Post number 2

I have been doing a lot of thinking about the root of the Issue, the fact that women's unshackled promiscuity has completely destroyed the relationship between men and women, and I believe my realizations are best shown in the Bear Grylls survival show where they did the men vs women challenge. What I have noticed through much reading and consuming of video media is that the enabler of the rampant promiscuity and cultural backsliding is the simple fact that women have outsourced their need of a man for men.

What I mean by that is, women do need men, literally. Before first world luxuries came around, a woman was completely dependent on her father/husband to provide/protect her. A man used to have to literally build a house for his wife, be the only man to protect her, and be the ONLY source of income/food/shelter. Now, due to first world systems/government/modern economy, women can simply buy a house (that was built by MEN) instead of waiting for her husband to build her one. She no longer has to work a garden and hope/rely on her man to hunt/farm animals to be a consistent source of nutrients for the burgeoning family. A man provided for all of her needs but now the functions of a man have been sourced out to the economy.

This is why women say 'I don't need a man', because their biology is wired to see what is right in front of them. They don't see their husband bringing home a slaughtered pig/cow or dragging home a moose/deer. They don't see their man chopping logs to build a house or driving off predators with a weapon. Women need to see things for them to know that it's real.

But the 1st world economy has farmed out protection to the police/government, sourced personal nutrition to the grocery store, and shelter to the many building companies that can throw a large house up in less than a month. The globalization of the market has greater consequences than we really ever understood. The dating market has become globalized, so women can now constantly monkey branch to a better man, which never ends since there are billions of men out there. The internet has allowed hometown Jane the ability to think she can get (insert athlete/millionare here). With communities becoming so big, the smaller communities that served vital functions in terms of mate selection, they simply vanish in the ocean of massive populations.

Problems cannot be solved unless the source of the issue can be understood, and with that being said, the world has simply gotten too big for the relationship between men and women to ever be fixed. Men and women are complimentary. We always have been and probably always will be, but remember, the purpose of that was for division of labor to survive and procreate. Now that 'surviving' is no longer bound to the physical labor and danger of barely trying to make it, all that's left is 'procreating'. That is the realm that women dominate. We men want to procreate, and women hold the leverage there. Women want to survive, and that's where we simply gave them all the leverage.

Now that the post has gotten long enough with enough context, I'm going to talk about something that is far less Reddit-friendly. NOTE: I am not condoning or praising this in any way or advocating for it. This is simply an OBSERVATION.

Marriage had a disciplinary function built into it that was taken out roughly two centuries ago from what I can tell from my research. Men, the heads of the household, used to have the ability and authority to discipline their wives. The language used in that time was 'beat' or 'spank' or 'cane'. Men had absolutely authority to discipline their women. Fathers had absolutely authority to discipline their family. This INCLUDED the wife. It was common law up til the 19th century for men to do this. To be clear, women were allowed to petition courts if they were unjustly punished AND I do guess that they could always plead to their male family members to intercede as well. I personally bet that if a woman was brutally beaten, her father and brothers probably would have put the evil husband in the ground. There are always checks and balances.

To be clear, I am NOT advocating for it, but noting observations.

Women do not love men unless they first respect said men. One of the ways respect is shown is through a healthy fear of consequences. One of the consequences was being physically disciplined. I'm just thinking out loud, spitballing here, but this is where the 'turning' point happened. This is where feminism got its start. If you're a Christian, then you believe that God put men OVER women and children under the wife, so there's a hierarchy of authority. Which means equality was never in mind for the family (from a religious standpoint). Islam takes an even more authoritarian view of the issue, but I digress. Now, when discipline got removed from the equation, men could no longer dictate their households, and thus the slow decline began. This, combined with 2nd and 1st world economies coming into play that allow women a much easier life, and then the birth control pill and advanced medicine that unshackled sexuality and nearly got rid of the high death rate associated with childbirth, women literally did not need A 'man' anymore. But what they don't realize, is that they still need MEN to do all the jobs that a man used to do for her.