Complaining Is Not Enough.

Welcome to my blog. Its purpose is to explore various topics regarding sex, marriage and family — an area with many problems today, as has been amply explored by the “red pill community.” They have done an excellent job of analysis and description. But, little has been said about solutions, and this persistent lack has been troubling me, so I will take it up. I tried doing a little bit via YouTube, the preferred medium these days it seems, but I am not suited to it. So, I will join with Dalrock, Rollo Tomassi and others in print. Like Dalrock, I am happily married, for seventeen years, and have a son. (Yes, it really is “happily,” perhaps because my wife is Japanese, and her English even now is bad enough that she is isolated from Western media and the society of Western women.) Perhaps I would like to have my son, when he is older, to have some kind of woman available besides wasted harlots.
In general, I am a Traditionalist. This is different than today’s TradCons, which Dalrock (among many) have rightly eviscerated. But one thing you can say about Traditional solutions is that they have actually worked, in real life, for a long period of time, and produced good results. You could invent some kind of new solution, but Utopian dreams sometimes don’t work out. I am not a Christian, although I find that they are my natural allies, so I am Christian-friendly. Ezra Pound once did a broad review of spiritual traditions, including many in the East. He eventually decided to become a Christian (specifically, an Anglican), not because he was not aware of the many failings of the Anglican Church in his day, but because he realized that, if he wanted to gain the advantages that come from cooperation with like-minded people, he would have to join some kind of existing community.
I say often that “you have to tell women what to do.” They seem to be incapable of organizing their actions without external leadership. This leadership may come in the form of individual vision, or it may come in the form of social norms, in-group behavior, and the artificially-created “social norms” and “in-group behavior” manufactured by the Cultural Marxists in music, television and movies. Women have a choice of which leadership they choose. But, they seem to lack the masculine capability of analysis and description, awareness of longer-term cause and effect, and also based on this, invention of definite solutions, independent of existing norms. Without someone else to do these things, who they can follow, they are rudderless. Some women are quite intelligent, but this ability is usually channeled entirely toward the Rationalization Hamster, and also lies, manipulation, and deceit. (This is basically the Rationalization Hamster applied to others.) But along with this, women are open to suggestion. If some men start telling women what to do, and it seems to them an attractive proposition, some women will follow.
And so, although you can lament the present condition of women in the U.S. and the West today, unless you tell them what to do, they will not change. It is not enough to say “I don’t like this and I don’t like that.” Eliminating options and identifying problems are important steps toward figuring out What To Do, but do not create a solution in themselves. Along with this, men have to clarify what they want. Today, we lament the fact that most women today are unfit to be wives and mothers, and are frankly dangerous and destructive in those roles. And yet, we seem to like having a large supply of sluts on ready call, so we have been perhaps a little hesitant to say: don’t be sluts. Obviously, we are going to have to make some decisions here. Are you ready for a world in which women are sexually unavailable until after your wedding day?
Unfortunately, by focusing on analysis and description of present conditions, men are, in a way, telling women what to do. Men say that “all women are like that.” Women hear this, and, following what they are being told by men, as is their nature, behave in the manner that such men say they behave. While it is true that women certainly have the potential to be “like that,” and today that potential is reality, it is also true that, in the past, they were not like that. Just as there is “women’s nature,” there is also “men’s nature.” For example, men have the potential for domination and plunder, that we see in every gang or group of bandits, and which anthropologists have recorded in primitive human societies around the world. And yet, most men today are not like that. The difference is part of what we call: civilization.
Thus, I want to focus on concrete, specific solutions. For example, there is near-universal agreement that today’s laws regarding divorce, sexual assault, domestic violence and other interactions between men and women are grossly anti-male and dysfunctional today. But, you rarely hear anyone say what, then, the laws should be. If you were to change it, what would you do? In the past (before 1970), for example, divorce required either mutual consent and terms acceptable to both parties, or, for a unilateral divorce, abridgement of certain conditions, notably adultery or serious domestic violence, with evidence that would hold up in jury trial. In another example from history, divorce among the ancient Romans would result in the man keeping the children. This served as a double preventative: most women would avoid divorce if it meant being separated from her children; and also, a man looking for a younger, sexier wife would probably be handicapped by having custody of his children. This would naturally require someone to handle childcare; and what better (or cheaper) person than the children’s natural mother? At the same time, a younger, sexier women would probably not be very interested in caring for another woman’s offspring.
Besides not telling women what to do, men today are bizarrely, pathologically politically inactive. Men need to join together and get things done to change the laws, just as men have always done to produce any change. Look around you: who is going to do it, if not men? At the very least, men should support existing men’s rights organizations. It is true that they have been woefully ineffective. But, more money would probably help fix that. Any man who is unwilling to give $25 to an existing MRA organization deserves everything he gets. This is evidence of extreme learned helplessness. Think of it like doing political pushups. If you can’t do even one pushup, you are in bad shape my friend. Get over your learned helplessness. Give another $25 to the YouTube Redpill personality of your choice. Divorce law is State law, so eventually there will have to be an MRA organization for each state, which lobbies and informs State legislators: the Ohio Society for Men’s Rights. If all concerned men were giving $100 a year in total to the cause, there would be enough money around that other men would have the funding to establish such organizations. Unfortunately, most men cannot risk too much opprobrium, as it jeopardizes their livelihoods. Thus, we need specialists, whose livelihood is itself based on objecting to the status quo, and who can serve as professional lightning rods.
Men are the builders of civilization, not only in steel and concrete, but also in laws and principles. Women nurture the creations of the men of their choice. So: start building.

All Or Nothing

While we like to talk about the abject sluttery of many young women today, and also those that aren’t really “that kind of girl” but end up going pretty far down that road during the process of “dating,” I think that there has also been a tendency for many young women, and men, to pull back and reconsider. We see the “middle of the distribution” hollowing out, replaced by a barbell distribution — too much, or too little.

For example, the “never been kissed” and “never been asked on a date” theme also seems strong among Millennials and Gen Z. These girls are not celibates in theory, only in practice.

For example, we find, in “College Virgins are a Silent Almost-Majority”:

These days, Nicole is thinking a lot about sex. Not the sex she’s having but the sex she isn’t. The sex she feels like she probably should have had already. The sex that got away. This past summer, sitting at her kitchen table, still in the clothes she’d worn that day to her internship, she got the call she’d been expecting, and sort of dreading, for a while now. “I have something to tell you,” her best friend from home exclaimed over the line. “I had sex!”

Nicole brimmed with questions: “How was it? How big was his penis? How many times did you do it?” She was thrilled for her friend but also unsettled. The two of them had grown up together in Orlando, sharing so many of the same life experiences that their childhoods seemed to meld into one. Then, a few months back, her friend had met a guy she liked, had started dating him, had fallen in love — all milestones that Nicole, now a senior at NYU, still awaited. While her friend had once been proof to her that you could be a 21-year-old virgin and still be cool, now Nicole felt left behind. “I get off the phone and I feel like I’ve lost a friend. I was like, ‘The club is dwindling.’ ”

They must be very principled.

But they both have also subscribed to the notion that their first time should be special — not necessarily with a boyfriend or someone who loves them but at least with someone they care about on some level, someone who will consider their pleasure at least as much as his own.

This, apparently, is how a semi-attractive senior at New York University, in the center of Sodom-on-the-Hudson, becomes an accidental celibate. The article says that 20% of all college students are virgins on graduation, and around 40% of all students are virgins.

Nicole’s friend and roomate Rachel, also 21, is not so picky. Rachel is definitely on the “college boyfriend” track. She just wants to get her V-card punched so she can start partying.

Rachel says she doesn’t have a problem with hookup culture; she and her friends expect random hookups to be the entrée into something more serious, even though they also expect that most hookups won’t end that way. (“It’s a game now, like you have to be the person who cares less. If you start hooking up with a guy and don’t care if he likes you, then you start dating.”) But she also feels caught in a bind: All throughout high school, she held out, stopping sexual encounters just short of intercourse, with the idea that sex in college would be better, more mature and evolved. .

Unlike Nicole, who longs for a boyfriend, Rachel wishes she were able to participate in hookup culture. “I feel like once you’ve had sex the first time, the wall breaks and it’s acceptable to have sex with more random people,” she says. “I wish I could explore all of that, but I feel like the first time has to be a certain way. If I could get that out of the way, then if I had sex another time and it was bad, I wouldn’t be like, ‘That was horrible, bad on me, wrong move.’ I would be okay. But if that was the first time, I would be like, My life sucks.”

This really is a low hurdle. You figure she could stumble over it drunk. Especially at New York University. Nevertheless: nothing.

Not that I am criticising Nicole. I have been saying that we should adopt the old principle of marrying before having sex. Normally, this means marrying young, and having a lot of sex. At age 21, a lot of married “good girls” were getting pounded four nights a week.

Christopher Ingraham on Twitter: "Final datapoint: the share of young men  reporting no female sex partners since they turned 18 -- a rough a proxy  for virginity -- more than tripled since

Recently, we have seen the deterioration of “dating,” as it existed (briefly, and transiently) in the 1920-1970 period. As “dating” disintegrates, it is replaced by “hookups” or … nothing. A lot of attention has been placed on “hookups,” but for a lot of people, they have nothing. This is largely by choice — women, and men also, could participate in hookups if they wanted to, but they don’t want to.

Demographics of inceldom - Incel Wiki
Over Half of Today's Teenagers Are Virgins - Pacific Standard
Percent of college students that are virgins, by major (pic) : pics

Wellesley is, of course, an all-women college.

Here’s another:

Now, I know that there are a lot of girls who have “never had a boyfriend” because they are party sluts, or because they have been in side-chick rotation.

But, setting those aside, there are a fair number of women who just haven’t had anything at all. Admittedly, many are Fugly, or, maybe “invisible” 5-6s. Still…

Then there is a small group of self-described “femcels,” who seem to think that, because they are getting almost no attention, they must be horribly ugly. Actually, they are 5/6/7s, nothing special but above average. (When 40% are obese or overweight, average not-fat girls end up above average, by default.)

I think this is somewhat hopeful, because it shows that a large number of young people today are not really lost in hedonism. If you could make them a deal: “get married young, to the best guys (because the smart ones want young debt-free virgins without tattoos), skip college, career, debt, and a decade of self-destructive ‘dating,’ have children and a family, and stay at home,” a lot of young women would take it.

Cane Caldo on the “Purity Movement”

The now-dormant Cane Caldo recalls the “Purity Movement” among many Christians. It seems to have been very effective at keeping highly eligible young men and women from marrying each other.

In general, women are the ones delaying marriage, but they’re getting an awful lot of help from their fathers. From the secular view, this primarily takes the form of daddy really pushing college[1] and telling his daughters that you never know if a man is going to stick around or not; they must be able to fend for themselves. Secondly, these days even fathers are telling their daughters to “play the field” before the settle down. “Settle down”…what an ugly way to frame it.

More traditionally-minded Christians practice this same marriage aversion, but add to it the nonsense that their daughters are spiritual princesses. A decade or so ago the keeping-up-with-the-churchy-Jones’ Christian fathers started dating and marrying them. That is…so weird and wrong.

For the moment I’ll ignore the extreme connotations, but, why in the world teach casual, bloodless, dating? That’s crazy, and unfair to both her and her date. They both have sexual energies burning holes in their pockets, and Dad’s modeling for them to bury those talents in the ground when he ought to be encouraging them to invest them. The only explanation is that the sort of Dad who would date his daughter doesn’t actually see sex as the gift and responsibility that it is. …

That gift and responsibility was given to the actual owner of the vagina; not Dad. It belongs to her until she marries; at which point she trades it fair-and-square for a dick.[2] What he should be doing is encouraging and directing her to make the trade with someone worthwhile; both physically and spiritually. Extended, platonic dating during her prime years is not the way to do that.

At the same time these fathers are acting out strange perversions of the modern courtship model, they are disparaging all the young men in their churches. They don’t have a degree. They don’t have a good enough job. They don’t have “godly enough” parents. They don’t have “a heart for Jesus”. It’s all bullshit. While Christian women are taught that Jesus is their personal boyfriend, Christian men are taught that they are the guardians of Jesus’ personal girlfriends; to let one of them be touched by a mortal is anathema. I was a 6’4″ 225lbs two-sport athlete; at church every day but Friday and Saturday; president of the youth council and the youth choir; son of a minister; personally led people to the Lord; had preached a sermon…and I still wasn’t good enough.

The situation is this: We’ve got women who are allowed to walk around in disrobed states, but discouraged from showing specific interest. Men who aren’t allowed to look (because women are half-naked), but are somehow supposed to differentiate and pursue their One True Love who ignores them. The fathers won’t allow their daughters to engage anyone who isn’t the equivalent of an established 35-year old, but in an age-appropriate body. And everybody is convinced that sex is the greatest thing ever and also a naughty thing–all at the same time. These things (among others) exacerbate, and even encourage, the problem of women delaying marriage.

Divorce in the Nineteenth Century

When we think about divorce, we usually have the idea of Before and After no-fault divorce, which began around 1969. This led to a huge rise in divorce.

This is the “crude divorce rate,” which is a simple ratio between the number of marriages and divorces in a given year. It is about 50%. But, it is close to the “longitudinal divorce rate,” which is the number of marriages at a given time (today, let’s say) that will fail eventually.

We usually have fond feelings for the 1950s, as a time when marriage was strong and family values prevailed. Nevertheless, the divorce rate then was about 25%, and unmarried teen pregnancy (the result of the mass embrace of “dating”) was a major problem.

Here is how it looks in the longer term:

The Marriage Rate was pretty stable throughout, until a dropoff beginning around 1990. This was mostly a matter of delaying marriage, since even then, around 92% of all White men and women got married eventually. The decline in divorce since 1990 has largely been a function of fewer marriages, leaving the crude divorce rate unchanged around 50%.

But, we see a long rise in divorce from 1870 to a plateau in the 1950s and 1960s. Here are some detailed statistics on divorce in the 1860-1940 period.

Here we see, for example, that in the 1870s, there were about 9.0 marriages per 1000 people; and about 0.3 divorces, for a “crude divorce rate” of 3.33%. By 1900, the “First Sexual Revolution” was already beginning, and divorces had become more common. But even then, in the 1900-1910 decade, there were about 10 marriages per 1000 people; and 0.8 divorces, for a crude divorce rate of 8%.

In other words, a healthy Christian society that practices Courtship, and has fairly strict restrictions on divorce, might have a divorce rate around 5%. Which is a lot lower than 50%, or 25%.

Among other things, this would tend to make even “successful” marriages more placid, since the threat or possibility of divorce is far more remote. Men and women would have to get along.

In short, it is a proposition that men could accept. They would have a pretty good chance, at least, of not getting blown up in divorce court. They would keep their children. They may end up sleeping in separate bedrooms from their wives; but, so what. In those days, women were wives, or prostitutes. Prostitutes, at least, did not pose a threat to the family. A man does not get divorced for a prostitute.

Then as now, women were the primary instigators of divorce. Although divorce was rarer, it was, nevertheless, possible. The typical legal structure was that a divorce required either mutual consent, or provable evidence of adultery or cruelty of some substantial degree.

The primary reasons for divorce were adultery, cruelty and abandonment. But, in those days, these accusations had to be proved. There had to be “fault.” Abandonment was probably the practical solution to a lot of irreconcilable marriages. Either the man or the woman just upped and left, leaving the legal status to be resolved at some later date. But, remember that only about 5% of marriages ended up in one of these categories.

The First Sexual Revolution

The “sexual revolution” beginning in the 1960s was actually considered, at the time, the “Second Sexual Revolution.” This is to distinguish from the “First Sexual Revolution,” which began in the 1890s and encompassed the 1920s. This was the adoption of “dating,” (basically, premarital sex) instead of Courtship. It also had a corresponding contraceptive technology, which was the cheap, mass-produced latex condom, which become common in the 1920s. It had its own music, Jazz, instead of Rock.

Here, from 1935, is a little better quality film, also of Josephine Baker, expressing the changes happening around that time.

It coincided with a movement of single women from their father’s house on the farm to single working life in the cities; and also, First Wave Feminism, expressed by the Nineteenth Amendment giving women the right to vote. This was first introduced in 1878, and passed in 1919.

Before women became single working girls, there was not much point in having women vote. Women were either part of their father’s household, or their husbands, and their fathers and husbands voted for their whole household, presumably including the views of the wife.

Sexual Revolutions | Frontier to Heartland: Four Centuries ...

Despite this, many people continued to engage in Courtship, just as many people continued to engage in monogamous Dating after 1970.

The themes of stories like “Big Blonde,” by Dorothy Parker (1929), would be familiar to Red Pill types today — girls who, instead of marrying young and starting a family, instead party their way through their 20s.

Hazel Morse is a big blonde. Like the other big blondes in her company, her life is an unremarkable stream of parties and men. Accepting unquestioningly that popularity is important, she strives to endear herself to many men. Hazel builds her external identity around an image—that of the good sport. At first it is easy, but gradually it becomes a matter of practice, for her to be cheerful and bubbly, carefree and gay. She begins to tire of the game and decides to marry, believing that this will enable her to discard the facade she had so carefully constructed. She soon learns, however, that the Hazel she presented at parties is the Hazel her husband wants her to be. When she ceases to be that Hazel, her husband grows disenchanted and leaves. Alone and without financial support, she falls into relationships with a variety of men, each expecting the jolly, compliant Hazel in exchange for their patronage.

Hazel cannot escape the consequences of the life she has chosen, nor can she escape recognizing the mistakes upon which those consequences are built. Her understanding of her circumstances is at first subverted by her own confusion: “Her days were a blurred and flickering sequence, an imperfect film, dealing with the actions of strangers. . . . She never pondered if she might be better occupied doing something else.” She falls deeper into the trap of posturings and pretensions, but certain realities nevertheless grow harder to deny; she wearies of always being accommodating and cheerful and begins to dwell on the things she must say and do to maintain her appeal. She hurries to banish these worries with alcohol. After a while, even the alcohol cannot blur the face of truth; she begins “to feel toward alcohol a little puzzled distrust, as toward an old friend who has refused a simple favor.” Hazel turns to suicide. When she is unsuccessful at permanently blotting out her painful existence, and can no longer retreat into a blissful alcoholic stupor, she realizes that truth is immutable and is compelled to face the dismal future wrought by her own hands.

In the story, her husband leaves her, but today she would leave him.

But, this period was stifled by the Great Depression and World War II, which drove people toward more risk-adverse behaviors.

This “first sexual revolution” was, in most ways, more significant than that of the 1960s, which merely picked up the same themes after people had recovered from the hardships of WWII. One point of this is, dysfunction — it is more-or-less the same dysfunction — has been with us a long time. We have to reach back before 1900 to find stable, productive systems.


You could break down young women’s options into: Married/Unmarried, Working/Stay At Home, Children/No Children. Let’s see how they look.

Married/Working/No Children = DINK. (“Double Income No Kids”) Lots of income and free time. But, the path to a family is unclear. Having become accustomed to two incomes and no children, are you ready to transition to one income and children? Can you? This DINK period might be a good time to pay down debts.

Married/Working/Children = Working Mother. I don’t recommend it.

Married/Stay At Home/Children = Stay At Home Mom: The best option, for children, for mothers, and men usually like it too.

Married/Stay At Home/No Children = Woman of Leisure: It’s nice being a Trophy Wife. But, Women of Leisure typically get bored, and then they cheat on their husbands while they are away at work.

Unmarried/Working/No Children = Corporate Workerbee: Fine until you want to have children. Tends to become “married to the corporation.”

Unmarried/Stay At Home/No Children = Single Woman of Leisure: The traditional state of women while living at their Father’s house before marriage.

Unmarried/Stay At Home/Children = Welfare Queen: Married to the government.

Unmarried/Working/Children = Single Mom: I don’t recommend it.

The Eternal Side-Chick

This YT video from “Better Bachelor” illustrates some basic Red Pill concepts (mentioned in the 2006 paper “Sexual Utopia in Power“), in simple language of the sort that a 14 year old girl can follow.

Basically, women are naturally attracted to the Top 20% of men. This is normal. But, the Top 20% of men (or, what remainder there is after some of them marry) are only available if they do not commit to any one woman. Some Top 20% men do commit, in the form of marriage or LTR, and so they are no longer available. So, women naturally select those Top 20% of men who do not commit.

As we have seen, the idea that 80% of the women can marry 20% of the men (or really, the Top 5% of her princess fantasies) is a persistent error that women, in generation after generation, seem to have no ability to perceive.

These non-committal men do not marry, and do not form LTRs (“boyfriend/girlfriend” exclusive monogamous relationships of some permanence). Thus, the women who are attached to them do not get marriage or LTRs. They are a step lower: basically, a Friend With Benefits. Perhaps, one of several. Or, even if they are the only one, the man does not form an emotional attachment to this woman, probably as a matter of principle. She is disposable and replaceable.

Women end up in an eternal cycle of being a temporary side-chick. Maybe very temporary. They never want this; but it keeps happening. She gets “ghosted.” She is continually frustrated at getting dumped by the guy who has several other women in rotation to replace her. But none of these women will ever get him; that is why he is available in the first place.

This is what it looks like:

This is where it goes:

Unfortunately, a woman on this cycle does not get better and better over time; in time, she is able to attract lower and lower value men, even as a side chick. Also, she typically destroys any potential she had to actually be a good wife, mother, or even girlfriend. Although these women often find their Captain Save A Ho, or “settle,” the results are usually horrible. Men should not marry these women, if they know what is good for them. Total wreckage.

The way out of this cycle is “boundaries.” One common method is to insist on a period of time (three months, eight dates) before having sex. This usually tires out all the guys who just want a booty call. But, then you might become a “girlfriend.” Whoop de doo. Traditionally, the “boundary” was marriage.

Guys: I know how stupid it is to suggest to women, who are basically worn-out hoebags after too many times around the Side-Chick carousel, to insist on eight platonic dates when, during the decade when she was at her youngest and hottest, she gave it up in the bathroom of a dance club to someone she met twenty minutes earlier. Basically, you should avoid those women. But, some women will learn from others’ mistakes, and take a more productive path from the start; and, we need to give these women something to go on.

Women: The other side of this — better think about this, women — is that, it makes sense for any guy to be the Guy Who Doesn’t Commit. Forget about marriage. You don’t want to play Captain Save A Ho to some burned-out slag heap who spent 15 years in side-chick rotation. Forget any girl (over the age of 25) who “settles” for you. It probably won’t go well. Just get some of these Side Chicks for yourself. Avoid One-Itis. Spinning Plates. If you can’t do that, or don’t want to, just forget about it. Do something else. Go your own way.

It would be better if you just look for a husband to begin with, get married young (18-20), and have children. This worked for hundreds, even thousands of years. Whether you spend your ten most fertile years on the Side-Chick Carousel, or whether it is one long, dry Season of Singleness, or even if you find the man you will eventually marry, but don’t get married, but instead spend years “dating,” how is that better? It isn’t.

It’s Easy To Get Married (If You Try)

Amazingly, about 92% of all White women in the U.S. have eventually married. If you consider all the land whales, the blue-hair nosering feminazi nutjobs, the lesbians, the sluts with arm-sleeve tattoos, the career girls who waited too long, the handicapped, autistic and other sorry tales, the abject idiots, and all the other things that should be hard disqualifiers, it appears that nearly every woman who wants to get married, and meets the lowest imaginable qualifications, is actually successful. I think that we are now entering a time when perhaps 30% of White women will never marry, which still means that 70% do, but that is so different than what we have had until now that it will be shocking.

Women today complain that it is so hard to find and keep a man. This is, of course, not true. Something that 92% of all women do can’t be that difficult. The difficult thing is for women to marry a Top 10% Man, who still falls a good deal short of the Top 1% Man of her princess fantasies.

But, most women don’t want to marry. Yes, they want to marry eventually, and eventually they want to get married. But, not today. They are focused on school, on career, on being a party slut, on “experimenting” or “exploring,” “being a free spirit,” on trying to convert a man who is absolutely not going to marry her, or on marrying a very low-probability man; or, just considering it, if the chance arose. Usually, women have an “epiphany phase” around age 28, when they decide that marriage has become a priority; but they still do not want to marry enough to take the kind of action that has a high probability of leading to marriage in a year or two. Their Ask is still way above the Bid in the marriage marketplace. It is like someone who wants to sell a house for $750,000, when an identical house next door just sold for $275,000. “I really want to sell this house!” they say. “But, I will never, ever settle for less than $750,000.” Riiiight. In every neighborhood, there are houses that have been listed on the market for 5+ years, while other houses in the same neighborhood change hands every day of the week. It is obvious to all that these people do not actually want to sell their house.

For girls and young women: you may see your older sisters repeating these patterns. They don’t want to get married, right away. They want to enjoy their options. But, no matter what they say today, nearly all of those girls will want to get married eventually. They will want it so bad that they will actually do it, even though, by that time, when she is older and has way too much mileage and baggage, a sensible man probably should leave her be.

Obviously, nearly all women eventually Hit the Bid in the marriage marketplace, because they do actually get married. I would guess that, once a woman is actively seeking marriage, and is actively ready to accept what she can get, that it doesn’t take very long to be successful; and that almost all women eventually do this. In most cases, I don’t think it takes more than about 4 years from the time the woman actually wants to get married, in real life, to get to the actual wedding day.

Unfortunately today, most women today make terrible wives. Men should not marry these women. Increasingly, they won’t. But, that is another story.

I say this mostly for girls and younger women. You are going to see your older sisters get chewed up in the meatgrinder of “dating,” “relationship drama” and the Cock Carousel. It might seem like there is a long, perilous path to marriage, with much trauma and wreckage. Soon, it is going to seem a lot longer and more perilous, because the failure rate is going to go way, way up. But, that is not true. If you want to get married at 16, you can probably be married at 18, and you can probably get a pretty decent man because the Marriage Marketplace Value of a debt-free eighteen-year-old virgin without tattoos, who is healthy and slim and has other basic virtues, is pretty high. Even in a time when — let’s say — 50% of women eventually fail to get married, which will seem like a total catastrophe, the 18-year-old debt-free virgin will have no problem. I wouldn’t say that many men, who are ready for marriage, are actively seeking such women today, but they do know the value of one if she crosses his path. But, you have to actually want it, today, now. It will only be harder when you are 34.

Love the Solution

Love the Solution. Don’t Hate the Problem.

The problem with Hating the Problem is that you spend all your time focusing on the problem, instead of focusing on the solution. We focus on the way things are, rather than the way they could be. We say “women are like this and that,” and not “women should be like this and that,” which is possible, because women were like this and that in the past. We say “the laws are this and that,” and not “the laws should be this and that.” The analytical phase of the Red Pill (2006-2018) has been useful, in identifying the problem. This is a necessary step in establishing a Solution that is likely to work and produce beneficial outcomes. But, I think this process has largely been completed. It is interesting to me that there is wide consensus on what the solution is: basically, it is the way things were done in 1900. The core elements are: daughters live at home and remain virgins until marriage; marriage is organized with parental consent and activity; women get married around 16-25 and ideally around 18-20; after getting married, women live with their new husbands. This is not only the way things were done in the Christian world for centuries until 1900, it was also the way things were done for centuries in the Islamic world, India, China and Japan — basically, all the successful civilizations that have ever existed. (I am excluding civilizations in their Decadent Age, such as ours today or Rome during its decline.)

One of the interesting things is that this solution has been embraced by people who are not particularly religious and not particularly conservative. I would include, for example, Stephen Molyneux or RooshV, or myself. For one thing, there is, today, nothing very “conservative” about this: it would involve a radical change in the way we do things.

I myself have had some problem in expressing this solution, except in an outline form as above. But, that is not enough move people. It is What; but not Why. (Fortunately, How is easy here.)

We can update this pattern somewhat for today. A woman can pursue a working career, but mostly after the children are out of the house. A woman can even — arguably — leave a marriage after the children are grown, and become a libertine if she wishes. This is not the best outcome, but it is perhaps not such a bad one, in moderation. Of course, it might not be so much fun after the age of 50. But, you wouldn’t have any children of single mothers result. Also, a woman who wanted to do her own thing would have to leave all the assets of the marriage with the husband; or, at the very least, come to a mutual agreement with the husband, that doesn’t involve the coercion of the State.

I will have more to say on The Solution. But, for now — I am speaking especially to those girls and younger women who have a strong sense that doing things the way everyone else is doing them leads into a swamp of troubles — I would recommend reading Fascinating Womanhood for a good guide of what to do, and why.

Great Wives of Empire

Women need role models that they can emulate. What would a great wife look like today?

Ragnar: “It’s fun to crush these helpless feminist sluts, manginas and soyboys.”

Helga: “They have collapsed into decadence and degeneration. The future is ours.”

Ragnar: “We tried to warn them that Cultural Marxist stuff was a scam.”

Helga: “The fools only got what they deserved.”

Ragnar: “Upon their ashes we will build civilization anew.”

Helga: “Let’s drink a toast to that, and then go make some babies.”

Among YouTubers today, the woman who reminds me most of Helga is:

Rebecca is now married and a new stay-at-home mother.

George Washington was hailed as the finest dancer in Virginia. Follow a  modern girl who experience… | Martha washington, Trip the light fantastic, George  washington

George: “Well, what do you think, Martha?”

Martha: “Independence. Definitely.”

George: “It would mean going to war with the most powerful military in the world.”

Martha: “Just grab your nuts and do it, George. I’m with you on this. Our children, and our children’s children are going to live in freedom.”

The YouTuber who reminds me most of my imaginary Martha Washington is:

She is now married. I hope some children are on the way soon.

Henry: “The British Empire is a wonderful thing, don’t you think?”

Alice: “The natural outcome of diligence, discipline, Liberty, Christian morals and chastity.”

Henry: “Quite right you are, my dear.”

Alice: “Our sons and daughters will rule a quarter of the world’s population. We must raise them with every effort.”

The YouTuber that most resembles the quiet, domestic discipline and Christian morals of the English-speaking peoples at their peak is:

She is now a stay-at-home mother of five.

These are the kind of women men need today. The rest of you bitches are just a booty call.

Stay-at-home mother of six. Once her children had grown up, she got a law degree at age 54, and wrote 26 books. She did “have it all,” but in the correct order.