~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
erwgv3g34
[–]Pink_acetaminophen 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Reminds me of this girl who was complaining about money problems and decided that she should just have a baby with a random guy to get tax breaks and get MORE benefits than she already gets for no reason. I don't mean she was planning on lowering just her standards in guy selection, she actually thought it was worth it to give birth to a child and raise it without any hope of a father. Literally thinking about that makes me nauseas.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This is the modern woman and how future generations will operate, unless we put a stop to it. It's just too easy and too rewarding for a woman to get alpha genes and financial support from the state. It's a female paradise and beta male hell.
[–]HarleyWalker 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
unless we put a stop to it
I think it's coming to a stop naturally. Society can't function with so many parasites.
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Part 2:
The third example I'll give is of changes to the marriage laws, specifically the radical relaxation of divorce statutes during the twentieth century.
Divorce, in the nineteenth century, was unbelievably hard to get. It took years, was expensive, and required proving that your spouse had abandonned you for an extended period with no financial support; was (if male) not merely discreetly dallying but flagrantly carrying on; or was not just belting you one now and again when you got mouthy, but routinely pummeling you within an inch of your life. After you got divorced, you were a pariah in all but the largest cities. If you were a desperately wronged woman you might change your name, taking your maiden name as your first name and continuing to use your husband's last name to indicate that you expected to continue living as if you were married (i.e. chastely) and expect to have some limited intercourse with your neighbours, though of course you would not be invited to events held in a church, or evening affairs. Financially secure women generally (I am not making this up) moved to Europe; Edith Wharton, who moved to Paris when she got divorced, wrote moving stories about the way divorced women were shunned at home. Men, meanwhile (who were usually the respondants) could expect to see more than half their assets and income settled on their spouse and children.
There were, critics observed, a number of unhappy marriages in which people stuck together. Young people, who shouldn't have gotten married; older people, whose spouses were not physically abusive nor absent, nor flagrantly adulterous, but whose spouse was, for reasons of financial irresponsibility, mental viciousness, or some other major flaw, destroying their life. Why not make divorce easier to get? Rather than requiring people to show that there was an unforgiveable, physically visible, cause that the marriage should be dissolved, why not let people who wanted to get divorced agree to do so?
Because if you make divorce easier, said the critics, you will get much more of it, and divorce is bad for society.
That's ridiculous! said the reformers. (Can we sing it all together now?) People stay married because marriage is a bedrock institution of our society, not because of some law! The only people who get divorced will be people who have terrible problems! A few percentage points at most!
Oops. When the law changed, the institution changed. The marginal divorce made the next one easier. Again, the magnitude of the change swamped the dire predictions of the anti-reformist wing; no one could have imagined, in their wildest dreams, a day when half of all marriages ended in divorce.
There were actually two big changes; the first, when divorce laws were amended in most states to make it easier to get a divorce; and the second, when "no fault" divorce allowed one spouse to unilaterally end the marriage. The second change produced another huge surge in the divorce rate, and a nice decline in the incomes of divorced women; it seems advocates had failed to anticipate that removing the leverage of the financially weaker party to hold out for a good settlement would result in men keeping more of their earnings to themselves.
What's more, easy divorce didn't only change the divorce rate; it made drastic changes to the institution of marriage itself. David Brooks makes an argument I find convincing: that the proliferation of the kind of extravagent weddings that used to only be the province of high society (rented venue, extravagent flowers and food, hundreds of guests, a band with dancing, dresses that cost the same as a good used car) is because the event itself doesn't mean nearly as much as it used to, so we have to turn it into a three-ring circus to feel like we're really doing something.
A couple in 1940 (and even more so in 1910) could go to a minister's parlor, or a justice of the peace, and in five minutes totally change their lives. Unless you are a member of certain highly religious subcultures, this is simply no longer true. That is, of course, partly because of the sexual revolution and the emancipation of women; but it is also because you aren't really making a lifetime committment; you're making a lifetime committment unless you find something better to do. There is no way, psychologically, to make the latter as big an event as the former, and when you lost that committment, you lose, on the margin, some willingness to make the marriage work. Again, this doesn't mean I think divorce law should be toughened up; only that changes in law that affect marriage affect the cultural institution, not just the legal practice.
[–]JimmyTheIntern 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link
Since you're flaking on offering solutions...
Shaming single mothers is a noble endeavor. Ask her about her husband. Casually refer to her children as bastards. Marvel at how she can afford to raise a family on a single income without taking welfare. Anything that will make her feel appropriately shitty about her poor life choices and their consequences.
Do it for the children.
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Yep. Progressives just don't understand... making life hard for bastards today is what stops bastards from existing tomorrow. Same with criminals.
A while back, I linked to a story about a guy in my neighborhood who’s been arrested over 60 times for breaking into cars. A couple hundred years ago, this guy would have been killed for this sort of vandalism after he got caught the first time. Now, we feed him and shelter him for a while and then we let him back out to do this again. Pinker defines the new practice as a decline in violence – we don’t kill the guy anymore! Someone from a couple hundred years ago would be appalled that we let the guy continue destroying other peoples’ property without consequence. In the mind of those long dead, “violence” has in fact increased. Instead of a decline in violence, this practice seems to me like a decline in justice – nothing more or less.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
You do realize that virtually every category of crime is at an all time low and dropping, despite the sea of bastards we're swimming in
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Really? I find that hard to believe. Is that relative to something recent like the 1970s, or relative to historical time periods like the 1700s?
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Over the last few decades every form of serious/violent crime has cratered. This is verifiable statistically and anecdotally if you lived in New York in the 80's as I did.
This has happened as the economy has collapsed, family structure has collapsed, America's general moral standing has collapsed, etc.
Perhaps the man who sees everything through the lens of redpill might attribute to our beta-ized society - Less high T alphas going around killing people and such. Personally, I credit porn and video games. For all the flak they get they really tend to keep people out of trouble.
[–]JimmyTheIntern 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Ignoring that the U.S. had the largest prison population and highest incarceration rate in the world and then effectively saying "must be all the porn and video games keeping people from criminal behavior" makes you sound like a complete fucking idiot. The reason for the drop in crime rate is not "porn and video games", it's a police state that doesn't hesistate to lock men up for victimless crimes and a reduction in the number of unwanted births among single mothers. So credit Roe v. Wade. Access to abortion meant single women weren't forced to carry their bastards to term. Fewer unwanted bastards born means less crime.
Now we just have to do something about women actually wanting to have bastards. My solution is to shame single mothers to such an extent that no sane woman would ever choose to be one.
Please, El_Knavo, help me shame these bitches. It's the best way to fight crime.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think there is a tendency around these parts to oversimplify the solution to everything as turning back the clock and shaming women. Shaming men for absolutely everything hasn't really made the world a better place.
The police state is a factor, sure, but I don't believe it's a significant reducer of violent crime because there's no real evidence that it's reduced nonviolent crime, i.e. drugs. Violent criminals are usually the least responsive to incentives.
Do you really think there's no possibility that a given group of guys staying in playing video games when they'd have had nothing to do 30 years ago but go out and get plastered has no effect on crime rates?
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I have a feeling this solution is most ardently proposed by people who grew up with two parents.
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I am the child of divorced parents. If I had been born in a world where divorced women were horribly stigmatized and divorce was nigh-impossible, there is a pretty good chance I could have grown up as part of an actual family.
Or maybe they'd have split up anyway and you'd have just been unfairly shamed and disadvantaged through no fault of your own
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Multiply the chance that they split up in the hypothetical world by the utility unto me of that branch, and add the probability that they remain together multiplied by the utility of that outcome, and we have the expected utility of living in such a world. Compare with the expected utility of living in this world to see if it's a good deal o not.
It seems to me that the probability that my mother would have chosen something as drastic as divorce, if it were still something drastic, is negligible. As far as I can tell, she was unhaaaaapy because my father, however much of a good man he was, was a beta guy. So she made his life hell (I can still remember the fights) until he provided the excuse she needed by having a little affair; the kind of indulgence which would have rightly been ignored in a saner time. She promptly gave in to her hypergamy and left, marrying her former "friend" who was sexier unto her.
So maybe you'd have benefited, but a lot of people wouldn't have. Divorce being stigmatized and nigh impossible is going to lead a significant number of women staying with guys who beat the shit out of them and that sort of thing, especially given you want this stigma to be one-sided.
I think modern divorce is generally unfair to men, but I've no desire to see it made unfair for women.
[–]no_game_player 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
I wanted to say tl;dr, but it was just interesting enough I skimmed it. I don't see your point though.
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
The point is that you can't give women incentives to be sluts and somehow not end up with more sluts.
[–]jakethesnake76 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
you can't give women incentives to be sluts and somehow not end up with more sluts.
(Serve to Rule) is a great Axiom that every Totalitarian Government uses. If you serve some one till they come to depend on you then You Own Them.
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
I disagree with the implication. There's nothing in the government unified and coherent enough to possibly be planning this as some sort of grand strategy. It's just generation after generation of politicians following their short-term incentives to get re-elected.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
[–]jakethesnake76 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
North Koreans serve one Man , a Sonofabitch, whereas South Korea serve themselves, why can'r North Koreans do the same ? Answer the same reason Nazi's had to serve Hitler and USSR had to serve Stalin.A Herd always winds up with a Sonofabitch as a leader and GOD.
[–]acoti1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Interesting. That's what I've been concluding is the intention of Obama. Not to turn this into a political discussion but it's nice to hear there's a term for what I was thinking.
[–]no_game_player 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Okay, that makes sense and follows from what's posted. Not sure how it was the obvious conclusion without you saying it though. And the title seems tangential. Moderately interesting read though; still a good post. Good background for anyone unfamiliar with the social changes mentioned.
[–]MartialWay 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Seemed pretty obvious to me.
[–]no_game_player 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, fuck me for thinking OP should actually write his point somewhere, eh?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This all has much more to do with the collapse of the economy, and the disappearance of middle-class jobs that are sufficient to support families.
All those dads in 1950's public housing could walk into the auto plant after high school and get jobs that could buy homes and support families, eventually.
Even if all the underclasses started living like Quakers, it wouldn't change the fact that there isn't enough consumer demand in this nation of paupers nowadays to create a healthy employment base for hundreds of millions.
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
What are you talking about? Throughout history, even the poorest peasants have managed to live within the institution of marriage and the concept of a family. It's got nothing to do with the lack of jobs and everything to do with the lack of stigma associated with and incentives to avoid having children out of wedlock and divorce.
Irrelevant. Children for most of history have been an economic asset, and having them was an investment. With the structure of modern society they are incredibly expensive and more or less a lifelong economic millstone.
It's silly to argue people are responding en masse to changing sexual incentives but not to economic ones.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Pink_acetaminophen 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]HarleyWalker 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JimmyTheIntern 7 points8 points9 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]JimmyTheIntern 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]no_game_player 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 4 points5 points6 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]jakethesnake76 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jakethesnake76 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]acoti1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]no_game_player 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]MartialWay 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]no_game_player 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]erwgv3g34[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link