699,178 posts

Dalrock: Our family policy is designed to terrify married fathers.

Reddit View
November 20, 2018
55 upvotes
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/11/13/our-family-policy-is-designed-to-terrify-married-fathers/


Post Information
Title Dalrock: Our family policy is designed to terrify married fathers.
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 55
Comments 21
Date 20 November 2018 04:01 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/163710
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/9ytfk7/dalrock_our_family_policy_is_designed_to_terrify/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
Dalrockthe red pill
Comments

[–]3CainPrice 81 points82 points  (29 children) | Copy

It's no huge secret that marriage is a bad idea for men. Your wife can divorce you at any time, for any reason or no reason at all. It doesn't matter what your marriage is like on the inside. She doesn't have to fuck you, treat you well, cook, clean, work, or even perform adequate childcare. She just has to not kill or abuse the children. She can cheat on you. None of this matters. She will be awarded primary custody of your children pretty much by default. She will be awarded the house pretty much by default. She will be awarded at least 50% of your assets, usually a little more. And you will have a monthly child support payment taken from your paycheck that far exceeds what it costs to raise the child(ren) each month, as kind of an understood, under the table form of ex-wife support. And in many states, you pay alimony on top of that to further support your ex-wife.

You literally transition from a situation where you can walk away, right now, for any reason or no reason at all, for free, to a situation where walking away costs you your children, wealth, and 20-50% of your net pay each month until all of your children are 26 - but she can walk away at any time.

In this situation, where she suddenly finds herself with all of the power, she subconsciously starts to find you less attractive and more annoying. She can't figure out why she feels this way, because you're working hard to provide for the family and helping out around the house and doing whatever she asks. But she's still not happy with you, so it must mean you suck and aren't good enough and she should stop fucking you. And after a few years of not getting fucked good by you, she starts getting fucked good by someone else. And once you find out, she shrugs and divorces you. And you spend the next two decades paying ex-wife support disguised as something for the child's best interest.

Nobody cares. There's no sense getting riled up about this. Nobody cares.

Just don't get married. Don't give women power over you. It's stupid. Women can't be trusted with power over you. Having power over a man dries the vagina up, and marriage, by its very nature, gives a woman enormous power over you.

[–]red_philosopher 17 points18 points  (7 children) | Copy

Can't upvote this enough. Marriage is important to the survival of large civilizations, but when marriage is the equivalent of asking men to die, civilization falls.

The only way for you to have children, reasonably, is to become strong, powerful, and fuck married women and cuck the poor saps who fell for the marriage trap.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 12 points13 points  (6 children) | Copy

I have to disagree with your black pill scorched earth solution of cucking other men and destroying marriages (even tho they may be headed to dissolution anyway).

However, in terms of long term civilizational outlook, yeah it’s totally fucked because of this idolatrous religion of leftism (in this case the feminist arm) which misinterprets social dynamics and history, thinking its on the vanguard of “Progress”, but in reality is eroding the foundations of society. Absolutely despicable.

[–]red_philosopher 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

Given that 80% of men never successfully reproduce in the first place, it's about as red-pill as it gets. Why fight against reality when you can leverage that knowledge to your advantage?

[–]Liquid_Kool 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Do you have a study to corroborate your findings? If so I'd like to see it, 80% sounds...off.

[–]red_philosopher 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

The studies should be linked in there. It's closer to 75% but it paints the picture well.

Also, just had a woman admit that she considered cucking her bf just now. Fascinating day.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

I don’t see that as any rebuttal to the idea that you shouldn’t interfere with still existing marriages.

[–]red_philosopher 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Sexual strategy is amoral. Read the sidebar

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

That’s also not a rebuttal. Yes the mechanics of sexual strategy are amoral. It’s important to understand that sexual strategy will not conform to human moral ideas.

However that doesn’t mean there are not certain lines that it’s unwise or just plain shitty to cross. Destroying marriages is a shitty thing to do in my book, even if they have low odds to begin with. This is not mutually exclusive with an understanding that sexual strategy is rooted in amoral biology.

[–]xkcd_puppy 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

As the game advances, they will realize this, that men are choosing to remain single rather than get married. They will seek to change the rules again. Then they will implement an annual tax on single men over age 25.

[–]Nicolas0631 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Actually where I live such tax exist for every single wealthy person regardless of sex. You get significant tax cut if you end up living in a couple.

But as there are overall wealthy men in that situation than women, it is really a tax against men. I know mens tat hesitate to live their girlfriend out of the tax difference alone and all the saving you get by sharing the cost on many things.

Being independant has a significant cost. I make more than most people in my country but because I'am single, the difference is much narrower than what they raw income would say. A share is taken by the state, another share is that many things can be buy by 2 persons rather than 1.

[–]TheLongerCon 3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy

Is the solution simply to find a high earning wife?

[–]3CainPrice 14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy

What part of "don't get married" was unclear?

No. Do not find a high earning wife. Just don't get married.

[–]markinsinz7 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yea but then again ... family courts are not known for logic actions

[–]livear 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Women pay alimony 3% of the time.

Good fucking luck my dude.

[–]kittyclaw200 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

when she pops out a kid she will most likely stop working. You still lose. You might argue that she has to keep working because the husband doesn't make enough. Would a smart high earning chick have married a guy who couldn't support the family? No (see hypergamy)

[–]TriggeringEveryone 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

high earning wife

Yeah goy, marry some bitch in her late 30s with a career and a double or triple digit N. She'll be paying you after the marriage breaks up!

[–]TheLongerCon 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Cringey anti-semitism abside, why do you think they're no women making good money in their twenties.

One of the hottest girls I've dated was a dental student who I meet when she was 23.

[–]livear 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

This should be stickied on the front page.

[–]yomo86 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This is why in the past, despite its limitations on sexual encounters worked by enslaving both sexes in a scheme. Slutty women, bad mothers et. al were shunned by shunning the ones namely male who did not participate in the shunning of sluts or even marrying them.



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter