A reader named Gusto emailed me the following query:
If I’m unfortunate enough to father a girl, what should I do to make sure she grows up with the right attitude?
A great question, and thanks for asking it. There are quite a few embedded issues lurking below the surface, so I will ask your indulgence in unpacking them.
The first embedded question in your interrogatory is this: “should we men have children in the first place?” My answer to that is the lawyer-like “it depends”. Broadly speaking, there are three camps in the dude-iverse when it comes to men and marriage and family. The first camp is made up of men who take seriously the warnings, sounded eloquently and effectively by elder brothers such as Baskerville, that counsel against men marrying and and having children. These men comprise the bulk of the marriage strike crowd.
The second camp is comprised of men either (a) aware of the warnings and took the risk anyway, or (b) was unaware of the warnings and assumed the risk by default. The end outcome of the behaviors of men in Camps 2a and 2b is the same, regardless of intent: get married, have kids, roll the dice. Maybe those fellows will get lucky, maybe not. I myself am a member of Camp 2a, although I was squarely in Camp 2b territory in my first marriage.
The third camp, much much smaller than either of the two previous, is comprised of those fellows that have the resources to pursue woman-not-included reproduction and raise these children outside of a pair-bond construct. These men do not maintain a romantic/sexual relationship with a woman but pursue a family anyway, either by adoption or by surrogacy, the latter of which is becoming more and more cost-effective in these days of globalization. The critical step to consider when implementing the surrogacy option is that a man should never allow a woman to act as the primary caregiver for his children unless she is paid for the effort or is a female relative. If he does, he risks placing himself on the same footing as those fellows who married to have children. Just as men who act the father figure to unrelated children run the substantial risk of becoming the target of a chilimony suit, I wouldn’t put it past a family court judge to reward a former girlfriend’s squatter’s rights with a two-decade long entitlement to my income stream. In short, a man who mixes the business of looking after his children with pleasure may find himself hit up for chilimony on her way out the door–with his children in tow. When “primary caregiver” is the standard, blood relationship matters little, and the State (post Welfare Reform) is merely looking for the closest, deepest pockets to pick, appropriate precautions must be taken, and this caregiver relationship, if used, must be kept strictly economic.
At any rate, however one accomplishes it, having a child is, in its essence, a vote of hope for the future, a public statement that one thinks that there is at least a future worth bringing the next generation into. One may also view child-bearing and -rearing as a form of demographic warfare, in that we know that the political inclinations of a child is best predicted by the political slant of his parents. Moreover, added to this are the facts that the fembots and their ilk fail to achieve replacement fertility, and that they must import acolytes from abroad and convert them in the education camps they run with taxpayer dollars. This low birthrate presents a critical vulnerability that we MRAs/FRAs/MGTOWers can exploit as part of a multi-pronged strategy to replace the present hegemony. We should aim to out-breed our adversaries, from the bottom up, over decades, in hundreds of thousands, even millions of small battles known as male-headed families. In such a way we may reclaim territory lost when the battle of the sexes brought “personal is political” divorces to our marriages and our families. To hazard a Rumsfeldian expression, this is the “long war” that won’t be over in a mater of days or months but in decades and/or generations.
The second embedded question, hinted at by the suggestion that having a girl-child would be a disappointment, is really two: should we men select the sex of our children, and should we men become like the women who express “gender disappointment” (GD) in conceiving boys? (Click here for a transcript of a stunning–in the sense that rarely is such feminine obtuseness so conspicuously on display–Elle article on the subject.) These are questions that a man can only answer for himself, given the thorny ethical and moral issues involved, although I do hold up the latent anti-male genocidal tendencies of these GD women for a bit of point-and-laugh scorn and ridicule and disgust. Thus, I suggest that, as critical as it is to raise good strong young men who are fully aware of the FemMatrix that surrounds them, if the twin misandrist threats of FemMarxism and Victorian traditionalism are to be defeated, it will require not only properly trained young men but properly trained young women to partner with them. Which leads me to the third question, the one you originally intended.
So what should we emphasize when raising those young girls, who are literally half of the future of the revolution that we men look to foment, and are essential to keeping the wheels of revolution turning? For starters, we should be raising girls the same way that we raise boys–to have integrity, to build up treasures in Heaven and not in this world, to be industrious and not lazy, to exercise self-control, to be responsible for their own actions, to prize the monogamous commitment of marriage, to hate divorce and, above all, to believe in a higher power that will hold them accountable for what they do in this life. From there, the instructions for daughters diverge slightly, tailored to the differential nature of the feminine. They are, in no particular order: to be modest in their dress, to be a help-meet worthy of the sacrifice and leadership of the man she’ll meet and marry, to be chaste, to keep her own significant sexual appetites in check, and to not be a stumbling block for the men around her.
As an aside, while we are talking about the raising of good, quality boys and girls, it should go without saying–but it doesn’t, so I will say it–that a man, if he wants the best for his children, should resist mightily the temptation to offer his children as a sacrifice to the modern-day Molech, the public school system. These government-run camps have been completely overrun by the feminists, and are where boys learn to despise the masculine…and where girls learn that feminine self-indulgence and responsibility-shifting are the ultimate values. If the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, and if the fembots and their acolytes are the hands that rock that cradle, then men who wish to spare their children from this fate would do well to refuse to voluntarily submit their children to such brainwashing.
But it isn’t quite sufficient to train up your children in the way they should go and to avoid making your children victims of weapons of mass instruction. Just as, if not more, important are the characteristics you model for them as a husband, a father, and a citizen of the broader society. Are you the kind of father and role model that you want your son(s) to aspire to be? Do you model the sorts of masculine behaviors that you want your daughter(s) to seek out and to marry? For we are all tested each and every day; how we act, the choices that we make as men and as fathers, propagate themselves into our offspring.
As men, I think it important to not only effect first-order change, that is, a shift in attitudes of the men and women in our immediate vicinity, but we should also foment second- and third-order change as well. We can do this primarily through the institution that the present hegemony has fought so hard to destroy: the family. Through the family we provide moral and religious instruction as well as material provision, and it is through the family that we men give the gift that continues to propagate well after we’ve departed the scene. By our actions, by living lives morally and uprightly, we model behavior that will make the lives of our children happier and healthier and wealthier. Our children will absorb this instruction, and as the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, will transmit it to their children, thus initiating the second-, third-, and subsequent-order chains. Through such a focus, multiplied by millions of men in across the country, we men can found the natural aristocracy of virtue and talent, dreamt of by Jefferson so long ago, and through this aristocracy we can re-install the family as the cornerstone of society, thereby prospering our societies, making them stronger, and–by virtue of displacing government–more free.
The Chinese character for crisis (危机) is formed from the stems of two others: “danger” (危险) and “opportunity” (机会). We know the dangers inherent in marrying, we know the dangers in begetting children in the current legal climate. I would not blame a single one of my brothers for deciding that the risk is unwarranted. But in the dangerous act of marrying and having children,of training them, and leading them as we are charged to do–not just boys but girls too–we posture our families to take advantage of the opportunity presented to us to restructure society in such a way as to prosper us all.
