In a healthy conservative civilisation, men are taught to be hard working and enterprising. They are taught to be just, frugal and financially responsible. Women are taught to be feminine, nurturing and coy, so that they can look for a man who will provide for them and their future children. These where the values of the old days.
With this arrangement, a civilisation could flourish. All the worlds cultures have some ceremony for marriage. The Japanese, Korean, pre colonial Peruvian, Indian cultures all had distinct ceremonies for the occasion. The amount of resources spent on these occasions was considerable, from this we can deduce that the diverse marriage ceremonies where of a large importance to the respective cultures. The most common marriage ceremony nowadays is the Christian marriage ceremony. The groom and bride will exchange vows and promise themselves to each other at the altar "until death do us part". But why death?
The purpose of marriage is to create an environment ideal for the rearing of children. Where the man labours away producing enough to care for himself, his wife and offspring. Should either perish, the other is free to find another partner if they wish with the purpose of continuing to raise more offspring.
From an evolutionary perspective this makes a lot of sense. All parties are balanced by the arrangement and the group gains as a whole. The male gains a wife who will provide him with offspring. These will in turn, care for him at an old age. The female gains a male provider, as all work in the past was labour intensive, she would not require the heavier duties of the provider and would take on the task of rearing children as well as maintaining the man and his habitat. The offspring would gain a provider and a carer. Necessary for the long period required in humans to reach independence. The society at large, however, would gain members, this is the most vital part. With a decreasing population, a tribe, group or nation would perish.
For all the reasons highlighted above, marriage was a very important part of culture. Without it, a man would not be incentive to provide, a female would not be incentivised to procreate and the group would die out as its culture would make it evolutionarily unfit.
The principle of divorce would cast shame on those who separated as it is detrimental to the individuals and society at large. Usually it was reserved for the most dysfunctional of marriages and openly scorned. Whilst this may appear as backward, the evolutionary mechanics of marriage apply to us today as they did back in the days of the hunter gatherers.
Then along comes feminism.
Under feminism, the institution of marriage has been attacked and destroyed. That is not to say that the diverse ceremonies have ceased all together, but that the principles of marriage have been made redundant. It is interesting to note that even the most ideological of feminist still wishes for marriage and a grand ceremony.
Successive waves of feminist-driven legislation, have expanded the terms of dissolution of marriage, stacking the benefits for women at the expense of men's. Each nation has developed its own divorce laws. To some extent or other, they almost entirely disadvantage men. Here is a rough chronology of the divorce laws most common to all western nations.
- The first assault was the divorce itself when it became available to the common people. Under this, either party had the right to terminate or annul the marriage under the grounds that the other party had violated the marriage by either adultery, being barren (unable to procreate) or extreme cruelty. This required proof. Prior to this, some culture only allowed men to divorce, others only allowed the rich by a prohibitively expensive system.
- The second assault to marriage came later in the form of a non fault divorce. Either party had was allowed to terminate the marriage. At this point the law did not disadvantaged men entirely, as these could remarry and had access to their offspring, although these usually remained with the mother.
- The third assault was alimony. In the past, women could claim money for their support from the ex husband as they where unable to self support. The arguments used to justify this is that women where unable to undertake the labour intensive jobs that men could, as such she remained the husbands responsibility. This, however, disadvantages men. Should a no fault divorce occur and its executed by the wife, the husband is forced pay for a decision he may not have partaken in. Further more as time went on, these alimony payments started becoming overwhelmingly large and far in excess of what the woman requires for maintenance.
- The fourth assault was depriving men of access to his offspring. This is more of a psychological assault on the man than an economic assault. Many vindictive women utilise children as a weapon against their ex husbands. An array of forums exist showing the adverse effects these have on men.
That is to say, feminism believes men and women to be equal, salve for their respective reproductive systems. When women are given equality under the law, and these fail to achieve as much as men, laws are passed to give the females a leg up thus "equalising" the genders.
- A male engineer will earn the same per hour as a female engineer on average.
- A male nurse will earn the same per hour as a female nurse on average.
Marriage is the foundation of organized human society. It's not that women want to go for betas, but rather they don't have a shot at alphas and even if they did the alpha would just replace her if she displeases him.
Instead they settle for a beta who promises to take care of her and in return the beta secures a woman and the chance for kids. This keeps the man working like a happy little drone and the woman safe and comfortable until death do them part. Everybody wins...
...until you give women a real financial incentive for divorce and no consequences to extort divorced men for all the benefits of being married without any of the commitment. At this point you have to ask yourself: is the happy little man-bee working like a good drone? Nope: he's depressed and suicidal, meaning you've just lost the foundation of human society. Obviously one cog isn't going to bring down the system, but when this becomes an epidemic the very foundations begin to tremble. Now you could make the argument that women are now also entering the workfoce which is great, but women have higher maintenance and lower productivity than men especially in traditionally masculine fields. This is fucking fact.
tl;dr - (modern) feminism will destroy your country
AnonThis mindset is becoming common in the west. Movements like MGTOW (not to be confused with pick up artists or men's rights movement) are warning younger men about the dangers of marriage. This trend will become the norm as time transpires but what does this mean for our civilisation?
Currently, marriage is on a rapid decline amongst western nations. It is estimated to be 50% down. Marriage is necessary for rearing children, although single mothers are all too common, these fail to bring up well adjusted offspring's. The burden of being single parent leads many women to look for a partner, for economic reasons. A more pervasive problem is depopulation by sub replacement fertility. The rate of replacement for humans is about 2.1 children per woman. Two children replace the mother and father and the .1 takes into account accidental deaths. This rate allows the population to remain in equilibrium. Bellow that rate we get population decline. A depopulating nation, such as Japan or Korea, will have more retirees than workers. The burden of sustaining the nation falls on less shoulders as the burden increases. This further accelerates depopulation, as tax and work burden have a direct impact on human reproduction.
When the burden becomes too high, the people revolt and the government is faced with either slashing burden by cancelling all pensions and aids to the old or rapidly increasing the tax base to ease the burden. Increasing the tax base rapidly requires a vast influx of immigrants. These immigrants tend to come from nations with lower levels of income than that of the host nation. They will be incentivised by money and jobs not by culture and ideology. Either option will have a profound effect on the nation. In the first instance, cutting off the pensioners, will shift the burden from state to family. In some instances where there is no family, pensioners could face inability to pay bills during winter, inability to purchase food, house repossession, inability to pay for medication or hospitalisation. The other option is similarly catastrophic, albeit not for the politicians. Rapid influx immigration cannot cope with the integration of the new workers. The immigrants will be unable and unwilling to adjust to the host culture and sometimes they will even challenge the host culture creating tension. Neither option deals with the origin of the problem, sub replacement fertility. The later option creates a situation in which the native population is dwindling and the immigrant population is growing, thus replacing the native population. Sir John Glubb said the following:
"In the age of the first outburst and the subsequent Age of Conquests, the race is normally ethnically more or less homogeneous. This state of affairs facilitates a feeling of solidarity and comradeship. But in the ages of Commerce and Affluence, every type of foreigner floods into the great city, the streets of which are reputedly paved with gold. As, in most cases, this great city, i also the capital of the empire, the cosmopolitan crowd at the seat of empire exercises a political influence greatly in excess of its numbers.
Second or third generation foreign immigrants may appear outwardly to be entirely assimilated, but they often constitute a weakness in two directions. First, their basic human nature often differs from that of the original imperial stock. If the earlier imperial race was stubborn and slow moving, the immigrants may come from more emotional races, thereby introducing cracks and schisms into national policies, even if all were equally loyal.
Second, whilst the nation is still affluent, all the diverse races may appear equally loyal. But in an acute emergency, the immigrants will often be less willing to sacrifice their lives and property than will be the original descendants of the founder race.
Third, the immigrants are liable to form communities of their own, protecting primarily their own interests, and only in the second degree that of the nation as a whole.
Fourth, many foreign immigrants will probably belong to races originally conquered by and absorbed into the empire. While enjoying its High noon of prosperity, all these people are proud and glad to be imperial citizens. But when in decline sets in, it is extraordinary how the memory of ancient wars, perhaps centuries before, is suddenly revived, and local and provincial movements appear demanding secession or independence."
Sir John Glubb, The Fate Of Empires.Thus mass influx immigration could act as the final nail in the coffin for a depopulating nation without ever solving the source of the problem.