I'm approaching 70. I was raised in the 1950's when men in the U.S. were heroic and admired for winning the war. Women stayed home and were the homemakers and the man supported the family. Economics were very different then. I married in the 1970's and people lived well on $2.50 per hour. I'm talking renting a home (not an apartment) and still having money for food and a car. Everything was cheap.
Before I married, I inherited a family home. Free and clear of any mortgage. Very fortunate and unusual at my young age. I married a 19 yr old girl when I was 22 because that's what everyone did back then. Had a couple of kids and the wife worked not at all, or only part-time. After 14 years she decided she didn't want to be married any more. She held none, nor contributed, any of our financial assets, but received 50% of everything I owned including what retirement funds I had put aside. I had to sell the home in the divorce. She received enough money to buy a new home with cash and immediately moved her boyfriend in with her and my kids. Even though I had joint physical custody and "dadded" my kids 50% of the time, I still had to pay a third of my income to her for child support - why?....because she had very little earnings history. This went on for 14 years until my youngest turned 18.
This woman has never thanked me.
After my divorce, I was still in the white-knight mode. I couldn't get that 1950's indoctrination out of my head. No awareness at all. Always saving women with no assets. But, I managed to involve myself with women without kids. Still, I would always wind up caring for them financially and it always ended in disaster. Particularly since the women I dated (and foolishly lived with early on) weren't interested in having kids, they all rode the cock carousel into their 40's and if they thought you weren't going to be trapped, they'd move on to find the one that would permanently commit assets to them. They're not stupid - they're looking for security in later years. They hit the wall very quickly. I don't think any of that has changed.
It's taken me a lot of years my friends. You have an opportunity. Men are devalued today. Use that to your advantage to break the cycle. Build your break-out. I'd like to see some of these similar tales from my wizened seniors. Peace.
[–]AutisticusMaximus77 points78 points79 points (12 children) | Copy Link
While I agree with the message somewhat, this does not look and feel like it was written by someone who is "approaching 70".
I follow a couple of 6x year old guys in the manosphere, in The Red Pill and out, and while they get modern ideas and tech, and are literate, they do not write in a way that is anything close to this style.
I am calling a fake old man post, although I am not disagreeing with the message.
[–]loneliness-incLvL 99 Rogue NiceGuy™[M] 28 points29 points30 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Everything on the internet should be taken with a bag of salt. The question to always ask is - is the message correct or not.
Additionally, just because most men that age don't speak that way, doesn't mean that no men that age speak that way. Most men his age are still into chivalrous bullshit. This guy was burned and therefore awakened so he knows the terminology.
[–]strallus17 points18 points19 points (0 children) | Copy Link
If it’s fake then the message isn’t correct though.
Because the message is “learn from my anecdotal experience”. But there isn’t much to learn from anecdata (in general), and there definitely is nothing valuable in fraudulent anecdata.
[–]NorthCoach2 19 points20 points21 points (4 children) | Copy Link
Yeah 100% fake. Writing style is very different from any other older man and includes tons of millennial buzzwords and checks all the boxes for WAATGM memes (“our fathers stormed the beaches of Normandy” etc...)
I just find it hilarious that people think they need to lie to get people to believe their message. If it’s true, it’s true. I know dumb older guys (yes, some as old as almost 70) that foolishly chase pussy and are whipped, too. It’s not a generational thing - I repeat, there are tons of whipped baby boomers out there. I deal with them every day in my line of work.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
That's probably the most whipped generation. Reports show millennials have fewer divorces, for example. Go figure.
[–]where_muh_good_mensSheriff Goodmonkey3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
You can't divorce if you don't marry.
[–]PhazonAran0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Modern problems require modern solutions.
[–]Skystalker5128 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
His username checks out too
[–]smfuel87Chad Train Conductor6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah well, when someone says 1990 or 2000, I think 5 or 10 years ago. Its 2019 and although it doesn't feel like it, we've moved ahead into time faster and farther than it feels. A 70 year old lines up perfectly to place a young man into the heyday of Rah Rah RAH!!! second wave feminism and the first push for welfare and government endorsed family destruction.
[–]RedPillCoper4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Based. That post is fake af.
[–]Wharfcat0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Ok maybe it's fake or maybe not but I'm 57 and could tell a similar story. Women have been screwing men over long before all of you young guys came on the scene. Yes I use terms like cock carousel too because every red-pilled man from 18 to 88 knows what it means. Language evolves so no I don't use words like groovy, I'm hip, ect. anymore. You dig?
[–]mimblezimbleJr. Hamster Analyst21 points22 points23 points (3 children) | Copy Link
As men we derive our societal value from being able to provide.
When providing is easy, because money is easy, because everything is cheap, it drastically devalues our contribution, to the point that women feel that they can actually do it all by themselves: "What do I need that idiot for?"
The generation before the OP had known the Great Recession, and quite a few of them, even starvation. Women cannot bring themselves to being frivolous or hedonistic when they've got nothing to eat, and no roofs over their heads. That is why these WWII women were reasonable and content.
Still, the current, hedonistic bullshit had obviously started before the 1970ies already. Things had been too good for too long already. No challenge. The absence of external drama seems to push women to create their own.
The current lifestyle of absurdity will continue, until avoiding starvation has become a massive problem again. What we need, is a situation that forces the matter, and tells people: Fight and die, or else, just die.
For the culture to change, and the survivors to get their act together, millions of frivolous, single women and their offspring will have to unceremoniously starve to death. Do not succumb to the temptation of helping them or giving them charity. That would only amount to sabotaging the necessary clean-up operation. If too many people of the wrong kind survive, things cannot possibly get better. It will rather mean that a brand new wave of additional calamities will be needed to finally finish the job. Seriously, now we need the harvests to wholesale fail.
[–]OverkillengineCasts Pearls to the Swine8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Won't even take harvests failing, it will just take a generation of men refusing to contribute enough to the welfare support systems for them to collapse. Still plenty of food to be found in such a scenario, just requires actual work to get it then.
And Feminists tend not to abound in the crop fields for some reason.
[–]Doc_Sithicus0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I like the way you think.
[+]4gotOldU-nameArgues with Mods-8 points-7 points-6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Umm... I beg to differ.
I (and presumably more than a few others) don't rate or rank the societal value of people based on their wealth or skillsets. Pretty sure doing that makes us all the lesser.
And using sentences like "If too many people of the wrong kind survive..." is really coming from a hateful place, even if it sits within an intelligently constructed set of paragraphs that have been written.
[–]daniellederek4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
So he would have been 30 something in the 80s. Would have been in the sweet spot for every workspace joining the computer age. From ordering and inventory systems to getting home Internet 20 yeas ago. Anyone who's ever had to write BS office and incident reports can write. Not sure why the skepticism.
[–]DeterminedLogic994 points5 points6 points (10 children) | Copy Link
I wrote this in that thread, I’ll post it again here:
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (9 children) | Copy Link
Consistently, in both WAATGM and MGTOW subs, people whine about "the good ol' days" when they were breadwinners and women were homemakers. That's actually the worst case scenario, because that's when there's more at stake and there's more to lose.
It's mainstream here to hate "Career women" but I firmly believe those are the best type.
[–]where_muh_good_mensSheriff Goodmonkey2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
What the hell are you going on about. You offer opposing opinions without anything of substance to back it up or even clarify your stance at all. How lazy.
"I disagree with thousands of people because it's actually worse their way. Also, this type is better."
That is what you sound like.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Well, I wouldn't repeat everything that is already around the post so you'd be reassured or wouldn't feel threatened. But I''ll do it now, then:
In OP's story, he said he had to pay alimony because his wife hardly ever won any money. Even if it's a fake story, it's very believable he would be made to do so. If she made some money by herself, he wouldn't have been divorce raped as bad.
Also, by the comment I was replying to, which I agree with:
If you are a breadwinner and she's a homemakers, do you really want a woman to be with you because she NEEDS you? (Which it seems a lot of people in this sub seems to desire. I might be wrong, though). Remember that with daddy welfare state, she doesn't truly need you as bad, hence the abundance of single mothers and so on (that is a topic thrown around here which I do agree with). But, under all circumstances, should I look for a woman (which I highly doubt, but since this is not the MGTOW sub: unlike there, I won't recommend here to men that disregard women completely), I'd try to get one that WANTS to be with me, instead of simply NEED me.
[–]where_muh_good_mensSheriff Goodmonkey1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
You hit both points right on the nose but somehow disregarded one to favor your stance.
Women are biologically wired to depend on men. This is from thousands of years of evolution in which society didn't exist and women were needed food and shelter while they were pregnant or nurturing children. Women support men the best when they submit to male rule. The reasons for this are supported in their inferior physical frame and natural flight response. Because they require men (biologically) they must ensure that their choices in men lead to favorable outcomes. This is where they derive solipistic manipulation of men through attraction and dependence. Men are best able to deliver resources to women when he has control over his house and can determine the wants and needs of his dependents.
Society has flipped the script on men. The welfare state has guaranteed women access to resources without submitting to a man. She can now seek out her own avenues for raising her family and is deterred from being submissive as freedom and independence are highly sought after principles of humans.
So, women don't need to be submissive, attempt to engage gender roles they are not built for, and seek companionship due to their biological imperative. The combination of all of this means that men are never going to be good enough for her, but she is allowed to continue manipulating them for her gain. This will continue until the people realize their counties have turned into socialist suppositories for creating slaves and not a free people.
I summation, the best possible roles for men and women are those they were designed to fulfill, but cannot be utilized if women can extract resources for their children without needing a man to provide for them. The more independence a woman has in this scenario the less inclined she is to submit to her man, thereby the greater chaos and drama she exudes. This causes a rift in the male / female dynamic where the dominate personality of the male is villianized and the inferior capacity of performance for the female is victimized leaving her with much more leverage over the man.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
exactly. good write up.
[–]notyourdude2011 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I am in the opinion that in the good old days both men and women are breadwinners, just that men are the primary breadwinners. That's the main distinction.
Actually, I just can't recall any time in history where women don't work, at least in my own cultural background as an Asian. They work and act as mothers both at the same time, and they are the backups when the men go to war, die, or fall to sickness.
Women take their parenthood duties heavier than work while vice versa for men, thus creating a complementary balance between the two. They tend to work closer to home so that they can still watch over the kids at the same time.
This is how marriage IMO would work most wonderfully. I myself envisage how an ideal wife for me would be someone who supports me, partners with me, who gets my back covered when I fall. I don't really buy into the women as damsels idea anymore that modern 'chivalry' /white-knighting upholds.
Thus, I agree that there's more at stake and more to lose if I am the only breadwinner in the family. What happens if I get sick? What happens if I get drafted to war? Who takes care of the kids then? Should I suddenly expect my SAHM wife to turn into a breadwinner overnight, when she had never held a job in her life and never developed any working skills?
[–]BluepillProfessorMRP Mod0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
Yet when men were in charge and women stayed home the divorce rate was 1-2%. Wierd.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
The divorces occurring in recent years are mostly of those older generations, maybe people that married thinking that the women would stay at home? Mostly baby boomers and so. Marriages that fell down after 20+ years or so.
[–]Timthetiny0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
And men were no less miserable. Weird
[–]BluepillProfessorMRP Mod0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Studies on happiness and contentment show that men are more unhappy than ever while women are even more unhappy.
Half the female population is on antidepressants and the other half are untreated.
[–]TheImpossible12 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm still banned from MGTOW.
Kind of annoying to be honest.
[–]TheYekke-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
It appears to be overrun by refugees from elsewhere. Permanent Red Pill rage iow. MGTOW.com is better but most good content is years old
[–]thomaschoo-chootrain 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
cock carousel lol
[–]Older_MiggySwashbuckle born & Carol torn1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm a little skeptical here.
In the 1970's I worked in a jobs program for kids that, IIRC, paid me $1.50 an hour. I sure wasn't living high on the hog.
Plus $2.50 an hour x 40 hours is 100 bucks a week or just over 5k a year. That didn't get you very far even back in the 70's.
[–]TheTrueLordHumungous2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
My Dad (now 80) told me his goal in life back in 1962 was to make $10,000 a year. He broguh in about $4,000 per year which equates to abour $2.00/hr and things were tight as hell for he and my Mom.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
deleted What is this?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
"Believe half of what you see, and nothing that you hear" - Rabid, foaming at the mouth, cartoon squirrel.
[+]youngbull24-7 points-6 points-5 points (16 children) | Copy Link
Lol I find it hard to believe 70 year olds using reddit and knowing all the sub vocabulary and being frequent posters and giving advice to the young guys . It’s a troll post to push forward the message . Mtgtow sub out of all similar subs is the worse one tbh . Too much hate and bitterness on that sub I personally had to leave recently
[–]generalissimo_jones17 points18 points19 points (5 children) | Copy Link
I know a few 60-70 year olds who are pretty active online and fairly tech savvy.
[+]youngbull24-6 points-5 points-4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
Maybe so but I doubt they are using their free time to post on the mgtow sub . That’s just my opinion . I love the message of mgtow but that whole community has been brigaded by incels that have decided to give up on women not because female nature but because they couldn’t get females and would crumble all their Philosophies if a hot women came around offering pussy. That’s my honest opinion
[–]generalissimo_jones10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
MGTOW is a big tent. You have the monks, the volcels, those like me who bang hookers and some guys who pump and dump there are a few former incels who have seen the light.
When you are blackpilled like me and see women for what they really are. You don't really want one. When the need takes me i drain my balls into this cute blonde hooker i know. Then i don't think about women for months.
I think talk like this suggests people are trying to stir up conflict and try and get MGTOW labelled as incels. I've noticed it more over the past couple months. I'm not biting.
[–]SirKolbathYeah, yeah. “Mods are incels.”4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
I think they’re going to use their free time to post and comment and keep informed on things that interest them. As I mentioned in another comment, there is an 80-year-old woman named Shirley Curry who has her own YouTube channel where she posts Skyrim and Fallout videos. My dad was 62 when he died in 2012 and he was the most computer literate person I knew at the time. He posted regularly on various newsgroups for his interests, mostly model airplane and car restoring groups, but this isn’t unreasonable.
[–]generalissimo_jones3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah. My dad is very active on social media and some forums. He is retired now so besides classic cars it keeps him amused. I have helped him with some arduino stuff and helped him get to grips with Linux last year but he mostly manages to work it out for himself by browsing and posting on forums and stuff.
[–]TheseNthose2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
If they identify as MGTOW then they have shit tons of freetime and would likely spend it in a MGTOW sub.
[–]Lolkar4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
I played wow with man that was 65. And ge was the best healer we got. It was back in wotlk. When the world was still OK.
[–]NorthCoach2 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, no one is saying older people don’t use the internet or play games. The writing style is an indicator that the poster is LARPing, not the fact that he claims to be almost 70.
[–]amjw0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
on a tangent, damn do I miss those wotlk days. glad I gave up as soon as cata came out (tried wod when that came out and it really was a crock of shit).
[–]SirKolbathYeah, yeah. “Mods are incels.”3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
There is an 80-year-old grandmother who has her own YouTube channel and posts her epic Skyrim and Fallout videos. Don’t knock what the greatest generation can accomplish.
[–]NorthCoach2 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Almost 70 would be baby boomer, not the greatest generation (generation before boomers)
[–]where_muh_good_mensSheriff Goodmonkey1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Te generation that bankrupted the country, signed all their kids up for social security without reading the damn law, all got drivers licenses because they were told to, started paying income taxes because it was easier than understanding the law, etc etc. Besides the brave souls that's fought the great wars, I don't hold much high esteem for those people that gave up their authority over government for a few simple conveniences.
[–]I-am-the-lulAll Ass No Stick0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
The Greatest Generation was 1901-1927. (The men would be the right age to have fought in WWII)
The Silent Generation was 1928-1945. (Most of them remember the war but were too young to have fought in it)
[–]TANQsprayJr. Hamster Analyst0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
You left? I got banned 😄