~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[–]General_Fear6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
As long as there is a welfare, marriage is dead. Let me explain . . .
In the past, there was a time when welfare did not exist. There was no alimony and no welfare state. In that kind of world, the only way a woman could have a kid was thru a successful man. A woman in that world knew if the guy left the marriage, she was screwed. And keep in mind, that the women of the past had no job prospects. So she had to provide a good home that a man wanted to return to. She had to treat her man like a king. Cook, clean, make his meals etc etc . . .
Today, the financial glue that kept marriage together is gone. If a woman is a successful career woman, she does not need a man. She can provide for her kid by her self. There is always alimony. Which is private welfare. Payments paid to a woman directly cutting out the government middle man. And if she can't get alimony, she can always go on welfare.
Today, men are priced out of the market. A man has to compete with the welfare state. The role of provider is being taken away from him. So the day will come that he will be needed for one thing only. His seed. Government will provide the rest.
[–]Rhybon0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This was mentioned in the Misandry Bubble, which is located on the sidebar, and I found merit in the Futurist's prediction as to how this would unravel. Based on how I understood his article...
In short, you're correct. An increasing welfare state will price more and more beta males out of the market. After wall, why should a woman settle down with a man she will grow to despise if her and her children's financial needs are provided for by the government? However, this is ultimately an unsustainable approach.
Governments are funded by taxpayers, the vast majority of which are men--the very beta men that who will no longer be able to find and provide directly for a family of their own. Without the need to provide for their now non-existent wife and children, many men will lose the incentive to acquire wealth beyond what is required to sustain themselves. Production and GDP will subsequently decrease, leading to a fall in the government's tax revenue. Eventually the welfare state will reach a point where they can no longer afford to maintain the entitlements it provides to its citizenry--specifically single mothers that exploit welfare programs in order to facilitate the raising of an alpha male's child.
At this point, the government will need to take drastic action to reach equilibrium, such as by slashing benefit quantity and quality to the point where mothers will no longer be able to solely rely on it to raise their bastards, or by increasing taxes to the point where it further disincentives males from producing while simultaneously encouraging them to expatriate to other nations to avoid supporting a system that does nothing for them.
Which is why I assume it is called the Misandry Bubble.
[–]General_Fear0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Beatin to the punch again.
Misandry Bubble.
And here I thought I had an original idea.
[–]Alex_is_not_on_fire3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The solution is obvious.
No it isn't. You can't just assert that a claim is obviously true and hope everyone falls for it. While the blogger does explain the lead up to the problem somewhat well, mandatory birth control is only one of several solutions, including more paternity testing (a far less restrictive option, too).
Alpha and beta have very useful meanings in finance. “Beta” is the return you get from eg the fact that stocks generally go up. Alpha is the return you get from buying the stocks that go up more, and selling the ones that go down. This model has broad applications to how people should think about success and risk (stay tuned for future posts on this topic).
I lost respect for this blogger when I read this, because this is at best terribly worded. Alpha is the return in excess of what is expected for that security, while beta is a measure of the systematic risk of a security - theoretically, a higher beta means more risk and hence a higher expected return as compensation. Specifically, if we are to use the CAPM model, then the return of an asset is r_a - r_f = alpha + beta (r_m - r_f) + epsilon where epsilon is a noise term that captures idiosyncratic risk and r_m is the market return. Under CAPM, alpha should be 0, so if you have positive alpha, that means you're beating the market given the amount of risk you're taking on.
If anyone wants to know more, just reply and I can give further details and / or provide links to other resources that also explain.
[–]Hughtub4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Totally agree with the solution: make those who consume more tax-funded resources have lower reproductive rates, through sterilization or childlessness as a prerequisite for welfare benefits. Nobody shall use kids as a tool for extortion of money from taxpayers.
[–]1bradyo20 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I also agree, but can you imagine trying to suggest that in Government? It'll never happen in a million years.
[–]Hughtub0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nobody likes welfare, and nobody likes people who bring kids into a poor existence. I'd say all supporters of fiscal conservativism, eugenics and contraceptives would support it. It's common sense, if you use the state to steal to pay for yourself, then you are asked to not create more "public charges". Furthermore, charity could join in and pay each woman to not have kids. I'm thinking something as little as $25,000 one time payment.
[–]Gstreetshit0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
make those who consume more tax-funded resources have lower reproductive rates, through sterilization or childlessness as a prerequisite for welfare benefits.
How about just don't let anyone vote that is on assistance?
[–]Hughtub0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Because nobody's vote matters in the first place. It's lottery odds as it is. Someone having 5 kids on welfare and not voting is far more of a problem than if they have 0 kids on welfare and can vote.
[–]Gstreetshit1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Voting does matter
Do you think the people that contribute to society would vote themselves all kinds of entitlements?
That's why the Dems are so damn popular. Single moms and poor minorities think they deserve free shit by virtue of being who they are.
Actual productive members of society understand that the world doesn't give you free shit. You have to work for stuff. Unless of course the government steals from others to give to you.
[–]tsotha 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This is all very true, but the reality is women have the political power right now, and women like the situation the way it is.
[–]1bradyo23 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Women never like the situation the way it is.
[–]chakravanti930 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women will never admit they like the situation the way it is.
The closest thing you'll hear is "fuck me harder"
[–]Time_To_Be_Honest1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
He had good points, but overall, the article is full of mistakes and leading rhetoric.
The solution he suggests attempts to add existing rules to control a poor system. My preference is to remove the system. The current way in which the welfare system functions is not compatible with a productive society in which each citizen is responsible for themselves.
[–]AnotherLostCause1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The solution is simple but politically unacceptable. No man should be forced to pay for another mans child, be it through child support or taxes. Paternity fraud needs to be a crime with real penalties. Money stolen through paternity fraud should be no recourse when it comes to repayment. Women are responsible for children out of wedlock, men get custody of their children in a divorce. Simple. Proven effective.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]General_Fear6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rhybon0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]General_Fear0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Alex_is_not_on_fire3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hughtub4 points5 points6 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]1bradyo20 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Hughtub0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Gstreetshit0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hughtub0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Gstreetshit1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tsotha 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]1bradyo23 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]chakravanti930 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Time_To_Be_Honest1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AnotherLostCause1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link