Hey feminists, why are there so many more housewives than househusbands?

If the sexes are equal, then why don’t we see more situations where the wife is bringing home the bacon while the husband stays home with the kids? Why is the opposite much more common?

Why don’t women have to betabuxx? Why is it an option for them to get sex without having to work?

That’s what I would ask BuiQuang — are you an antifeminist? Because a consistent feminist would say there’s nothing wrong with a man staying home and being a househusband while the wife works.

Incels and pedophiles

The two movements are running into the same problem, which is that the system of free love is breaking down. Free love is based on the idea of, “What if the girl consents, tho?” Pedophilic free love is just a subset of that: “What if the LITTLE girl consents, tho?”

#MeToo is invalidating consent across the board, by allowing women to call into question whether they were truly able or willing to consent. And of course, anyone who doubts a rape allegation is a misogynist in the MeToo’ers view.

We have situations where the police are taking seriously allegations that a husband raped his wife, so that men can’t even use the argument, “What if the wife consents, tho” anymore. Already, of course, drunken sex has been categorized as rape, so that we can’t say, “What if the drunk girl consented, tho.”

So now we’re going to try to establish a legal principle based on the idea of, “What if the child consents, tho”? The politics are headed in the opposite direction, of considering everything victimization that used to be categorized as potentially consensual.

The only area in which the feminists have wanted to grant any wiggle room was in letting teen girls have sex with boys their own age. Since provisioning isn’t a factor in that situation, teen girls are mostly choosing sex partners based on looks, game, and other superficial qualities, which means it’s generally going to be Chad rather than the bottom 80% of teen boys who get sex.

But that’s pretty much how feminists want it, because their agenda is to keep girls in school, rather than setting them up with a older guy who’s going to provision for them. The feminists are not going to be cool with letting older men get with 3-year-old girls, because the two might fall in love and he might start provisioning for her, and encourage her to leave school.

The cornerstone of feminism is keeping girls in school so that they don’t end up in a situation where they’re financially dependent on a husband or boyfriend.

Millennials have the prosecutorial mindset

If you’ve been criminally prosecuted before, you know how the typical prosecutorial mindset is. They’re all about punishing people and upholding respect for the law. Judges will sometimes talk more about the need to protect the public (since it’s their ass on the line if you reoffend and people notice the fact that they gave you a light sentence); but prosecutors are focused more on making sure you get your just deserts for what you did.

Prosecutors don’t directly feed any children, or invent any new devices, or anything like that. They just punish the bad people so that the common man doesn’t get the idea that crime pays. Prosecution is intended to keep people from having the audacity to challenge the state’s authority, by letting them know that there will be harsh punishments for violations. The prosecutors don’t necessarily care if they make anyone’s life better by removing the bad man from society; they just want to make sure that the bad man doesn’t get away with anything.

The prosecutor wants the public to view the punishments as just so that he’ll have respect for the law and the state; but of course, what’s “fair” is a matter of opinion, so really he’s just catering to the masses’s sentiments. If the people were to get demoralized, believing the law to be unfair, they might rise up or something. Of course, the people might get demoralized too by believing that the law is too harsh, and want to fight back for that reason; but prosecutors have that Machiavellian mindset that it’s better to be feared than loved, so therefore it’s better to err on the side of being too harsh than not harsh enough.

Modern feminism is influenced by the millennial idea that it doesn’t matter if women are miserable, as long as men aren’t able to feel entitled to women’s bodies. An abstract ideal has been put ahead of practicality and women’s actual well-being (which was supposed to be the point of feminism; feminism was supposed to be a system that worked better than patriarchy).

Feminism supposedly is a system that’s better-suited to our advanced, information-age economy than “archaic” patriarchy, which like negro slavery, is no longer necessary or useful. The difference, though, is that before, negroes were useful for physical labor, while now they’re useful for nothing; while before, women were only useful for sex and raising kids, and now they’re still only useful for that. Yet, feminism has made them useful for even less than what they were useful for during the patriarchal era. They’re not even able to keep their fertility rate above the replacement rate.

Well anyway, here’s James Lucrative’s video about the millennial mentality:

Notice I didn’t have that attitude toward Meshelle

For awhile, after she left, I had that Trumpian attitude of, “She has to go back.” That was one reason I didn’t want to sign off on the divorce. I was going to make it harder for her to remove her immigration conditions, or make it take a longer time, anyway.

But a more powerful motivator was that I simply didn’t want to let go of sexual property that easily. As it turned out, the police worked with her to force me to sign the final decree, under threat of getting prosecuted for rape.

Anyway, my attitude is that it’s usually better to be selfish than vindictive, although there are a few exceptions. If you’re going to be vindictive, you should at least make sure that your cause is worthy.

I hope the tranquility and repose of my retirement won’t be disturbed

Unfortunately, feminists tend to be downright hostile toward all non-Chads. I mostly just want the foids to go away quietly and leave me alone. But, they usually feel the need to silence men who disagree with them (rather than merely ignore them), which would require me to take extra steps to secure my free speech, unless I’m just going to give up. That normally doesn’t happen, though.

holocaust21’s review of Falling Down

falling-down-michael-douglas-28477686-1280-527Black Pilled Review of Falling Down — holocaust21

Overall, I would score holocaust21’s review 4/5; it would’ve been 5/5 but he forgot to tie in the restaurant scene and explain how in our feminist society, men are stuck having to miss breakfast because they don’t have any housewife who’s going to have it ready in the morning for them when they get out of the shower. This causes men to experience fluctuating blood sugar levels (especially after consuming an ice-cold 50-cents Coke, with 39g of sugar, from the Asian convenience store), which potentially affects their emotions and decision-making, including their willingness (or lack thereof) to put up with society’s shit in general.

Probably also, the gang members who shot up the crowd on the sidewalk grew up without fathers, because their moms got impregnated by some Chad rather than being forced into an arranged marriage at a young age. This reminds me of how I once knew a Honduran dude whose parents both died of AIDS, so he ended up joining a gang after he came to the United States. He always lamented the absence of his parents, explaining how it gives a man a great advantage to have his dad in his life, because if he needs anything, his dad will help him. Just about every societal problem in this film, we can tie to feminism in one way or another.

Feminists say, “You just can’t handle a strong, independent woman”

Why do they even say that? What is this, some kind of challenge to test your manhood, like when someone says, “I bet you can’t handle eating this whole bag of habanero peppers” or “I triple dog dare you to ride your skateboard down that banister”?

Okay, I get the concept of having to do something scary or unpleasant to prove you have some courage and fortitude. But normally, you only have to put up with the resulting pain for a short period. Your mouth might be on fire from those peppers for a half hour, or you might get bruised from falling off the banister, but that’s not a big deal in the scheme of things. In contrast, why would you want to commit your whole life, and your kids’ childhood, to dealing with some chick who is all caught up in her arrogance and selfishness, just so you can prove that you weren’t too chicken to try to handle dealing with that?

Typically, the only kind of girl who would ever become “strong” is an ugly girl, who didn’t have the same privileges as pretty girls. She probably was some kind of tomboy, because it’s only by doing manly stuff and enduring the hard knocks of a masculine life that one becomes strong. Problem is, if you’re dealing with a masculine chick, the only way you’re going to be able to get along with her is if you become effeminate, so that you can complement her masculinity.

(By “strong” I mean, able to truly fulfill a masculine role. I’m not talking about the ball-busting techniques that a lot of pretty girls deploy to test what a man is made of, so they can separate the strong men from the weak men. Beautiful girls are able to get away with acting like that because they have plenty of men to choose from, and lots of orbiters hanging around to protect them from any guy who gets pissed off at their provocative behavior.)

In men, being “strong and independent” is a virtue because it makes him someone his wife can lean on. It keeps him from being needy and clingy, which girls find repulsive. If the wife is strong and independent, though, then it means she has less need of a man who has those same qualities. If she doesn’t need him, then she’s likely to dump him, or cheat on him (which is similar to dumping him, since it puts the relationship at risk), at some point.

Love is about having mutual attraction and a lack of other options. An “independent woman” presumably has other options, because otherwise how would she be independent? It implies she hasn’t really pair-bonded with her hubby that much, which could very well be because she’s had sex with a lot of other guys and now has lost her ability to pair-bond. Maybe she also gets her emotional support needs met by a whole circle of orbiters, so that she’s independent from any particular given man. That means she’s not really giving herself totally to her husband; he’s having to share her with these other dudes, who serve not only as backups but as vultures, waiting for their opportunity to swoop in and even trying to create those opportunities when they can.

The default behavior of young foids is to fall in love with a man and devote herself to him, trying to please him so he’ll take care of her. When foids have had a series of failed relationships, and gotten old enough that they’re no longer as beautiful as they once were, then they don’t really have a choice but to become strong and independent. They have less to offer, so it’s harder for them to get a quality man. They can’t really emotionally commit to a relationship the way they once did; they’ve lost their ability to trust men, plus their standards of what they expect in a man have been elevated by being with all these Chads.

What does it even mean to “handle” a strong and independent woman? Be able to tolerate her? Be willing to subordinate oneself to serving in a supportive role to further her ambitions, rather than pursuing one’s own ambitions and expecting her to play a supporting role? I guess the two could theoretically focus on pursuing their own, separate ambitions, but that sounds like a pretty good recipe for drifting apart. Normally what brings a couple together is their shared responsibility of raising their kids; but who is going to be able to focus on that, if they’re both pursuing ambitions outside the home? (If the wife were letting the husband be the breadwinner, while she stayed home, then she wouldn’t be all that “independent,” at least not financially.)

I just don’t see the point of taking this particular dare. What’s in it for me, or any other man?

In times past, we never considered it to make us any less manly if we insisted on having a feminine, submissive wife. If your wife is devoted to you, and feels no desire to take on a masculine role by having a career and so on, then it could be that you’re so successful in fulfilling your role as a husband that she doesn’t have to try to compensate for your failures in those areas by doing those jobs herself. She can just concentrate on fulfilling her womanly roles.

If you say, “Nah, I don’t want a woman who’s strong and independent; I want a woman who depends on me for certain things, and on whom I can depend for other things” that could just mean that you believe in a division of labor between the sexes. There’s nothing wrong with that. Economists will tell you that specialization is efficient. We do what we do best and exchange for the rest.

Nor is there anything wrong with a woman being “weak”. Nature has made the female physically weak because she doesn’t need strength; strength is costly to develop and maintain (for example, men have to eat more food because muscles consume more calories), and therefore it’s more efficient to reserve that ability for the man, if he can adequately fulfill the role of providing for and protecting his family. Emotional strength is the same way; it’s costly to develop it, because it requires going through tough and challenging experiences which there’s really no need for a female to have to deal with. Women’s window of peak fertility occurs early in life (around ages 15-30), which is the period when men would normally be developing a lot of their strength of character. Women need to be having babies during that time rather than going out into the world and doing the kind of stuff that men do to become “strong and independent,” if we’re going to get the fertility rate above the replacement rate.

A wife’s being “strong and independent” are not really selling points, the way other characteristics, like “beautiful,” “loyal,” “faithful,” etc. might be. What is the benefit of proving one is able to handle a strong and independent wife? Is it that one so desperate (due to one’s own weaknesses as a man, or due to the dysfunctional relations between the sexes that exist in modern society) that one can’t get any other kind of woman, and therefore has to prove one’s ability to handle a woman like that, because such women are all that are available? Or is one going to get respect from one’s peers, for choosing a woman like that and being able to put up with her?

Men don’t normally get respect for having strong and independent wives; if anything, they get viewed as losers when they’re not able to have as impressive a career or whatnot, compared to her. Other men, especially if they’re more accomplished than her husband, start trying to have sex with her, because they think, “She doesn’t need this guy she’s with, since she’s strong and independent; therefore, I have an opportunity to get with her.”

Any man who thinks, “I can rely on her marital promise to only have sex with me, even though she could get away with it without suffering any consequences, since she’s strong and independent and I have no power over her” doesn’t know female nature too well. Male power, not female integrity, is what keeps female misbehavior in check. Women have the ability to rationalize doing whatever their feelings tell them they should do, regardless of what non-binding commitments they may have made to others. Their emotionality keeps them from being objective and seeing the situation from their husband’s perspective.

Even before women started calling themselves “strong and independent,” they still put men to certain tests, to see if they had any balls. So in that sense, men have always been faced with the challenge of whether they could “handle” a certain woman or pass her tests. But being “strong and independent” implies he won’t be able to pass those tests, because she’s already set her mind to not submitting, even to a high-value man. So he’s setting himself up for failure by committing to her.

For her to be strong and independent, she had to have invested in becoming that way. If she then decides to submit and be a stay-at-home mom, then she pretty much wasted her investment. What was that point of it; just so she could take over in case he failed as a man, or so that she could leave if he turned out to be abusive? If she’s ready to take over, though, and he knows this, then it’s quite possible he’s going to feel more comfortable relinquishing his manly responsibilities and falling back on her, and she will end up enabling his weakness, at the cost of her own happiness (although he’ll pay a price for that as well). Or, if there’s always the threat that she’s going to leave because she doesn’t need him, then there’s less reason for either of them to invest in the relationship the way they otherwise might have. The result is a higher likelihood that the marriage will break down.

A balance of power works in international relations, where the countries are separated by borders. It doesn’t work in a marriage, where the two spouses live in the same home and are intimate with each other and raise kids together. In that kind of situation, an imbalance of power produces greater stability.

Now, one might argue, “If the husband has all the power, then maybe he’s going to lord it over his wife.” This is true, but the alternative is that she’s going to be able to lord it over him, by holding the kids hostage through her ability to break up the family and deny him the opportunity to raise those kids together with her. If she’s in the position of power, she’ll have a greater tendency to abuse it than he would, because she’ll feel entitled to do so, since he’s not pulling his weight and taking charge in the way that she instinctively feels he should.

It’s in female nature to have an attitude of, “If men don’t control my bad behavior, then they deserve whatever I do to them.” There’s no getting away from the fact that women view submissive men as deserving of contempt and punishment. But of course, a submissive man is the only kind who can handle a “strong and independent woman,” because in a relationship, one party or the other has to submit, or else they’ll be in constant conflict.

A relationship where the woman takes on a masculine role is just not going to work too well, because the sexual polarity is based on the complementarity of the two, in which the man is dominant and the woman is submissive. This is the way that is most natural, comfortable, satisfying, etc. for the two sexes. I actually think, though, that it’s easier for men to take on an effeminate role than it is for women to take on a masculine role. It’s just easier in general to let oneself lapse into weakness, than to develop and exercise strength; and it’s easier to be a follower than a leader. Women who decide that they want to play the manly role in the family end up eventually just wanting to get some rest.

Men assume that because they can be flexible enough to tolerate being a stay-at-home dad, that women can tolerate a reversal of roles too, and be a breadwinner and head of household. It’s not true. It drives women a lot crazier than men when they’re called upon to do what doesn’t come naturally to them.