Faust says:

    In the age of bonobo monkey sex where women dollop out their vagina’s just as soon as they shake hands, I think the spiritual ramifications of sex outside of marriage are limited. It’s not adultery.

    Celibacy has its benefits. And I mean complete celibacy. No masturbation. It will bring you closer to god if that is your wish. But it’s hard at first. Most things are. The spiritual path is one of denying the flesh. By putting off temptation through prayer, fasting, and celibacy we weaken the control the body has over us.

  21. Ed says:

    Women marry men who earn more than average. Marriage does not increase mens’ earnings.

  22. tweell says:

    An anecdote isn’t data, but still is a datum. I am a widower, my wife passed away six years ago (cancer). Before she got sick, I was a great deal more ambitious than I am now. I worked hard, took extra assignments, and made quite a bit more money. Currently I make 75% of what I did then, but it’s more than enough for my needs. I simply do not care to exert myself as I did.

  23. hairy ape says:

    @Michael

    I just realized something recently: prostitution is giving access to beta males the same young female who would otherwise only limit herself to alpha thugs. There has been many case studies where the alpha thug boyfriend doesn’t know his girl is dishing out services on the side (since she usually stops after 2 years or limits herself to choice trusted clientele).

    In marriage it’s the beta male husband that’s cuckolded by the alpha thug lover. In prostitution it’s the alpha thug boyfriend that’s cuckolded by the beta male John.

    In places where prostitution were legal and there would be no risk of being stinged and put on a wall of shame, I would definitely avail of this practice. The only reason why I avoid it now is because of the criminal elements and pimps are usually scum of the earth. I would go for the independent female-owned escort services, that way you can be guaranteed no trafficking was involved.

  24. hairy ape says:

    I’m this close to pretending I’m gay so I can spend $150,000 to grab good eggs from a fertile ivy league girl and putting it into a surrogate mother. Why can’t eggs from egg banks be available for any paying men the same way sperm in sperm banks are available for paying women? Why are they limited to infertile couples?

    @Michael

    “Also, it’s repugnant to think, even if the escort is new, simply by virtue of her age; you at best are still one of hundreds of “customers”. There is no way to trust her words, or discretion when it comes to other “customers” she has “serviced”. She probably has been with repulsive guys. It would make me sick just thinking I “shared” a women with such repulsive scum men. It’s just to much. I cannot do it.”

    Haven’t you taken the red pill? She’s guaranteed to have been with “repulsive guys” whether she’s an escort or not! Chicks dig jerks, remember? At the very least you would be the beta male customer who cuckolds who is most likely her alpha thug boyfriend.

  25. BC says:

    MaccAodh: I can’t imagine how marriage would make men more productive unless it’s a driving force to focus everything on work rather than spending that same amount of time on a variety of enjoyable or self-improving activities.

    YMMV, but in a nutshell, yes.

    For a purely GDP-based analysis, that focus would look more productive, but what if we’re talking about quality of life and personal contentment?

    Aye, that’s the rub. And it all comes down to who’s “quality of life and personal contentment” is to be improved, at who’s expense.

    Who. Whom.

    Buck: I’ve always said, if prostitution were legal, the rarest sound on earth would be a wedding bell!

    Only for a period of time, after which marriage laws and other incentives would change to make the transaction attractive enough to achieve a marriage market equilibrium again.

  26. Peter says:

    What I fail to understand is why the ‘marriage wage premium’ is dangled in front of single men as some kind of ‘benefit’ of marriage, when in fact it’s just a result of having to work harder. That is, assuming it really exists at all, which I doubt.

    Isn’t all this ‘married men are happier, healthier, and better off’ nonsense just another way of making women feel superior. After all, who’s going to take the credit for all this extra happiness, healthiness, and prosperity.

  27. Remo says:

    ” Child support and imputed income can’t replace marriage…”

    Sure it can – just as slavery, misery, and poverty will replace freedom, happiness, and abundance. But on the bright side bitter, angry, fat, loud, obnoxious women get to believe they are getting revenge on that boy that wouldn’t return their calls in high school. A small price to pay if you are rabid feminist.

  28. Joshua says:

    Peter, are you saying it isn’t a feature its a bug?

  29. Michael says:

    @ hairy ape

    “At the very least you would be the beta male customer who cuckolds who is most likely her alpha thug boyfriend”.

    -But I would have to pay for it. $250.00-$350.00 every time. He gets it for free. As much as he wants. Unlike me he doesn’t suffer any moral qualms or possible consequences in the afterlife.

  30. Oswald Spengler says:

    @ Michael

    If the hypothetical “alpha thug boyfriend” is screwing his escort girlfriend outside of marriage, then according to many religions, ATB is just as liable to go to Hell, just as surely as the johns who are paying for her services.

  31. hairy ape says:

    @Michael

    All sex “given” by a woman to a man has a price. Always. As MGTOWs used to say, you’re paying for her to go away afterwards. I’m pretty sure that alpha thug boyfriend pays somehow.

    Moral qualms/consequences in afterlife?

    Your mother was a prostitute when she wouldn’t put out for your father until after he fixed the water heater, varnished the cupboards, and changed the lightbulb in the garage.

    You need to see the asian perspective on prostitution:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/02/04/time-to-reopen-debate-on-prostitution/

    Asian women, as Heartiste used to say, are 100% beta game chicks. In other words, only [provider] pay-for-play will work with them. If you want a wife in China, you can start by earning minimum 8,000 yuan a month, and have your parents buy you a house and car. Or if you’re a high roller, just pay a stipend of $15,625/month for a high maintenance girl.

    The best thing about most Asians being gold-diggers is that at the very least they only put out for men who keep the economy running, rather than the usual thugs.

  32. Remo says:

    $250 – $350? You are over paying. Remember these girls handed away their virginity for *free* and have since been pierced by countless others for the same price. If I were king of the U.S. I would require all 18 year old men to spend a week in Thailand and learn what the real price of vag is… Hint: it is *much* less than $250. Not only would these young men enjoy sex with women who are far better looking (thin, pretty, feminine) than their U.S. counter parts but their eyes would be opened to the world and they’d see what a bad deal the U.S. girls are offering.

    It’s about time men started demanding more and giving less.

    1. Men give, women take – this has been true since the beginning of time.

    2. Ultimately women require compliant slaves, even in violently enforced cases of slavery such as child support, taxation for undeserved jobs, and all the other ‘perks’ women get simply by virtue of living in a society that men build and maintain. Stop. Walk away. Let Rome burn. Leave the country and don’t look back – you’re already a “deadbeat evil rapist” in their sight anyway – embrace it… say “Okay! All yours!” and watch them clean out the sewers.

  33. Mark says:

    @hairy ape & Micheal

    “”I would go for the independent female-owned escort services, that way you can be guaranteed no trafficking was involved””

    Great advice ape!…..I am somewhat experienced in this area as I have rented a broad about 7 times for myself but,lots more for friends and business associates. You do not want the 18-21 year olds. You want the 28 to 32 year old that looks 25. They are much more professional and very seasoned at dealing with men.In fact,they are more fun to just hang out with than the harpie shrew who does nothing but complain and out put up a false front! Try a few of them.If you go with the right “Madam” and she has a bevy of HOT women you will find a few that you like…I guarantee it! But,one thing to remember.Do not look down on these women as “worthless whores” as they will see right through it….at least the older ones will.Treat them very nice and respectful and you will find that they are much more fun to be with and socialize with…..and worth every dime…..as opposed to taking out some skank from the office who expects the world and delivers nothing as all you are doing is wasting your time and money! I would rent a GOOD Call Girl any day over having to endure a dinner date with some office skank “empowered woman”….UGH!

  34. Michael says:

    @ hairy ape

    Your screen name is be fitting. Listen fucker. My parents met in college and have been happily married over 35 years. Suggest you use other examples to get whatever point across your trying to make.

    @ mark

    Sounds pretty disgusting. Awful advise. Who the hell would want a 28-32 year old with the highest miles possible who “looks” 25. Absolutely disgusting. Who cares if she “looks” 25? I have and would never hire an escort but if I did I would be paying for something I couldn’t get in reality. An 18-22 year old spring break bikini babe who by virtue of age alone is far more guaranteed to have less customer mileage. At average decent beta oriented man could get a used up 28-32 year old high mileage shank for FREE. Let alone paying. What kind of advise is that? You must be pretty gross /gnarly if you have to pay for leftover women any normal guy could get for free (and with far less miles). You must be pretty gross if the only escorts who will let you do business with them are 28-32 your old veterens. skanks. Who have the nerve not to want to be looked down on as whores when they are? Please. Awful advise. Just awful.

  35. hairy ape says:

    @Remo and others

    Professional girlfriends in South East Asia start at $400/month (The $16K/month figure I got from a quote in Happier Abroad forums). They will cook, clean, and have sex with you as often as you like, and even pretend to like you by hanging onto your shoulder.

    A warning though, these girls usually come from the lower classes and they juggle multiple expat boyfriends. Their money often ends up shared with their “true” local boyfriend.

    It is possible to reverse the flow of money and have a woman supporting you while she doesn’t feel like she’s violating her hypergamy. It does seem to involve hitting all the attraction buttons though. So in the end, for a person who values his time, pay-for-play is an option. Even if we were to take the highest price… let’s say $300/session x 3 sessions/week x 52 weeks/year x 30 years (i.e. assumed regular sex in marriage, it’s usually less) = $1.4 million. My current standing net worth happens to be just above $2 million. Assuming egg donation and surrogacy costs $150,000 (from a gay dad’s experience), and the cost to raise a child $235,000 (commonly quoted source), I can even fit in 1-2 kids.

    Women should be really worried if even millionaire men like myself are seriously considering becoming a single father and “out-sourcing” literally everything which a traditional wife used to bring to the table. Nothing will bring about true equality faster than stripping women of their sexual power. This is what happens… you can rob men of their jobs, but you should never rob them of their homes.

  36. Hairy ape is correct

    Most mothers are basically protitutes, who dole out sex to get the dishes washed & the lawn mowed

    IF these women actually married for love, theyd bring their own cash, allowing them to marry all men, actually marry for love, instead of mothers whoring themselves out to the richest sucker they can find

    The fact is 80% of women only marry around 20-30% of men, erm rich suckers ….

    The current marriage stats of 30-40% of men marrying PROVE, women only marry for cash,

    The vast majority of mothers are just live in prostitutes …

  37. orion2 says:

    “But I would have to pay for it. $250.00-$350.00 every time. He gets it for free. As much as he wants. Unlike me he doesn’t suffer any moral qualms or possible consequences in the afterlife.”

    He does not get it for free, he has to put up with her shit,

    You dont.,

    You dont pay her for sex, you pay her to get up and leave.

    Also, Mark is right,

    Late 20s but looking younger sounds about right to me.

    Michael, it seems that you have a problem objectifying women.

    Make no mistake, most of them do not share your sentimentalities.

  38. Remo says:

    This song by Chef of South Park is the GOSPEL TRUTH:

  39. Apollo says:

    @hairy ape

    Why can’t eggs from egg banks be available for any paying men the same way sperm in sperm banks are available for paying women? Why are they limited to infertile couples?

    Because any man who would want to have a child without a woman must be some sort of pervert? Because if men were given this option, if this option were normalised, more men who actually want children might use this method, and avoid the whole divorce industrial complex? Think like the leftists, the reasons will become obvious

  40. Drew says:

    Its a bit of an honor to be called out by Dalrock.

    I need to think about this post more. But this conclusion buried in the middle of the response I think is more profound than what a quick reading delivers…

    “Under a marriage based system men compete for sexual access by competing to marry, and men compete to marry in part by signaling their ability to provide. This of course fits my original assertion, that marriage motivates men to work harder and earn more. There is no conflict between my original assertion and Drew’s question; we are saying the same thing in different ways.”

    So, I got caught on the question, which way does the cause & effect flow?
    qualities of man -> income & marriage
    marriage -> qualities of man -> income

    The deeply profound part is that it can flow either direction, or both at the same time but there is a fountainhead of events further back; and this source is still sexual competition, marriage & family. Whether the qualities of income earning come first or second, they still have their root in the same source.

  41. greyghost says:

    Hairy ape
    I like your train of thought. A man taking care of business. Fuck all of that love shit love your child. Tell them, you are a cock sucking fag and get yourself a child and have your rent a pussy come over and burp your baby. When she is done with changing the babies diaper have her cook a large meal with enough for left overs, get your dick sucked and say get lost. Nothing wrong with that at all. Take a look at this http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703471904576002913040745224.html That is how it is done. Don’t even play that I love you game. A man needs a family and raises a child. No place for a rebellious cunt.

  42. greyghost says:

    The good thing about hairy apes path to family. The incentive to be productive and produce is still there. What we have now is an incentive to not produce. This bullshit about not needi9ng men is bullshit. It really looks like we don’t need wives. And men are starting to realize it. Think about it No wife and the incentive is still there. You submit you enjoy a Christian family man. He is still a Christian family man with out you. You just don’t get to enjoy him in your rebellion. With faith I can say this No nation of single moms will ever no matter how much money you shit on them will live as well as a nation of family men ever. With or with out you woman. A nation based on family men will always always beat a nation founded on feminism. Men own nothing to women they are a gift to men she must submit to enjoy your fruit always serve a higher purpose than pleasing a cunt always. The only kindness needed for women is to honor her submission . Other than that she is just some cunt. If you are not a wife you are just a piece of ass. Just the way it is and as it should be.

  43. Drew says:

    This idea that the flow of cause and effect just connected with something I have been thinking about for the past month.

    Due to the fountainhead of traditional sexual competition and marriage being cemented over, we get this culture of “men on strike”. Its not a strike like the 30’s or 80’s, violent confrontation. No, its a strike of apathy.
    Why do I care to get married? (marriage and work declines)
    Why do I care about any of you people? (social decor and civil society declines?) (not sure about this one, crime rates have been going down)
    Why do I care about this country? (voting, armed forces and volunteerism declines)

  44. It seems obvious to me that the causation works both ways: A man who gets married is spurred to make more money, and a man who makes more money is more eligible for marriage. Even though I don’t think money is a major tingle factor in attracting women (at least not until you get up to Trump levels), it probably is an important factor both in convincing a man that he’s ready to propose, and in convincing a woman that she should accept.

    Once upon a time, a man who got engaged would go to his boss and ask for a raise. His boss would give it to him because bosses had more foresight then, and he understood that marriage would make the man more stable and committed to his job, more likely to stay with the company and keep getting better at it and more productive.

    Another thing about marriage is that it makes people much more likely to buy a house. Once you own real estate, you’re “in the system” in a way that renters aren’t. You have either a mortgage or a big asset on the books for everyone to see, and you have to be paying a certain amount of taxes to get the tax advantages from that. Once you’re a homeowner, you can’t really go on “strike” anymore, at least not fully.

  45. Novaseeker says:

    From a Christian moral perspective, sleeping with a prostitute is a serious sin — it’s fornication, full stop. So for anyone who cares about Christian morality and obeying it, prostitutes are not an option.

    —-

    As for the main topic, I think it’s true that marriage motivates men to work harder because they need money for people other than themselves. Now, there are some self-motivated single guys who also work very hard because they want to be rich and/or powerful and are well above average in ambition in any case. I’ve known quite a few of these guys. But on average, married guys tend to work more and earn more because they need the money for other things. It’s true that married men also have less time for things other than work than single guys do — that’s obvious. The question is whether the other things that are taking up his non-work time relating to the marriage and family are more fulfilling to him than the single-guy stuff is to the single guy — that depends very much on the guy in question as well as the quality of the marriage in question.

  46. I’m not married, but I can say that the most productive time of my life was the year before I met my girlfriend. I was single, enjoying the benefits of learning Game, and spending a lot of time on self improvement (read up on the classics, travelled a bit, got my grades up, started learning Russian, and still had time to relax in the evenings before going out).

    “Self-improvement” is not “productive” in the eyes of our debt-based, consumerist society. You’re not being “productive” unless you’re working for an income that’s being taxed to support our out-of-control government. You’re actually a perfect example of what we’re talking about: when you were single, you could afford to spend lots of time being unproductive. A typical married man wouldn’t have time to learn Russian just for fun, because he’d be working extra hours at the office, thereby generating more income for other people to spend.

    Also, you’re not exactly normal in spending so much of your single time on self-improvement. A lot of guys are spending that time on video games or keg parties, so while you might be more productive at 30 than you were at 20 because of the things you learned, they won’t be. In the years where they had the most youthful energy, when their grandfathers were working long hours to support a family and saving for the future, contributing far more to society than they were taking out, they were mostly goofing off. You can’t base an economy on redistribution of wealth if the people capable of producing the most decide to kick back to subsistence levels.

    I’m not criticizing them, by the way. The deal society offered their grandfathers is no longer in place, and they’re reacting accordingly. I’m (although single) tied down by land and family, but if I could talk to my 20-year-old self, my advice would be to stay off the grid as much as possible, probably in another country.

  47. Dalrock says:

    @rmaxgenactivepua

    The fact is 80% of women only marry around 20-30% of men, erm rich suckers ….

    The current marriage stats of 30-40% of men marrying PROVE, women only marry for cash,

    Where are you getting these stats? It can’t be the US. If we are talking about US White 30-34 year olds 62% of women and 57% of men are currently married (75% and 65% respectively have ever married). As the age categories get older even larger percentages of men have married. 82% of 40-44 year old White men have married (67% being currently married).

  48. Dal, yeoman’s work as per your usual.

    I look forward to seeing it in print and as a topic of discussion in the MSM once Dr. Helen has lifted it as her own work in her next book.

  49. @Dal rock

    Is that the general population? Or in major cities?

    Marriage stats in villages etc., ie outside of major cities the marriage rates have always been high

    This is because the court systems outside the city don’t award wives much property or alimony, compared to the court systems in the city’s

    I’ll dig up the stats for you

    Btw if you’re conflating marriage statistics outside of major cities, you’re getting a highly askewed & mistaken view of marriage

    As most courts in the countryside are far more fair

    Also the population of traditional communities is higher then the feminist infected population in cities, ie the countryside has a far higher population then most cities

    If you’re combining the much larger, traditional country population with the urban city population, that could be where you’re getting a much higher figure

    Anyway gimme a couple of days, as I’ve just finished research for my own blog, I need a brk from stats & figs blech lol

    [D: The CPS sample is designed to be representative of the US population, with the caveat that it excludes anyone who doesn't live in residential housing in the US (anyone living overseas, inmates, homeless, etc). I look forward to your data on cities vs villages. I've never heard of that, but it would be an important data point to understand.]

  50. Dalrock says:

    @Rollo

    Dal, yeoman’s work as per your usual.

    Thank you.

    I look forward to seeing it in print and as a topic of discussion in the MSM once Dr. Helen has lifted it as her own work in her next book.

    I wouldn’t have any objection to Dr. Helen including my arguments in an upcoming book. I assume you aren’t talking about unattributed quotes, but being influenced in her own thoughts by what I have written. She is in a position to go discuss the issue directly with the media, and I’m not. Besides, isn’t this standard for the blogosphere? Isn’t that what we do? I have my own style, but I’m heavily influenced by the ideas of other bloggers, including you.

  51. Mark says:

    @Michael

    “”An 18-22 year old spring break bikini babe who by virtue of age alone is far more guaranteed to have less customer mileage.””

    Agreed!….but,she couldn’t give a BJ to save her own ass!

    “”You must be pretty gross if the only escorts who will let you do business with them are 28-32 your old veterens. skanks.””

    Far from gross…..L*…………The older ones are very seasoned in dealing with men….the younger ones are not.The older ones are far more conversational than the younger ones.The older ones are also ALOT more open when discussing your “Needs”….the younger ones have no clue.The older ones know how to pleasure a man Wayyyyyyyyy better than the younger ones……Trust me my friend as I know.You have never rented a broad….so you know nothing about what I am talking about.You go and get yourself a 20 year old……then try a 30 year old……….the difference will be night to day.!!!!!!!

  52. Mark says:

    @Orion2

    “”Also, Mark is right””

    Thank you.

  53. TFH says:

    Child support and imputed income can’t replace marriage, and the sooner we are honest about this the better for all involved.

    Not possible in a mature democracy, as there is too much profit for politicians and the governance industry, in giving women more and more short-term benefits at the expense of everyone else.

    Women themselves are too limited to connect cause and effect to see how this damages society in the long run.

    I will say that once a democracy is mature enough that women are in the 3rd or 4th generation of voting, most children will not grow up with both biological parents. Yes, democracy, over time, precludes two-parent families.

  54. TFH says:

    Dalrock and Rollo,

    I wouldn’t have any objection to Dr. Helen including my arguments in an upcoming book. I assume you aren’t talking about unattributed quotes, but being influenced in her own thoughts by what I have written. She is in a position to go discuss the issue directly with the media, and I’m not.

    Precisely. Dr. Helen didn’t even want to write a book, saying she “had nothing new to say”, until a few of her commenters (including myself) kept cajoling her to do it in 2010. I kept telling her that if she says these things, it carries far more weight than a man saying it, and that she can get on TV while we cannot.

    We absolutely should want her to ‘lift’ as much as possible from here. That Dalrock is getting regular instalanches now is a huge victory for the cause too.

    And yes, I am cited in her book (as The Futurist) for my ‘Misandry is the new Jim Crow’ statement.

    My dialog with her started from this.

  55. @Dalrock

    I havent had a chance to research this properly, but I did find the following which corroborates my initial comment, basically women in their prime 18-29 only marrying 20% of men

    I think this proves women marrying 20% of men, I havent had a chance to research this comprehensively but I’m pretty sure the rest of the stats I dig up confirm this quite clearly

    “Today, just 20% of adults ages 18 to 29 are married, compared with 59% in 1960.”

    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/

  56. @Dalrock

    Oh btw could you take me off moderation, so I can establish a dialogue with your commentators & post regularly here?

    Thanks

    I’ a pretty experienced researcher, If you need stats dug up on anything else, let me know cheers

    [D: Fixed.]

  57. greyghost says:

    Very smart observation TFH. It is not about getting laid or getting credit an MRA warrior is about getting the laws changed period. I don’t care if not one woman ever says I’m sorry. As long as my son is not a criminal for telling his future wife 20 years from now that he loves her, I win and so does western civilization regardless what they think of me.

  58. Michael says:

    @ Mark

    “Agreed!….but,she couldn’t give a BJ to save her own ass!”

    -Who cares. I wouldn’t want her mouth anywhere near me. Unless it was on my fist.

    “seasoned”

    – Code word = used up veteran whore.

    “conversational”

    -Ha! Who cares! Your not paying for a conversation!

  59. Scott says:

    D-

    “I have my own style, but I’m heavily influenced by the ideas of other bloggers, including you.”

    I hope you got my email regarding my doing this very thing (on my brand new site, where I essentially condensed and spoon fed a portion of one your posts to my 8 readers) via SSM. I asked her to give you heads up, since I have no direct contact for you.

    Scott

    [D: I'm pretty behind on blog email, but I don't think it is there. I'll send you an email so you can mail me back.]

  60. Vic says:

    Marriage Premium? LOL!

    Yes, the men running with the bulls of Pamplona have a speed premium but the trade-offs can really suck.

    When I (and the married men I worked with) were staying late, the conversation was never, “Boy I sure wish I could go home for a chore list and verbal abuse because she complains I can’t earn as fast as she spends!”

    This is laughable, like trad-cons forgetting the men’s rational response to negative incentives of marriage and divorce. Many married men work longer because it is a hedge to quiet an ever more demanding beast AND it’s an escape from a fore mentioned beast. Win/Win.

    Please! Have these people ever hung out in the lunch room to hear married men talk? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills! (H/T Will Ferrell)

  61. Scott says:

    Got it, and email sent back.

  62. Opus says:

    TFH is a Futurist and it is to futurity that we shall have to look to see whether the predictions on his site come to pass as he predicts, otherwise, or, at all, but I am always intrigued by his predictions and so I felt it appropriate to re-read the earliest writings on Politics namely those in Book 3 of Herodotus’ Histories where the respective merits of Monarchy, Democracy, and Oligarchy are discussed by Darius and his co-conspirators. This is what Darius says about Democracy:

    “It is impossible for a democracy to avoid corruption”.

    I assume TFH would agree and that what he writes merely enlarges on Darius?

  63. Dalrock says:

    @TFH

    Child support and imputed income can’t replace marriage, and the sooner we are honest about this the better for all involved.

    Not possible in a mature democracy, as there is too much profit for politicians and the governance industry, in giving women more and more short-term benefits at the expense of everyone else.

    Women themselves are too limited to connect cause and effect to see how this damages society in the long run.

    I will say that once a democracy is mature enough that women are in the 3rd or 4th generation of voting, most children will not grow up with both biological parents. Yes, democracy, over time, precludes two-parent families.

    When the pain gets bad enough suddenly the unthinkable has a way of becoming very doable. Right now the elites don’t have a problem. From their perspective marriage is working just fine. Eventually this will change though, and at some point I think it is very likely we will (slowly) see a rollback of the worst parts of family court. By then marriage will already likely be an elite only institution.

  64. Regarding the use of prostitutes, I agree with Novaseeker. From a Christian perspective using prostitutes is sinful and as Christians we try to not sin; especially the type of sin that gets repeated over and over in our lives.

    Which leads to the dilemma of being a Christian in our culture. Not being married leaves no non-sin options for sex; perhaps other than non-fantasy masturbation (if that is even possible). The bible indicates that men should marry if they cannot control their sexual urges, but to marry in this climate is tantamount to suicide. (literally in some cases)

    At my age I can get by without marrying again, but I do not know how to advise my 13-year-old son. He says he doesn’t want to ever marry, but he does want to be a father.

  65. hurting says:

    vascularity777 says:
    July 22, 2013 at 3:49 pm

    When you figure out what to tell your son, let me know. I’m all ears as I have two of my own to counsel.

  66. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    Right now the elites don’t have a problem. From their perspective marriage is working just fine.

    I am not sure – we do often read of how a wealthy man lost most of his money and how pre-nups have limited protection. In fact, since asset-division and childimony are calculated as percentages of assets and income respectively, that makes those laws even *more* unfair to wealthy men.

    If child-support were only a fixed amount, rather than a percentage of income, a rich man could simply have 10 children with 10 women, and consider child-support as a ‘cost of doing business’ that he can afford. Of course, single motherhood and divorce themselves would drop if CS were a fixed amount rather than a percentage.

    So while the divorce rate of UMC and higher people may be sub-20%, I would say the penalty to the man might be higher (and the incentive for divorce theft by the women, higher).

    Now, on Democracy and its pros and cons, an intriguing development in China :

    China just changed one aspect of divorce law to be MORE fair to men. It acts like an actual contract with regards to property rights :

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/172531/

    “. According to the new law, residential property is no longer to be regarded as jointly owned and divided equally in the event of a divorce. Instead, whoever paid for the apartment or house is the legal owner and gets to keep it in its entirety.”

    China has many human rights abuses, of course. But an industry that carves up families is not one of them. Since there is no voting, there is no profit in selling women some misandric law, in order to buy their votes. Thus, China sees more profit in maintaining the institution of marriage, which the above law does. Contrary to myth, men will not simply ‘toss out their wives’ when the penalty to do so is lower. All countries where the laws are not lopsided in favor of women, have low divorce rates.

    Two-parent families require laws where men hold half or more of the power (keeping divorce rates low and children better off, as is still the case outside the West and was in the US pre-1960).

  67. TFH says:

    vascularity777,

    but I do not know how to advise my 13-year-old son. He says he doesn’t want to ever marry, but he does want to be a father.

    Well… by the time he is an adult, the following practice may be common :

    Toban Morrison is a then-28-year-old Canadian man who hired a surrogate to become a single father.

    http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2011/08/12/single_man_wanted_a_child_hired_a_surrogate_had_a_baby.html

    No risk of alimony, loss of custody, no wastage of resources on jewelry, purses, women’s shoes, mortgage interest, etc.

    Now this is not ideal, of course. But I do notice that when government intervention in something becomes too unfair, market forces adapt around it thusly.

    Most men are not cut out for this, but should at least know the option exists. Just knowing that some men have done this, reduces the power than women can exert.

  68. TFH:

    I would support my son’s decision to become a father without a woman. My thinking vacillates from me wanting him to marry carefully, and me wanting him to not marry. Of course it will be completely up to him as he will be a grown man at that time. With technology, he will be able to be a father without a woman, but that stills leaves the question open as to how he will handle his sexual urges. I’m hoping he will find a healthy young Christian lady, marry her, have children, and live happily ever after. (Am I sounding blue pill? I will allow myself to be hopeful for the best as he is my only child and I love him dearly).

    “Most men are not cut out for this, but should at least know the option exists. Just knowing that some men have done this, reduces the power than women can exert.”
    Previous to my son’s birth I had never been in the company of babies or toddlers. When my son turned two months of age I quit my full time job, obtained a part time job on the weekends, so Monday through Friday I took care of him. His mother worked full time during the week and I took care of our son full time weekdays. When she got home from work she would immediately take over the childcare, which worked for me as I needed a break by then. Also, every morning I took him to the health club and did my usual workouts. The daycare at the healthclub was downstairs, with a window from the weight room upstairs overlooking the daycare room. So I was able to check on him in between each set of weights. That was a wonderful set-up for me at that time. My marriage sucked, but my parenting experience was very rewarding. My son said “daddy” before he said “mommy”.
    Fathers out there, I have some really good advice: Be close to your children from conception as you never know if you will remain married or not, but you will always be your children’s father regardless. I’m fortunate as my son lives with me half of each week since the divorce. As fathers our relationship with our children is the most important relationship we can have; second only to our relationship with our Creator, Jesus Christ.

  69. All these people talking about having a kid on their own w/out providing a mother in the kid’s life really need to research how the impact this has on these kids.

    Simply put, intentionally bringing a child into this world as (a) single gender parent(s) is extremely selfish, and completely ignores the need a child has for both gender parents.

  70. Joshua says:

    You cant tell them that ANorthernObserver. They wont listen.

  71. @Joshua – that’s the beauty of being Outcome Independent – it doesn’t matter, just like the OT prophets who spoke God’s truth to a rebellious and stiff-necked people were also Outcome Independent. They simply obeyed the Lord’s command, and let Him handle the rest – including the discipline part.

  72. TFH says:

    ANorthernObserver,

    and completely ignores the need a child has for both gender parents.

    I am sure you rail against single women who do this (and since 41% of all babies born in the US are to single mothers, they are a lot).

    Even if a few men did this, single fathers would be outnumbered by single mothers about 1 million to 1.

    So if you oppose single parenthood, your focus should be on single mothers.

    I should also add that the single father is not leeching off the taxpayer, while the single mother is.

    So while the single father is not ideal, it is still better than the child-support racket that harms the man and the child. Also, if you actually read my comment, I said that most men should not do this, but should know that the option exists.

    Joshua,

    You aren’t really someone with a track record of weighty and enlightened comments. That people don’t listen to you should send you to straight to the mirror.

  73. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Actually, I have followed this sort of topic for nearly 40 years. Neither single mothers nor single fathers perform as well, as measured by the performance of the children as adults. But, the single father situation way outperforms single mother situations, hands down.

    Years ago, they did lots of studies on things like this. But, one assumes they stopped because the results were consistently contradictory to feminist goals, so we gotta’ stop looking at such things. Women are perfect in every way, and all men suck.

    The reason men outperform women as single parents is because women give unconditional love. No matter what the little fiends do she is there with hugs and kisses. Men give conditional love; the kid messes up, Boom! To the moon.

    Thus the dad teaches them to live within the rules of society rather than makes them feel good about themselves while they rape and pillage.

    So as someone pointed out, any damage done by a good single dad is not even on the chart compared to our inner cities being an inferno of death and violence, because of all the kids raised by worthless single moms.

  74. 30words says:

    A woman planning to bear a child and deny the child of his father
    A man planning to use a surrogate to have a baby and deny the baby his mother
    Two homosexuals adopting a baby and denying that baby of any parent of the opposite sex
    These are among the most wretchedly selfish things I can even fathom.
    Please don’t kid yourselves- they are all equally so.

  75. greyghost says:

    30words
    no they are not.

  76. hairy ape says:

    @ ANorthernObserver

    I realize this is very hard for devoted Christian men, but for others the legalization of prostitution and gay marriage are the equivalent of windows opening to alternate paths in life when traditional doors are closing.

    Gay men used to hide their sexual orientation to engage in traditional marriage and family. Thus I think it’s possible for heterosexual men to hide their sexual orientation to engage in gay marriage and family, all for the dual purposes of
    1.) tax breaks so less money to feed the government; more for ourselves, while
    2.) increasing the ability to provide for our own sons and daughters.

    This will only be necessary when creating the first wave of a new society. Once established and (assumed) seceded from the mainstream, the next generation will have women trained to be wives and mothers, and the “normal” cycle will be restored. If the whole world became feminist, this might mean colonizing other planets (Hint: warp drive / FTL, where?).

    I am glad to see people reading my comments and taking them somewhat seriously. Let me tell you in modern asia most well-to-do children are raised by nannies (last time I checked, they were of the female gender). I’ve had relatives who owned shopping malls and universities who got married to single mothers and their parents were extremely angry and rightly so: this was cuckolding of the highest order, especially since the adopted children now strut around pretending to be little princes and princesses with a claim to the clan wealth.

    Marriage has historically always been about political and business unions to maintain wealth within bloodlines. If people were in love they should just elope and get kicked out of the house. I don’t need to “love” a women. I only need to
    1.) Like her
    2.) Respect her as a human being and expect her to act like one
    3.) Be fair
    4.) Romance her with some push-pull if necessary, which will be interpreted on her part as minor gina tingles.

    But having one’s own son or daughter. That is love, and researching for the best method to give them the best start in life is not selfish; far from it.

  77. greyghost says:

    vascularity777.
    Take a look at that and think of some ideas for your boy http://sartikaherbal.com/home/extract-herbal/gandarusa-justicia-gendarussa?vmcchk=1

  78. greyghost says:

    Hairy ape
    That is how it is done. A masculine man making a family 101. Not romantic but responsible how it should be. BTW women tingle like crazy for that kind of thing in a sane society.

  79. I had the same thoughts. Children develop better with both a mom and dad. That is absolutely correct. I explained that to my son as well.

    When I hear about women who purposely have children without a father for the child I get upset and comment on how selfish the woman is. Now I’m considering that same situation for my son.

    As stated above, neither my son, nor his offspring, would ever be on welfare. I can guarantee that!

    This would be my son’s choice and either way I would back him on this. Of course it is very early as he is only thirteen. At this age he is only kinda dreaming about his future. I would much prefer that he marry a healthy young lady as I stated above.

    I find myself too frequently pondering if men should get full custody in the case of a divorce, unless there is real evidence that the man should not. I agree that mothers all too often focus way too much on the child FEELING GOOD and pleasing the child instead of providing competent parenting.

    I respect hearing the disagreeing voices above, as I definitely understand the points made, and agree.

    Off topic: A few minutes ago I heard Bill O’Rielly talk about the Treyvon Martin case and the ensuing race issues that some are creating. O’Rielly did a good job just stating the situation for what it is. I like that guy.

  80. Mark says:

    @Michael

    I wouldn’t want her mouth anywhere near me. Unless it was on my fist.

    Whoa Bro!…..maybe you shouldn’t be renting Call Girls with an attitude like that.Let me explain.As I stated in my above post I have rented broads for myself 7 times.For my friends and business associates I have rented them over 50 times.I do not pay $250 to $300 for one…I spend $1500(my price).Why drive a Ford when you can drive a Ferrari….correct? Most importantly,and I explain this to all my friends that I have rented them for.The Call Girl business is under the protection of La Cosa Nostra(Mafia).The Mob does not run the business,they “extend protection” to it.The Madam pays every month for this protection.Any physical abuse towards those women and Bruno & Vito show up on your doorstep with a couple of baseball bats to straighten you out.I do not where you live but,here in Toronto that is the way the game works.So again,I suggest that you think twice about renting a Call Girl as your attitude might get you into some serious trouble!

  81. Mark says:

    @TFH

    I remember reading this story.I wouldn’t recommend any man to take this route.But,…..if that is what he wants?…then all the power to him.I believe that the kid will grow fine as he seems very well adjusted in his own life.The kid will be much better off with him then some single welfare mama.A key point in the article from the TorStar is:

    “”He took a $25,000 inheritance from his grandfather and $15,000 from his savings and used the money to start a family of his own””

    Would you see a woman do this?….I highly doubt it! She would have $25K in school debt,15K in credit card debt…..and then she would run to the Welfare Office(if she doesn’t abort it) and get on the gov’t gravy train.

  82. Sorry. Wrong entirely. Men still willing to enter into a losing bargain are ACTUALLY willing to work harder to give it a go. They still have the mentality that they are supposed to be the provider.

    Feminists haven’t finished yet.

  83. Luke says:

    Mark, I’m a 52-YO man with toddler twins. I did basically what that guy you reference in the TorStar article, except that I (re)married shortly beforehand to an infertile woman near my own age.
    I spent more like 60K. Coming up with that much dough’s not that hard if you work a lot at a trade that requires a real, marketable skill (I work in the oil industry), ANDspend a LOT less than you earn for a couple of years. I used to know (same industry) a single guy who lived in his car for two years while working practically all the time. At the end of that time, he bought a house — for cash.

  84. hairy ape says:

    Single mother:
    1.) Walk up to a man. “Got dick?”
    2.) Cash in at Welfare Office
    3.) Raise in a male-free household

    Single father:
    1.) Raise tens of thousands of dollars
    2.) Spend months monitoring situation of surrogate, backed up by army of lawyers
    3.) Raise with au-pair

    I entertain the fantasy of raising lots of daughters for future men, sent to a finishing school or geisha school of some sorts. I’ll probably be accused of trafficking and sexual slavery even though the whole point of the project would be to keep them chaste and be wife material. In the meantime the abhorrent practice of state-supported late-term abortions of female fetuses continue in China and elsewhere. I wish I could just offer “Cash for Girls” and not have people give the worst assumption from the get-go.

    I think aspects of the Mormon lifestyle mentioned in some post back are key to salvaging what’s left of Caucasian fertility:
    1.) Self-reliance, not dependent on welfare (in fact, wealth surplus i.e. stocks of canned supplies)
    2.) Healthy use of contraception (every child is planned and wanted). Wealthier families have more children; poorer families have less children. Polygamous men from the fundamentalist branches, are in fact, very wealthy entrepreneurs.

    Even though I am of Chinese blood, I think the Japanese gene pool has done more good than harm and thus I like to think about methods to curtail their plummeting birth rate.
    I value genetic diversity and the various human gene pools and really hate seeing key lineages go to the dogs.

  85. Mark says:

    @Luke

    Good for you.Twins?……that will keep you busy! You had a plan and you stuck to it. Same as your friend.Living in a car for 2 years seems a bit extreme to me…L* but,if it worked for him Great! In fact,a guy like that should be a exonerated as there is not a motivational speaker that I have met in the last 25 years that wouldn’t like to have a story like that to present to other people.

  86. feeriker says:

    Vascularity said: I’m hoping [my son] will find a healthy young Christian lady, marry her, have children, and live happily ever after. (Am I sounding blue pill? I will allow myself to be hopeful for the best as he is my only child and I love him dearly).

    Not blue pill at all. Blue pill would be you advising your son that it’s his churchian duty to marry, no matter how unfit for marriage the choices for brides available to him, that because “God forgave her for being a slut, I think, maybe, if she asked Him to and hopefully she did (take her word for it), then you have no right not to forgive her too, so man up and marry that ex-slut, son!”

    Hoping for the best for your son in terms of finding a decent red-pill, virginal, loving Christian woman (as opposed to churchian) is about as red pill as any father can get.

  87. @Hairy Ape

    You could also argue, marriage is specifically designed to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few, so the majority dont get to benefit

    This leads to a cascade effect, where most men ie beta’s cant get married, as all the wealth eventually gets concentrated in a few families, after generations of hoarding & stealing wealth

    This is one of the dangers of marriage, marriage destroys the wealth of the majority after a few generations

  88. @Hairy Ape

    You can also change the sex of any baby to a boy, for around $10,000, through dna modification of the foetus safely

  89. Bill Reader says:

    To me a “premium” is not something that merely compensates for a negative caused by itself. Indeed, to within about 10% margin above null, in this case, I find it a tough pill to swallow. It’s a question of sanity. If I achieve more drive because I have larger obligations, but run myself ragged fulfilling them, I’d just as soon do about as well or even a little worse and make life much, much easier on myself.

    Oh, and the good pastor may hand his fine sentiments to his wife and have them cooked for the family, because I’m certainly not swallowing his line. Those younger than me can choose as they like. But my long-standing analysis, from a practical perspective, runs thus: it is no man’s “duty” to provide for the remainder of humanity. It is not even his “duty” to provide for himself, though he may certainly feel pressingly obligated to. And marriage, specifically, is only necessary if you feel you wish to contribute offspring to the future of humanity. This may be a great and charitable, or at the least (since I haven’t many illusions about the average human stock) sacrificial act, but it is done solely AT YOUR DISCRETION. I see no pressing spiritual obligation to reproduce… the arguments I’ve heard have generally run aground on the inability to read minds, and hence, the rather slippery problem of divining another person’s vocation on their behalf. The cleverer theological counsels… the ones possessed of sufficient humility to comprehend their limitations, for example… may nudge as they like, but they do not make such consummately personal, introspection-based decisions for someone else. Leaving spirituality aside, a rational person may well decide to give up reproduction, something they arguably derive little if any net benefit from during their lifetime, for the additional leisure time and simplicity of management remaining single provides. Those things will actually be of some use to the person while they are alive. They should still think about that choice carefully, mind you. What we know of animal evolution is that a creature that leaves no descendents is generally a dead end. Although note that “generally” is not a fill word. Theoretically, if an animal has siblings, because the siblings were generated from recombination of a similar DNA set, any reproducing siblings technically impart partial evolutionary persistence. How much precisely will be imparted is governed by pure chance… in identical twins it could theoretically approach 100%, although because parenting styles will differ and effect survivability it would almost never reach it. For everyone else, improving partial survival above this passive boost of similar genetics would require improving survivability for your sibling’s progeny. Ergo, this would be what you get in the special case where someone’s brother or sister is generous in providing for nephews or nieces. It is not all that common, but worth considering if you are a “striker”. For that path to be viable, an unsympathetic reader will observe, your sibling must still voluntarily choose to reproduce. The case therefore breaks down, of course, when the non-marriage ethos is universally applied, but I do not argue that it must be.

    What I do argue, and note with distress, is that the evolutionary pressures on men run counter to the long-term survivability of the species. To men, since we’ve dispensed with the concept of “duty”, this merely changes the nature of the choice. From a macro-perspective, it looks like a serious breakdown in the system. That is, marriage (the primary means of reproduction if a man wishes to derive any benefit at all from the whole ordeal) is made progressively more dangerous for men all the time. The drift of the culture is such that it seems in peril of becoming an almost certainly wrongheaded move. Men, as rational beings, begin to feel that their choice is not between sacrificing to reproduce or not reproducing and doing better, but being destroyed to *potentially* reproduce, or not reproducing at no risk and with myriad other benefits. It’s hardly a hedonistic decision to choose the latter. Humans are not praying mantises. I reflect with amusement on the fact that the world of those who claim all men (except in the very most extreme cases) should absolutely marry would ironically work best if we were mantises. Unfortunately, we are cursed to being able to weigh tangible, bankable benefits against poorly defined, unobserved, chancey ones. And therefore the trend, if it continues unabbated, has the potential to pervert the evolutionary decisions of men horribly, and even cause serious harm to the species. It just has nothing to do with any ill-defined sense of duty.

  90. Carlos says:

    Here’s Bill O’Reilly’s response to the race hustlers:
    http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yswEJ81hnWA
    Finally, here’s someone in the mainstream media who is willing to speak truth to dependency hustlers. Bill says broken families are the problem; perhaps he reads the Manosphere. I’m black and I approve his message.

  91. bluedog says:

    Anonymous age 71,
    If someone were to accuse me of being a better more stable parent to ny children than my ex I would be at some pains to make argument with the accusation. And in fact in my care they must do supplemental math instruction and foreign language study every single day, their studies are enforced, their grades are superb and intense physical activity is built into the dna of our daily lives while we still manage to have fun together and with family and friends. I have no faith. I am a humanist, but at cost of time and money, treasure as it were, I raise my children in a faith and to respect faith systems and above all to be honorable people.

    But if someone were to say that my children are worse off in the care of their mother because of her “unconditional love” … well notwithstanding that I recognize she does indeed love her children I nevertheless would not refute this claim.

    Instead I would laugh and laugh and laugh. And when my erstwhile debator drew breath for some counterrhetoric, I would laugh onl y more.

  92. Weisshaupt says:

    Isn’t this obvious? When my wife quit working there was a huge weight placed upon my shoulders. Married Men in single earner families earn more simply because they are forced by circumstances to put up with more at work and be more focused on earning. . The single guy, having no one depending upon him can tell his boss to “take this job and shove it” easier than a man providing sole support for his family. No, bachelors aren’t doing housework. They are out pursuing their hobbies, and are really motivated to earn just enough to allow that to continue. If you would rather be fishing, and have no family responsibilities , why would you spend more time than required at work?

  93. Aquinas Dad says:

    As a married man with a stay-at-home wife and 5 kids I can tell you that specialization does, yes, give me more time and focus on my job that my peers who are married and have a working wife AND over my peers who are single.
    I don’t have to worry, plan for, or prepare meals, my laundry, etc. Tasks that require time and attention (repairs, service visits, etc.) don’t require *my* time or attention. When I travel for business (and I travel a lot – gold status with three airlines!) I don’t have to be concerned with mail deliveries, utilities, etc. even when I am gone for long periods.
    Contrast this with a married man who has a working wife and it is no contest. And compared to my single peers I *still* have more time and energy free for work because I have a wife who is taking care of her side of the equation (maintaining the home) freeing my focus for work.
    And my stress level is much lower! I come home to a home full of people glad to see me, a wife who is not stressed about office politics, relaxed kids (we home school), a cold drink, and 20 minutes talking with the wife before a home-cooked meal. This emotional support is actually quite helpful in a high-stress career!
    So the specialization of a SAHW/SAHM is higher than you anticipate.

  94. hurting says:

    ANorthernObserver says:
    July 22, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    A near statististically insignificant proportion of American women truly believe in the traditional family ideal (the intact, opposite sex marriage). The vast majority believe that so long as the male’s provisioning remains intact (CS/alimony), they can raise the children better (not the same, not a little worse, but better) than they could without a meddlesome father in their lives everyday, whom they contemptuously regard at best as another child in the house. Or a babysitter for every other weekend’s festivities.

    I would argue that the tough love described above typically administered by fathers is unconditonal love.

  95. The One says:

    Might I suggest propecia. You will have hair for the rest of your life and no sex drive. Take 1 pill once a week. Celibacy made easy.

  96. Jimbo says:

    Do married men make significantly more money than single men? Not necessarily. I have no stats, but I can certainly tell you that the tax laws do help (the government gives while it takes away). With a spouse and children, the deductions add up SIGNIFICANTLY. Also, households share expenses. As a single, the tax burden is much higher and housing is expensive if you’re just living there by youself. So I would say there’s an approximate 20% monetary advantage for being married versus single despite a single wage earner in both scenarios.

  97. Long time no see Jimbo, still building that mound I see. Deductibles for tax don’t include living expenses such as food, water and electricity. Unless used for business, they just don’t count. As for a household, you’re a chump. Single man doesn’t have to buy a house, he can purchase a bachelors flat and thus cut down significantly his expenses. Households are a huge expense. They just don’t compare at all, ever, in the slightest, at all, nada, absolutely not. Don’t compare apples and pears.

    Get the bulldozer mate, you’re gonna need it, the mound won’t rebuild itself ya know!

  98. Furthermore,Jimbo, a single man can live under the table, thus hoarding far more value. One can also start a business from home and deduct all expenses anyway. A slave master is not needed for such fore thought.

  99. Jimbo says:

    @FM: Is that a rebuttal? What a laugh!!!

    Deductibles do count because they are significant. Getting money back into your pocket is the key.

    Single men DO buy houses, but they buy them for themselves. And you immediately contradict yourself by suggesting they buy a flat!!! Okay, that’s a house too. But most singles live in apartment that are quite expensive and the rental market going up.

    Expenses do not compare? Okay, if you say so.

  100. @ freeriker, TFH, Hurting:

    Thanx for the support here. These issues are so important to me as all issues pertaining to my son are.

    In this crazy world I find myself at times trying to take control for the betterment of my son and myself. The control sometimes takes the form of pondering things that are not exactly in accordance with God’s will, perhaps such as giving my blessing to my son someday if he were choose to have a child without a woman.

    This is kinda like the use of prostitutes. That is out of God’s will, but our world is so crazy. In this case the craziness of this world is in the form of women not being marryable, but we still have the need to have a woman at least for a sexual outlet. For me the use of prostitutes is not really a temptation, but I do not judge those that are tempted by prostitutes.

  101. Ton says:

    Yea it’s a fucked up point in history and all the men here are trying to get through it the best they can given their temperament and resources. Not sure why folks get their panties in a wad with men who elect to make different decisions but it is what it is and we are who we are

  102. Jimbo, read. I didn’t say deductibles don’t count, I said living expenditure doesn’t count as a tax deductible. Only very certain expenses count. Usually such things are called ‘business expenditure’. A flat or apartment is cheaper than a house. You can buy it, you need not rent it. If that’s your style. If you buy an apartment in the middle of a busy city where prices are high, well duh, of course you’ll be paying more.

    Expenses of a single man versus the expenses of a family do not compare. You’re delusional if you think they do.

    There’s education, hospital stays for family members, doctor visits, dental care, extra food, electricity, water and other utilities, there’s extra petrol needed, another car or two, more bedroom space, space for friends of your children, school trips, presents, university, sports, hobbies, urgh, what the hell… Anyone who thinks a married man gets money back in his pocket due to being married, is demented.

    Married men earn more than singles primarily because they have to. They don’t see that money though, it goes straight towards taxes, their wives, their kids and everyone else but themselves.

    The single life is stress free, your money is your own, you get taxed less because you earn less. You can even earn more and barter in cash and thus not pay any tax at all. Far easier for a single man to do that, as the tax man cannot track your purchases as easily as a married man.

    The only benefit marriage bestows on men is having company around so that you’re not lonely.

  103. @ Ton:

    “panties in a wad”

    I haven’t heart that one in years.

    thanx for the laugh bro…..

  104. Jimbo says:

    @Feminist Hater says: “I said living expenditure doesn’t count as a tax deductible.”
    Thanks for stating the obvious. Neither did I say that!!!

    I said the non-working spouse and kids count as tax deductible, not the expenses.

    “Expenses of a single man versus the expenses of a family do not compare.”

    You do realize this is irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion according to this post was whether a married man makes more money than a single man. My rebuttal is this is irrelevant as well.

    Married men have relatively more money to burn since the tax laws are to their advantage. After you have that extra money, you spend it accordingly.

  105. Lol Jimbo, your comments speak volumes! Lolzlzlzolzllzolloozllzozl, enjoy that decline single men.

  106. freebird says:

    Best thread ever,the truth is getting distilled to a pure elixir here.

  107. Jimbo says:

    @Feminist Hater: Lolz!!! You’re a joke. I didn’t offer my opinion on the subject.

    Whether you are married or single, you either owe it to your family or to the government. Take your pick. The singles actually make the taxes easier for families. LOLZ!!!

  108. Yes Jimbo, I’m a joke, I’m laughing all the time now. This has been covered all before, just like your wife. The problem is, the jokes on you.

    Take care now.

  109. feeriker says:

    @Vascularity:

    Yes, this age in which we live is arguably unlike any other in human history in terms of its hopeless, wretched dysfunction. While I’m still on the fence as to whether or not the near total breakdown in relations between the sexes, at least in the western “developed” world, is a cause or a symptom of this condition, there’s no denying that it’s a major factor in the decay.

    Personally, I would never even consider fathering a child with the intention of raising that child by myself. While I certainly understand the motivation of many men today to do so given the realities of today’s temporal world, three things would make the idea a non-starter for me.

    First, as one who tries to live my life in accordance with biblical principles (with admittedly mixed levels of success), I can’t even begin to justify consciously abandoning God’s commandments simply due to the pressures put upon me by the temporal world. Indeed, that would defeat the very purpose of maintaining the faith at all. In other words, just because the temporal world is awash in sin doesn’t mean that I have to surrender to it and further contribute to it.

    Second, to deny any child a mother (more specifically, a stable, two-parent family) is to be guilty of the very thing we in the manosphere accuse the feminists of and is perpetuating the same problem. If we can’t find women worthy of being our mates, worthy of bearing our children, and raising and nurturing them along side of us in accordance with God’s laws, then we really shouldn’t be having children at all. Quite frankly, I’ve reached the conclusion that bringing children into the world as it is today, and knowing that it’s going to become a MUCH WORSE place for anyone with any Christian-centric moral principles in the next few years to come, is one of the most odious forms of child abuse imaginable. While I think it would be arrogant of us to insist, like so many dispensationalist evangelical churchians do, that the “end times” are close at hand (this has been a constant tocsin of alarmism since the church’s beginning), it does strike me that all indications are that the times ahead of us are going to be particularly ugly and violent. To me, wanting to put a child through that shows selfishness, not love. In summary, and as I’ve often said here and elsewhere, why perpetuate a civilization that clearly shows itself to be unworthy of posterity?

    Third (and this is just me personally), I’m too damned old to become a daddy again (although I’m a father in loco parentis to a 12-year-old grandson I consider to be the son I never had). While I don’t at all begrudge or intend to judge other men who have done this (I certainly have no way of knowing what their specific circumstances are), I couldn’t bring myself to father a child, especially a male child, now that I’m in my early fifties and wonder if I’ll live to see him reach full adulthood. As I said, given the times I see ahead of us, I would want above all else to be there for him and help him through the trials of manhood that will arguably be more arduous than any faced by any previous generations of young boys becoming men. I only hope and pray that I can stick around long enough to do this for my grandson in the next few years to come.

    Oh, and yes, if I were to father a daughter, I’d have exactly the same concerns as I would for a son. I would never want to father a daughter without a wife who would be a strong, godly mother to her and be there for her when she reached adulthood to provide her with motherly guidance based on Christian precepts. The times ahead will be as hard on Christian women as they will be on Christian men.

  110. LH says:

    This is not my area of research, but I can think of other hypotheses. One is that the type of man who works hard is more likely to marry than to stay single. Working hard is a conservative value. The importance of marriage and family (as opposed to fornicating with girls met at bars) is a conservative value. These things line up.

    Also, if a man does have a good career, he probably doesn’t have time to go to night clubs and other places to pick up dates like rock drummer with 8 gigs a month would have. If he wants female companionship, sexual fulfillment, it makes sense to put effort into finding someone to marry.

    From my personal experience, though, marriage did motivate me to work hard. Having kids motivated me to work harder. What would be interesting is to look at the wage gap between males and females. It would be interesting to see if it has shrunk a bit over time as more couples live together instead of get married.

    Btw, I thought the judge imputing earnings was a kind of weak argument. Presumably, the man doesn’t suddenly go in and ask for a pay cut right before a divorce. So the judge is taking a married man’s wage, not a single man’s wage, and imputing more.

  111. @ feeriker:

    Excellent points!

    For me, when my son was a baby and toddler, it was the best experience of my life. Although my marriage was a horror, my son was, and remains, the joy of my life (in addition to my hope in salvation in Christ).

    I remember looking him in the eye when I fed him his bottles; I remember singing to him Christian songs. I have so many joyful memories of my time with him. Although I’m far from perfect, I really did a great job taking care of him. I know men can do just as well as women when it comes to taking care of a baby. The only thing we can’t do is breast feed. (Perhaps the feminists will find a way to legislate for men to have to breast feed someday).

    The overriding point I glean from what you said is the wrong in depriving a child a mother. You are absolutely correct.

    I also hope to live long enough to guide my son for at least another ten years. I’m 49 years of age, so I outta live at least to that point.

    I’m primarily here to further learn from my peer group here. I appreciate your sincere thoughts. I’m secondly here to enjoy the entertainment. Some of the argumentative discourse is so funny.

  112. Michael says:

    @ Feminist Hater

    I’m a single never married man.

    Do you really think single never married men have less overall expense than married men assuming those married men stay married and their wife does not take them to the cleaners in divorce/family court?

    Allot of my very well do to clients have been married to the same women for 20,30,40 years.

  113. Michael, is that a serious question?

  114. It’s quite simple really. A never married man can cut down on pretty much all expenses besides accommodation and food. A married man can’t. A single man can live under the radar, a married man can’t. A single man can move around easily, a married man can’t. A single man can pick up and start a life somewhere new, a married man can’t.

    A single man can live a minimalist lifestyle that a married man can’t by mere virtue that his wife will not allow him. She will nag constantly for him to do more.

  115. Norm says:

    Women in the USSA don’t have to be married. The govt. is their husband.
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/22/197368/pelosi-rolls-out-economic-agenda.html#.Ue7Tl1BrZjo
    Nancy “Botox” Pelosi rolled out an economic agenda for women and wants you to pay for it. Junk like equal pay, and early childhood education. Free daycare and govt. brainwashing in reality. Pelosi wants to be speaker again as she misses flying on Air Farce one at taxpayer’s expense. She and her husband’s wealth increased since she was in Congress. She also claims to support unions, though non of her staff in the vineyards belong to a union.

  116. OrdinisNyx says:

    I’m wondering if this can’t be seen from both directions. Men who are married earn more, yes, but is it possible that high-earning single men simply get married faster and easier than low-earning men. It may not simply be that married men have reasons to work harder. Could it also be that women gobble up the hard-working, high-earning men faster and that these men find it easier to get married?

  117. Sure it could. No one said otherwise. The problem is that women are delaying marriage for longer and longer and thus less men see the need to be high-earning slaves.

  118. feeriker says:

    @FH:

    You make good points about the ability for a single man to economize versus a married man (presumably you mean a married man with children). I’ve found, however, that now that my wife and I are “empty-nesters,” even on just my income (she’s a SAHW) we’ve cut our monthly living expenses down considerably. It really all depends on how much austerity your wife is willing to abide.

    @Norm:

    Women in the USSA don’t have to be married. The govt. is their husband.

    Again, yup. Until hubby “croaks” (i.e., complete socioeconomic collapse occurs), she’s going to be one helluva ball and chain.

  119. Well feeriker, it isn’t just the ability to tighten your belt. A family is more people than just one single guy. Can anyone honestly sell me the idea that you can have less expenditure with a family than one man? Seriously, come on. I wanted to have a family myself but even in my blue pill days I knew that such a family would be expensive.

    It’s just common sense. I realise the idea of big earners being married sooner. It used to work in the past but I know better now. I earn quite a bit. I’, no slacker, marriage still eluded me, it eluded many a man I knew at university. These men do not earn chump change. Like me, they have their own houses, their own cars, their own businesses or consultation firms.

    The fact of the matter is women wanted to delay marriage to well within their thirties, I saw this so often from the women at my university that I didn’t know what to actually say. I was willing to marry, they were not. Not to a guy with potential like me and not to the son of a rich dad.

    When women have attitudes like that, it will have long term consequences. For the pure fact that I don’t need to work long hours to take care of myself. I can work better, faster and have more leisure time than ever before. My earnings might be lower, but I keep more, spend less and have way more time to myself. Trust me, more men will figure this out.

  120. And the funny fact is that, compared to five years ago, I’m earning far more. However, I’m working less. So, yes, I could earn even more if I had to but I have half days now, sometimes I don’t even go into the office, I can do my reports from home and catch up on reading in the meantime. I can play sports with friends in the afternoon whilst married men are still working in the office.

    Being single allows me to work when I want to, not when I need to.

  121. Jimbo says:

    There’s a lot of assumptions made by Feminist Hater. I’ll address them.

    Expenses for families are much higher than single men, but the difference is marginal, not doubled and tripled with the addition of family members.

    Women who marry later in life is actually an advantage. She has already developed a career that she can return to, or she never quit her job since habits are hard to break. She already has assets and probably owns a house. She is incapable of having a large family. It is likely you will end up with one or two kids, or nothing at all if sufficiently delayed. This reduces the possibility of saddling a man with higher liability in case of divorce.

    You should not marry if you are hesitant, but never let a good argument for marriage dissuade you. Money is relative. If you’re happy, then stay happy by living alone.

  122. Ton says:

    For you vas777, anything….. or almost anything……

    As a married man I had to worry about school zones, # of bedrooms, safety etc and lived in a fairly expensive house for the time & place, 120k. Now I live in a home that cost me 35k. I paid cash, have a pool and a nice garage. And…. How much austerity is a woman willing to endure? Experience tells me very little, plus they are great at saying xyz is for the house, when it’s shit a man doesn’t care about.

    There is no comparisons about how much less money a single man needs vs married.

    I’m not sure how buying eggs, and renting a womb is against God’s law since no forntication is involved. Way to many people think the Bible covers stuff it doesn’t.

  123. Jimbo says:

    I make more money now than 5 years ago and I’m not an ambitious person. The 2% yearly increases bump me quite high and my employer still thinks my salary makes me affordable. I don’t work harder, but I work competently.

  124. Jimbo, you just keep making my arguments for me.

    Expenses for families are much higher than single men, but the difference is marginal, not doubled and tripled with the addition of family members.

    Did you just say that with a straight face? How can they be far higher and marginal at the same time? Doos! And then you actually supported women getting married later in life… by saying that they will have less children or none, be a salaried chick whose habits won’t break, aka, she will be unable to submit to you and still pine for alpha dick and that you probably won’t be sufficiently taken to the cleaners because you won’t have any children. I mean for fuck sakes. The only reason to get married is to have a home to raise your children, with a young, fit women who submits to your authority.

    Otherwise such marriage is pointless. See the advert I posted up thread. That’s what a woman nags like when she gets old and hasn’t submitted to her husband.

    You haven’t made a good argument for marriage. Your argument belies the fact that you will be forced to work more for less, have less children or none and be living in her home under her rules. Ya, you truly are a piece of work.

  125. minuteman says:

    Anecdotal and personal experience. I work in a place where there is a lot of opportunity for overtime I work 60 hour weeks for months at a time. A lot of the guys working the long weeks have young children. (under 5). During this phase of life more women are out of work, and men really don’t do well with babies. When my children were babies I was happy to get out of the house even if it was to go to work. Now my boys are 8 an 10 they are a lot of fun to be around and to do things with, and I think twice about giving up a weekend I could spend with my boys to go to work.

  126. Jimbo says:

    @Feminist Hater, You’re an idiot. I already defined it. Much higher is NOT double or triple depending on additional family members. It’s a marginal difference like in the financial term “marginal cost”. The second unit does not cost the same as the first unit.

    You omitted all such women from consideration when the real life situation is not defined. You should marry relative to your own age at a 10 year difference give or take, so if you’re 40, you’re in the ballpark to marry 30. This is what I’m talking about. Nonetheless, there are younger women out there and I’m sure you’re looking for them (not really).

    If you find a woman who will submit to your authority, she will be there. I’m pointing out the fact that the risks are not as high when her age is in consideration. If you care for such considerations.

    Pointless marriage, yada yada yada. You sounds like the male counterpart of a women who complains that there are no good women out there. Maybe the problem is you.

  127. Jimbo, you cannot compare a marriage with a business. Each child will cost the same expense as the next, probably more. You don’t get to cut down the expenditure by producing more products (children) and thus dividing your overhead expenditure between them. Each child requires expenditure in education and medical care. They each require the same amount of food, electricity and water. They each require the same amount of attention.

    Every kid you add to your family adds the same expenditure requirement as the next. You could perhaps save some cost via placing them in the same room for instance but that’s about it.

    Listen, calling me an idiot when I’m obviously not one, is lunacy. Marginal does not mean marginal utility or the marginal cost of each extra good produced unless you fucking define it as such. Marginal simply means an increment, as in small, or a border. Something cannot be much more than something else whilst there being a marginal difference between the two.

    http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marginal

    Blah blah blah, shame shame shame. Have you got nothing better to add? Instead of arguing with an idiot like me, go fuck your wife, before someone else does…

  128. Jimbo says:

    @Feminist Hater: It unclear why you’re really objecting to marriage. Is it… ?

    1. Money. 2. Submission. 3. Children.

    If Money is it, then #2 and 3 doesn’t matter. We can’t even get there.

    If Submission is it, you’ll likely have children, but it will cost more than you’re willing to spend on yourself.

    But it will always come back to submission when the children is grown and out the door. I think this is the bigger stickler for you AND money and getting over the fact that your wife is old and dumpy.

  129. Jimbo says:

    “Marginal does not mean marginal utility or the marginal cost of each extra good produced unless you fucking define it as such.”

    “Expenses for families are much higher than single men, but the difference is marginal, not doubled and tripled with the addition of family members.”

  130. Jimbo says:

    “fucking define it as such.”

    “not doubled and tripled with the addition of family members.”

  131. Okay, this is going nowhere. Good night Jimmy.

  132. “Expenses for families are much higher than single men but the marginal difference between the two decreases as more family members are added, the expenses are not doubled or tripled with the addition of more members.”

    You see the difference? I guess not.

  133. Jimbo says:

    Bile received. Thanks Hater.

  134. You know where to shove it, right?

  135. Ellie says:

    ” A married man falling into misfortune, is more apt to retrieve his situation in the world than a single one; partly, because he is more stimulated to exertion by the necessities of the helpless and beloved beings who depend upon him for subsistence, but chiefly because his spirits are soothed and relieved by domestic endearments, and his self-respect kept alive by finding, that, though all abroad is darkness and humiliation, yet there is still a little world of love at home, of which he is the monarch. ”

    -Washington Irving

  136. @ Ton:

    “I’m not sure how buying eggs, and renting a womb is against God’s law since no forntication is involved. Way to many people think the Bible covers stuff it doesn’t.”

    That is a valid point. Our technology today allows us to do stuff that wasn’t conceived of just a couple of centuries ago. At the risk of sounding like I have a “personal Jesus”, I’ll say that if my son did do that single parent deal, I’m sure that would not preclude his salvation if his faith in Christ is pure.

    Cool not having a mortage to pay. My life in inexpensive as well. I don’t have to pay child support; just half of all of my son’s expenses. But I sure did take a financial hit when married. I’ve always been thrifty and preferred to save cash in the bank. She did not.

    You said, “For you vas777, anything….. or almost anything……” I do not know what that means, if anything.

    My newest idea/dream is to relocate to Thailand in a few years. Perhaps I’ll be able to take my son with me. Earlier I was looking at web sites about Thailand. I like the pale skinned Oriental look.

  137. Luke says:

    Jimbo says:
    July 23, 2013 at 3:06 pm

    “Women who marry later in life is actually an advantage. She has already developed a career that she can return to, or she never quit her job since habits are hard to break. She already has assets and probably owns a house. She is incapable of having a large family.”

    The above couldn’t be more wrong in asserting that marrying later is better. First and foremost, there is NO sufficient reason to engage in Marriage 2.0 (the only one legally available in the West) if there are not going to be children (preferably multiple) conceived, born, and raised within that marriage. Further, a woman having a career is a major risk factor for her getting uber-hypergamous (typically when her husband is at a vulnerable point) and frivorcing him. Lastly, why buy the cow (probably for full price) when it’s (sexually, at least) about to keel over from old age? Who wants a semi-feral 10-YO cat, when they could have had a cute, trainable kitten?

    I will add that going from 0 to 1 child requires the most adjustment and increase in expense. Going from 2 to 3 is less of an increase (absolute or relative) in both. This is especially true IMO when children are either small or all the same sex (less need for different activities/bedrooms of their own).

  138. Oh Ellie, if only that were still true…

  139. Luke says:

    Thailand is in a few ways a neat place, but I wouldn’t plan to live there past about 2020. China is expansionist and getting ever stronger, with less and less in the way of counterforces to oppose them. Like Australia, Vietnam, and New Zealand, Thailand will likely within the next 20 years IMO be colonized by China, with the locals driven out with nothing, enslaved, or killed.

  140. A Northern Observer says:

    @TFH says: July 22, 2013 at 9:42 pm
    …if you oppose single parenthood, your focus should be on single mothers.

    TFH, I’d expect that kind of hamsterization from a woman. The fact is kids need both gender parents as they’re growing up. Period. End of story. Which gender is the “greater” offender is quite beside the point.

    As such, any person who intentionally deprives a child of one of their parents without a good reason (let the reader understand) should be ashamed of themselves and looked upon accordingly.

  141. A Northern Observer says:

    @vascularity777 says: July 22, 2013 at 10:45 pm
    I agree that mothers all too often focus way too much on the child FEELING GOOD and pleasing the child instead of providing competent parenting. I knew a single mom who tried to be “friends” to her 4 kids instead of being their parent. Ummm…. no. They need an adult in their lives, not a buddy.

  142. A Northern Observer says:

    @ hairy ape says: July 22, 2013 at 10:03 pm
    I don’t need to “love” a women. I only need to
    1.) Like her
    2.) Respect her as a human being and expect her to act like one
    3.) Be fair
    4.) Romance her with some push-pull if necessary, which will be interpreted on her part as minor gina tingles.

    If both of you are happy with that arrangement, then great! I’d have to ask though, when life throws one of those nasty “curves”, would such a relationship endure?

    But having one’s own son or daughter. That is love, and researching for the best method to give them the best start in life is not selfish; far from it.

    I’ll save you the time – the best way to give your kids a good start in life with by providing them with both parents. QED.

  143. greyghost says:

    A Northern Observer
    You are living in fantasy land. Your kind of think is the same old man up crap that got us here in the first. There is not a man here Vas included that didn’t play it that way. The law says f-you and so do women. Men are not to please women they are to please god. If a man can reproduce with out a woman so be it. Ever notice how much better kids do with their fathers even the single ones? That is because children truly do need their fathers love. A man handles his business she will submit have faith. A man never waits for or seeks a woman to handle his business. Blue pill lie is a child needs his mother. They don’t , it is a nice thing not a vital thing. Think about the stats and over all well being rates on kids from fatherless and motherless homes. TFH was right, feminism has done one thing very well and has exposed women for who the are. Everyday it seems more things you thought were great about women was just an illusion to trick you into loving them.

  144. @ greyghost:

    “There is not a man here Vas included that didn’t play it that way.”

    Do you mean by this that we played it the blue pill way in the past believing we were doing the right thing?

    Knowing Christ and having faith really is not difficult after initially knowing Him. To me it seems that I just cannot not believe. BUT, knowing what is the right thing to do is sometimes difficult. Of course perpetual sins we really need to refrain from, but this issue of a man becoming a parent via technology without a women is a difficult one. After much thought today I realise that A Northern Observer is correct about children benefitting from having both a mom and dad. But is it a sin for a man to go ahead with the technology and choose to become a single parent??? I’m vasilating back and forth on this one.

  145. greyghost says:

    We played the blue pill way. believing we were doing it right. I don’t think it is at all a sin to have a child without a woman. Because the child still does well with out.

  146. Luke says:

    Semi-OT post here. Feminist blogger in need of hamster-ectomy:
    http://clarissasblog.com/2013/07/23/who-gets-to-procreate/

    (Please post feminism kryptonite there.)

  147. freebird says:

    You did a fine job of rebuttal over there Luke.

    I’m surprised she allowed your comments to be posted at all,but it was likely the only ones she had.

    It’s clear she has no intention of logical rebuttal,just ad-hominem attacks.

    greyghost had the quote of the day:
    “The law says f-you and women do too.”

    IRL Clarissa would sic the blue knights and black robed agents of satan upon you,and prevail.

    Since most men would rather get a nut off than have social justice this is not going to change,our great protectors have indeed been earning the label the feminists are putting upon them:
    “Protectors turned predator,” but for entirely the opposite reasons…

    It’s just a matter or time before free speech gets criminalized.

    It’s just a matter of time to social anarchy.

    The 8 Presidential Councils for Women dictate misandrist law to the DOJ,DOD,and FBI.

    A society set upon itself because women are biologically and mentally selfish,self centered and self serving.

    It’s rapidly becoming a zero-sum equation.

    Unlike what Jimbo claims,his liability is through the roof.

    Skyrocketing even.

    He pays the price and defends his oppressors simply because he enjoys sexual pleasure more than anything else in life,and that is decidedly anti-Christian.

    By the way,”Game” is all about seduction and that means fornication and that spells trouble in River City.

    If all a man cares about is getting his nut off,he is thinking with the little head and not the big one,playing right into the Bonobo life style the women desire.

    After all it takes a village to subvert individual free,self direction and and purposeful life.

    They want disposable slaves.

    All their talk is directed to continuing this outcome.

    Even the so-called red pill women skirt the issue of male self direction unless it serves gynocentricity.

    “You’re not a real man unless your serving a woman.”
    (They call it getting laid,but getting f-ed is more descriptive.

    The law says f-you?

    Then f the law.
    Family and freedom destroying so and so’s.

    (Insert long chain of profanity)

  148. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/07/24 | Free Northerner

  149. feeriker says:

    “…[the married man's] self-respect [is] kept alive by finding, that, though all abroad is darkness and humiliation, yet there is still a little world of love at home, of which he is the monarch. ” – Washington Irving

    Riiiiight. Maybe such was reality in the early 19th century America in which Irving lived, but most assuredly NOT in the America of today.

  150. Eliezer Ben Yehuda says:

    Luke –

    You think the Thais and the Vietnamese will just sit back and let the Han Chinese steamroller over them?

    Put your money where your mouth is. Start shorting the Government 30-year Bonds of those two countries. Show us the receipts so we will know that you’re not just a Mouth That Roars.

  151. Ton says:

    An epic failure at humor Vas777

  152. Johnycomelately says:

    For the 85% of single men over 30 earning less than 75K avert your eyes.

    TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY
    Marry for Money
    http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/marry-for-money/

    I swear sometimes I think MGTOW are paying sites to promote their views

  153. Johnycomelately, funny to see those women change completely, hey? If money and tingles are that important to them, what happens when you get injured, lose your job or worse, have an amputation? Yea, you’re no longer ‘qualified,’ that’s right… off you go loser!

    They really have no idea how they come off to men, do they?

  154. Women need to get their priorities straight. You don’t marry a person if they’re wealthy or if they’re hot. You marry them when they’re young and full of potential. Then you help them with everything that you are to uplift them to look better, to act better, to earn more and to be a better man.

    So… choose your man, then stop looking and focus 100% on him. Make him the center of your world and your reward will be a dominant man who works at his full potential. Don’t do it, and a woman’s reward will be the divorced single life and misery.

  155. feeriker says:

    @Johnycomelately:

    That site name for that link you posted should be “Traditional CHURCHianity.”

  156. @ Ton:

    I can relate to failures at humor. Throughout my life I’ve been a smart ass. At my last job I made more than a couple of feminist jokes to my 90% female coworkers. They didn’t get mad as the jokes were clever, but I came close at times. I had a real defense as many of the women would seriously talk about men in an extremely negative light. I was also kinda a White Knight and the women liked that.

  157. 8oxer says:

    Dear Johnny, freeriker, et. al.:

    TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY Marry for Money

    That GBFM fellow has a couple of catchy songs about this. Rumor has it one or both are about to go platinum. Thanks for the link.

  158. HanSolo says:

    I just wrote a post about a study that shows that the best looking men have the most sex partners and that they must be doing so from the ranks of the less attractive women since there is a slight decline in the N of women as their looks increase. So it confirms what we know from reason and experience, that some women are hypergamous and are having sex with hotter men. It also shows an interesting disconnect where more women than men think their relationship is exclusive while more men think it’s sex only.

    It also shows that the hottest men are the most likely to be in the sex-only relationships and that some of those are with less-hot women, once again showing that some women are hypergamous when it comes to casual sex and that some women are trying to use sex to get a relationship with these hotter men. See my username for the link.

  159. HanSolo says:

    I think the study I analyzed in my post is one good piece of evidence to refute people who claim that women (or at least many of them) are NOT hypergamous.

  160. Just Saying says:

    “Pay for sex if you must, but do not enslave yourselves.”

    Why pay? Women are easy, and if you make yourself “socially unacceptable” it’s just easier for her to pass off the kid as belonging to some other schmoe… So you pick women that are married – did that a lot when I was younger, or my favorite – that are much younger than you – now that I’m older that works quite well especially since I’m older than her mother. If you also make use of “trusts” you can live rich, without any real income. So on paper, I’m dirt poor – but I have two boats, several houses in various countries – they all belong to the “trust” and I just get access… No taxes either. Of course, there are down-sides, but since it’s all a US fiction to avoid taxes, rather than a reality it works for me.

    Now at some point I will want a family of my own – fortunately, there are a number of countries where women are readily available and easy – Brazil was like that once, but now stick with Central America or pretty much any of the Asian countries. So you can set up “house” with several young women – pretty much as young as you want, and have them pop out a few kids for you, and you don’t have to worry since it’s not in the US or any of the other feminist controlled countries. So you can have your cake and eat it to – and isn’t that what life is all about?

    You are a man, women are meant to serve and service you – it is that simple…

  161. lozozozozozozoz says:

    For the 85% of single men over 30 earning less than 75K avert your eyes.

    TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY
    Marry for Money
    http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/marry-for-money/

    I swear sometimes I think MGTOW are paying sites to promote their views

    Yeah – and when I tried to argue with them, all they did was pout, snarl, and scream with meaningfula ttempt at arguiing.

    The sad part was that many of the men there did the same…nearly all ‘Christian red-pill’ men are still total slaves to the feminine imperative.

    Humorously enough, they confused me withda GBFM due to my username! Lolzlzlzozozzolzo!

  162. lozozozozozozoz says:

    Yeah – and when I tried to argue with them, all they did was pout, snarl, and scream with meaningfula ttempt at arguiing.

    Sorry for the terrible typing…I have been operating on very little sleep. I *meant* to write

    Yeah – and when I tried to argue with them, all they did was pout, snarl, and scream without any attempt at meaningful argument. Both the men and women argued like women (aka feelings and screeching, not facts).

  163. lozozozozozozoz says:

    ack the link didn’t work…hopefully this will.

    Sorry!

    Da GBFM weighs in on “Marry for Money”

  164. Carlos says:

    @Luke, great job attempting to pierce the walls of Sodom at Clarissa’s blog.

  165. Micha Elyi says:

    I’m not sure how buying eggs, and renting a womb is against God’s law since no forntication is involved.
    Ton

    Trying to lawyer your way out of that one ain’t so easy, Ton. Jesus the Christ once gave a pop quiz to some who doubted what marriage was and was not about, asking “Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female…?” Notice that He did not say they were made sperm source and incubator. And further notice that a sperm spewer and a female who lets her womb out for hire cannot “become one”.

    Way to many people think the Bible covers stuff it doesn’t.

    Yeah, like there’s actually people who think the Bible says everything a Christian needs to live by (a.k.a. sola scriptura). It doesn’t. Check John 21:25. The Bible does reveal what the is the pillar and foundation of truth. It ain’t the Bible. (I leave the discovery of what it is as an exercise for the student.)

  166. Marlon says:

    Micha,
    The word “foundation” in 1 Timothy 3:15 is used only once (hedraiomai), and is not the same as the word translated foundation (themelios) when it refers to Christ. Hence, the church is a secondary foundation at best.

    Ideally, the Christian should have at least three things working with to keep him growing: the Scripture, God’s Spirit and the church community. But in these days of corrupt churches, he will have to depend on the two that remain.

  167. Keith A. Young says:

    A post-feminist era man, of about 35 to 40 or so–having fully recovered from a revenge-based, scorched-earth divorce–who is now sexually-experienced, accomplished, interesting, independent, successful, confident, financially-secure and in reasonable shape, is unlikely to marry or even have a ‘long-term relationship’ with such a post-feminist womyn … although he may have cautious, well-protected, no-commitment sex with her, briefly.

    At this juncture, sexy Miss ‘non-ghetto’ African-American … Miss Chaing of Asia … Mei-Mei from Southeast Asia … Fujiko from Japan … Miss Desi India … an ebony-skinned, English-speaking Kenyan, Ugandan or Angolan beauty … the exotic & dark lady of the Caribbean Islands … Miss Latina … and others, having performed their ‘vetting,’ will be waiting, often in droves, to compete for and snap up this man-treasure. At which time, the jeans come off, the skirts go on and hemlines rise like the S & P 500 in a bubble economy.

    Leaving behind the white, sloppy-dressed, post-feminist faux-Goddesses foaming at the mouth … writing snarky, quickly-forgotten articles about her hatred of men, the necessity for male castration & the superiority of womyn-kind … changing batteries in her own ‘electric-vibrating boyfriend’ … and loudly denying that she ever needed a man … as she does her own books & finances, unclogs her own toilet, crashes her own computer, lugs heavy bags of cat food and cleans out the litter-boxes of her seven cats!

  168. Luke says:

    Eliezer Ben Yehuda says:
    July 24, 2013 at 4:58 am
    “Luke –
    You think the Thais and the Vietnamese will just sit back and let the Han Chinese steamroller over them?
    Put your money where your mouth is. Start shorting the Government 30-year Bonds of those two countries. Show us the receipts so we will know that you’re not just a Mouth That Roars.”

    1) I don’t think the Chicoms will ASK the Viets/Thais for passage. Hint: NBC.
    2) I don’t believe such bonds would be honored. I’ve a “buy gold/all gov’ts are evil liars” kind of POV.

  169. Ton says:

    We are not to add to or take away from God’s word. Thats an awful lot of adding to and lawyering up. No thanks. Way to Pharisees like for my taste. Given the things the church calls righteous these days…… No thanks again at every level. And I’ll not take advice about God’s law from someone sporting a name from the Christ killers

    The ladies at TC, not read there in a long while. Recently called the place a harpy hangout, but what I find interesting is a number of the girls are down right pleasant on other bloggs. When not trying to defend what’s posted at TC that is.

    Wish I had the faith to not worry like GBFM mentions in his writing

    you do a lot of govt work, right Vas 777? Recently acquired my 1st female co worker, a secretary… I mean administrative and logistics specialists, where she does our paper work, buys us coffee, makes us coffee ans orders us ammo, targets etc. Not sure how men work around womEn and retain their sanity/ semi positive view on the creatures

  170. Elspeth says:

    @ Ton:

    It’s really quite simple. The difference between defending what is written at our blog and respecting what is presented at someone else’s blog.

    I’ve never been accused of being unpleasant, even at TC. I have often been accused of being just the opposite, too accommodating to the men who visit and comment.

    I argue more assertively at TC, but am never rude or bitchy. That’s not my way of interacting. I don’t raid the fridge at other people’s homes nor do I put me feet up on their sofas. At my house, I can do that because it’s my house. That said, I am always well mannered no matter where I am.

    As for GBFM’s post, I engaged him at his blog and we had no problems communicating nor was the discussion in any way contentious.

  171. greyghost says:

    Ton
    You are in for an experience. I’m a mechanic technician type and rarely work with women. Looks like you are in the same experience keep an eye on the fellas you work with and watch them. Very funny stuff sometimes.

  172. @ Ton:

    “you do a lot of govt work, right Vas 777? Recently acquired my 1st female co worker, a secretary… I mean administrative and logistics specialists, where she does our paper work, buys us coffee, makes us coffee ans orders us ammo, targets etc. Not sure how men work around womEn and retain their sanity/ semi positive view on the creature”

    I am sorta retired now, but most of my work life consisted of government jobs; one federal and the others local jurisdictional. Hard for me was the overwhelming liberal standing of government employees. But that is understandable as conservatives correctly are more apt to cut governmental budgets, resulting in fewer opportunities for career advancement.

    The one aspect of working with mostly females is the eye-candy benefit. The eyeing of pretty ladies is a lifelong hobby at the least as I’m sure my male cohorts here would agree. I met my first wife at a government job. Previous to her I had a relationship with a nurse at the same workplace. She was at least able to pay for dinner sometimes. I would jest to her that I was a Neo-Postmodern-Feminist and did not want to insult her buy paying for stuff every time. It worked. She laughed and pulled out her cash sometimes.

    Your job cannot be government as no female government worker would make the men coffee at the workplace. Government jobs offer outstanding benefits and some civil service protection. My most recent job was as a social worker. It was a wonderful experience to be in a position to help folks, but I did disagree with some of the leftist ideology. Also most of the women were feminists and more than a few were hardcore. I hated listening to the man bashing crap, but just ignored it as I needed the job. My sanity is allegedly still at least partially in tact

    Ton. I’m glad to read that things appear to be going well for you. I’m also glad for my self to not have to be at the workplace now.

  173. Ton says:

    Naw won’t be any problems Gregghost, gut of her. #1 we only have the one spot that can even remotely be filled by a woman. #2 she’s way to far down the smp to be an issue and really trying to hard with he not very smart girl game.

    Technically we are contractor’s but we train_____ Thanks for the kind words. Back to the sand box as soon as I heal up, so I can leave the shithole…. I mean america behind.

    Darling in one place you are part of the herd, a herd with a nasty hen at the top of the pecking order. When you post in other places you are not part of the herd…… course I’ve not read that place in some time, perhaps things have changed, but I’m not the only man to call out the top hen on her shit attitude toward men or express their displeasure with TC.

  174. @Ton

    Surprised Butterfly Flower got her ass kicked, she wrote some great takedowns of alte & TC

    TC’s a craphole of feminist infected vultures … plus alte & elspeth have a long history of censoring & deleting mens posts & accounts …

    Theres nothing christian about that place, it’s a sham website, just like alte, unfortunately

    These women have a chance to do good, all they do is spew their intolerance for men & the real truth about their own lives …

    I have no idea why SSM tolerates them on her site, TC’s a trainwreck, just another womens site who cant stand men talking their mind …

  175. greyghost says: July 23, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    A Northern Observer
    You are living in fantasy land. Your kind of think is the same old man up crap that got us here in the first. There is not a man here Vas included that didn’t play it that way. The law says f-you and so do women. Men are not to please women they are to please god.

    And where in Sacred Scriptures does God give man – or woman – the mandate to intentionally bring a child into this world and deprive that child of one of their parents.

    It’s not just selfish, it’s abusive to the kid and the order of God’s creation.

    As red-pillers, we are to be better than the feministas, not lower ourselves to their level.

  176. @ Northern Observer:

    I do not disagree. I am a work in process. That is why I am here. I appreciate the sincere feedback. Considering the reality, I find it difficult to counsel my son as to his future. Anyway, it is very early for him and all this talk about having a child solo is only talk at this point.

    Iron sharpens iron………..

  177. @vas – thanks for your consideration of my comments.

    Where your son is concerned, if he can’t find a marriageable woman, there are other ways to be of service to the people around him that are uniquely suited to the energies of a single man – such as the study and pursuit of justice / righteousness wherever it leads w/out the need to be concerned about how the inevitable counter-attacks will impact a spouse and kids.

    Society has a burning need for such people – and as a 50+ man who’se “still waiting”, this is where I’ve focused my attentions.

  178. My most frequent two prayers are:
    1. The forgiveness of my sins.
    2. My son will continue to believe in Jesus and live his life accordingly.

    Good news is that I like the church I’ve been attending.

    Off topic: It appears to me that our country is going to slide further down the cultural “toilet bowl” in the next couple of years. New racial strife coupled with our current left wing government exasperated by the electorate wanting this pathological leftist government.

  179. greyghost says:

    And where in Sacred Scriptures does God give man – or woman – the mandate to intentionally bring a child into this world and deprive that child of one of their parents.

    It’s not just selfish, it’s abusive to the kid and the order of God’s creation.

    What makes you so sure you are pleasing God. And isn’t what you are saying and advocating what we have now and just propping up misandry.
    I guess it is up to the “bad men” to fix the world so the good churchians can play Christian. Any man should have a child with out a woman. so the child will grow up with stability. Yeah I said it and fully believe that will be good for the long term benefit for society. God made woman as a helper she is not necessary unless she is willing to make herself necessary (submit). Man takes care of business and that does not mean man is responsible to make sure women are relevant. God has it covered that is why statistically single dads do so much better than moms to the point that true best interest of the child would always be father’s custody.

  180. feeriker says:

    ANO@Vascularity:

    Where your son is concerned, if he can’t find a marriageable woman, there are other ways to be of service to the people around him that are uniquely suited to the energies of a single man – such as the study and pursuit of justice / righteousness wherever it leads w/out the need to be concerned about how the inevitable counter-attacks will impact a spouse and kids.

    I would recommend, Vascularity, that your son learn a foreign language (or two, or three) and travel abroad, living in a foreign country (or two, or three) for a few years. Asian and Latin American countries would be particularly good destinations. Finding marriageable women in these parts of the world will be MUCH easier and much less of a gamble than rolling the dice with the sexual detritus of a North America in a state of socioeconomic and moral collapse.

  181. Ton says:

    That butterfly chick is out there flapping….. but she wasn’t wrong on the pagan vs Christain deal. If all I bad to base my belief in God on was the actions of modern Christians I’d be a pagan as well. Thank God for the Bible, the ability to read and never being cowed.

    I stumbled onto TC some time back, read heavily to get a feel for the regular posters and…… won’t ever go back. Though a number are pleasant enough, one or two I seek out their pots on other blogs.

    Rmax My friend, give me an honest man hating feminist any day over the “I’m not a feminist but men best serve my version of the feminine imperative” non feminist

  182. bios says:

    Brendan Fraser is paying 50,000 in alimony and 25,000 in child support apparently. He is going broke fast!!

    Granted he is rich, but it ain’t worth the risk.

  183. Grey Ghost –

    The biological fact is, there is no way to have a child without a woman being part of the process, and as such the rest of your argument falls apart.

  184. @Ton

    lol that chick was one of my fave commentators, she had honesty & balls, pity she fell for the victimhood bullshit & got her husband to white knight for her, fuck that shit

    The problem isnt just limited to TC, its most womens blogs, theyre all about building a better beta

    All women once they hit the wall, start the i’m holier & more pure then the young chicks, routine

    So younger women, dont bag their hot guys … lol

    We see all of these women, alte elspeth etc., pulling the same scam on their husbands, buttoning down their dresses & doing the holier then the young hot chicks routine …

    The holier then the young hot chicks routine, is girl game for most grandmothers, to ensure theyre husbands dont find out the real side, the real alpha’s they used to bang …

    It’s hilarious watching the trainwreck of these reformed virgins, unfold over their blogs …

    None of these women, mourn or regret the woman they couldve been, or the mother they could’ve been

    How many men eat themselves up from the inside, for the fathers they could’ve been because of women like this …

    I just hope these women can use the anger of their past, the childhoods & womanhood they were robbed off, to destroy the evil veneers of women of today …

  185. greyghost says:

    Not for long big guy

  186. Kristen inDallas says:

    Think you’re still missing the big possibility that the correlation isn’t just due married men being more motivated… but may be a reflection of systemic hiring biases. If companies prefer to hire men over women generally, prefer married men to singles (because they are more stable/less likely to leave town for a better opportunity), and prefer single women to married (because single women are less likely to give it all up to raise a family) that would also explain every graph you made. Not saying I agree with these stereotypes, but they’re certainly possible. And in that case it wouldn’t be so much a case of: married men earn better because of quality x, but rather: married men earn more because they’re given better opportunities because they’re married men.

  187. @greyghost

    Yea I agree it wont last long lol

  188. @Kristen

    You’re feminist bs’s ridiculous & sickening at the same time …

    “married men earn more because they’re given better opportunities because they’re married men.”

    Do you see men getting affirmative action laws passed by the government, demanding 50% of all corporations must contain married men?

    Do you see sexual harrassement laws passed protecting men from sexual abuse from women?

    All married men are slaves, this is WHY they work harder & earn more

    Show married men some respect & keep your man hating bs to yourself

  189. Pike says:

    @rmaxgenactivepua

    With due respect, I think you’re misreading Kristen’s point, and I think she does see a grain of truth in the reality of corporate hiring. I know this because I’ve seen it myself:

    – a corporation’s best interests are service by retaining those workers that it believes will be the most stable, with the least turnover. A married man is less risk-averse that an unmarried man, therefore married men will stay in one position / one company longer (and put up with more corporate bullshit) than a single man. This is not to say that the married man is getting the better of the bargain; I would be willing to venture that in spite of the statistical difference in pay, the married man has probably gotten year-over-year inflation increases that do not equal the number of years of actual work produced. The corporation is also aware that it can extract more from a man who is risk-averse (has dependents) than one who will call bullshit on the system (does not have dependents) and walk.

    – this also applies to single / non-single women. Why would I as an employer expose my budgeting to greater risk in investing time / money / resources in an employee that I perceive as going to leave the company sooner (i.e., have children / raise kid) than one who will stay longer and provide greater return on investment?

    That’s just capitalism.

    This does reflect the truth of your comment as well – married men are slaves. I was a slave while I was married. I am now a slave to the state in the form of child support and alimony, and as such have to put up with an extraordinary amount of bullshit at the company I work for, so that I won’t go to jail. I am looking forward to the day (exactly 1 year, 11 months and 27 days from today) when the alimony ends, and I will be able to call bullshit myself.

  190. David says:

    @ Pike

    “The corporation is also aware that it can extract more from a man who is risk-averse (has dependents) than one who will call bullshit on the system (does not have dependents) and walk.”

    Isn’t that the truth. I was able to call bullshit on the system and walk. But the married men with mortgages and wives and kids in school were stuck. They had no room for risk. Any risk. They were geographically trapped and utterly dependent on their jobs. They dare not risk starting their own businesses and becoming free men. Corporations can easily take advantage of people like that.

    Partners and mangers are under constant pressure from upstairs to cut costs and increase profits. The shareholders just want more money. A single man doesn’t have wife and kids to drain his emergency savings. He can easily can say “fuck you” and walk.

    The job requirements for jobs today are outrageous. They demand everything and more. Yet offer less and less in return. I remember in 2008-2009 when things got bad the first thing these corporations did was offer jobs that required the work of 2 people for less pay. These corporations went straight for the kill. I thank G-d I am able to survive on my own. I thank G-d I am not another human being(s) slave. I cannot stand being a hireling !

    I was/am single. Before I went out on my own I remember earning $5,000.00 (one day) for my master. He was on the phone with his mechanic. His sons Ferrari Scuderia was making a funny noise. Total cost? $5,000.00. In other words: all the hard work I did that day to please my master went directly to his 18 year old, snot nosed, spoiled, little bitch ass, know it all son’s Ferrari Scuderia. His son looked like a wanna-be Daniel Radcliffe and sounded like fag. All my efforts was going to that.

    The other partners had retired. So this whiny guys son would hang around the office and hold “meetings”. He would sit at the head of the conference table asking these ridiculas questions. Spoiled little bitch posturing as if he is our boss. The married men had to bite their teeth and put up with it. And so did I. Until I left.

    Sometimes I call from a blocked number to see who picks up. Those guys are still there. Still slaves. They have the wife, the mortgage, and the kids to think about. The least they deserve is not to be further put into debt by their entitled spend thrift wives. Or cheated on. Or taken for 50%+ child support and alimony.

  191. @pike

    “married men earn more because they’re given better opportunities because they’re married men.”

    I was referring to a typical hate argument feminists spit out, whenever they try to dodge how screwed over married men are at work

    Thats a typical statement by a feminist, trying to portray married men as some sort of privileged class

    When in fact married men have to work twice as hard as the average man

    Whats even worse none of these men, get to keep anything they work for, all of their labour is taken away from them, by their families & the bullshit mortgage & debts tied down by their wives

    Thats what I cant stand, everything they work for’s dumped into a worthless property, pointless debt & a wife & kids, who can divorce you at anytime, for any reason

    Married men dont get to keep anything they make, robbed blind while they work, by their own families & banks

  192. Micha Elyi says:

    Haven’t there been societies without marriage?
    Dr. Faust

    Yes, the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing was one such society. You may know them as the Shakers.

    Empowered women will pick up the slack and we’ll all live in a matriarchal utopia.
    Dr. Faust

    Sure, that’s the feminist theory. Heh heh. In practice, the results don’t match the theory. Amongst the Shakers there wasn’t a whole lot of examples of the root word of “matriarchy” being produced (mater which is ‘mother’). So the Shakers went nowhere. No surprise there, because ‘nowhere’ is what the word ‘utopia’ means.

  193. Pingback: Boys fail without the traditional family or community | the secular traditionalist

  194. Pingback: Lady economists in the Feminist Fauxtopia in Abilene will earn a lot more than the gentlemen economists do. | Sunshine Mary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s