These days, I think many men assume — usually correctly — that any woman who is divorced, for any claimed reason, blew up her own family for no good reason, and probably destroyed the only man who dared to care for her.
In other words, ladies — if you get divorced, for any claimed reason, you will not get married again.
This assumption is not always right, but it is probably right more than 80% of the time.
Nevertheless, if you are still dumb enough to consider a divorced woman, or worse, a divorced woman with children, then Talk To Her Ex-Husband First, before you get anywhere near (cohabitation) actually marrying this woman.
That will probably solve the problem.
On the other hand, if she really was not primarily at fault, I bet that her ex-husband would tell you so right to your face: “It was my fault, not hers.”
What is a woman to do? In all places and all times, the answer has always been the same: bear children, raise them, and keep house.
This was true of the Vikings of Norway in the 12th century, and equally true in China in the 15th century.
Realistically, a woman should have at least three children, because if population replacement is at 2.1 children per woman, and we accept that some women will fall short of this due to infertility, unmarried, etc., and some children won’t be viable for some reason (disease in the past; maybe autism or other mental disorders today, including rainbow stuff), all women should aim for at least three children, with some failing that goal.
Once you get to three children, that is a handful.
Even when children are out of the house, and a woman enters her Matron era, most of her attention is usually: 1) setting up marriages between her children; or anybody’s children; 2) taking care of grandchildren, directly, or indirectly by supporting her adult children with children of their own; 3) failing that, being active in the community somehow, typically caring for children, as many unmarried older women like to do today, even going so far as adopting children.
This being the case, women intrinsically know how to get the ball moving, between the ages of 16-32, which is basically: to be a Sex Object.
Unfortunately, men today still have a strong aroma of Feminist brainwashing, apparently wishing to deny women’s basic role as a Sex Object.
A woman can be more than a Sex Object. I am happy with brainy (high IQ) and educated women, since this woman, in her role as Wife and Mother, would be primarily responsible for the children’s education, especially if we homeschool (which I do); and later, particularly in the Matron phase, with broader responsibilities in the community and the nation. Plus, good genes: if you want brainy sons, it is best if you marry a brainy woman.
Nevertheless, we men should accept that a young woman’s primary role is to inspire you to take them home (ideally around Age 18-20) and fuck their brains out — getting married first of course, since we are civilized around here — and that we have to arrange things so that men who do so are rewarded for their commitment, rather than punished.
Some of my relations were “mail order brides.” A working man in California chose a woman from a tiny, grainy black and white photograph in a book. She said goodbye to her family for the last time, got on a ship, and met her new husband. I think many women were not all that happy with their husbands. But, they made good wives anyway.
In parts of Ancient Greece, Ionia, there was a bride market. Men bid for the most beautiful women. The bride price was put in a collection and was used for the leftover women. Men who chose a leftover woman would get a wife and also a cash payment.
The point here is: A man could assume, with reasonable confidence, that a woman could serve as an adequate wife and mother. You could literally pick a girl out of a lineup and … within a reasonable doubt, have confidence that you would benefit from this arrangement. The structures of society, legal or religious, would help maintain the family, and the husband’s authority, and the childrens’ wellbeing.
It seems that you can still do this today, in places like the Philippines. A man literally gets off a plane and finds a woman, who doesn’t even speak his language very well. But, she makes a reasonably good wife and mother. The basic requirements of being a Good Wife and a Good Mother are not very demanding. Any woman can do it. It is basically: Do Something Useful (at a minimum, cooking and keeping house); Don’t Make Problems; Keep Your Damn Mouth Shut; Don’t Get Fat; Have Sex Regularly.
Today, there are still some women in the US who make Good Wives and Good Mothers. But, there is a considerable vetting process involved. I have suggested sticking with the Top 30%. 70% of the women today are for the discard bin. Nobody should marry them. Someone will, of course, and they will suffer for their errors. I’ll also admit certain Ugly Women, who would be in my discard bin, but who have tolerably good character anyway, and who would make appropriate mates for equally Ugly Men. Mostly, this means: obesity.
Probably, out of those 70% of discard-bin women, about 40% would probably be OK, IF they were put in a stringent environment where bad behavior was punished. The Bottom 30% are, let’s say, unfixable. Jim (of Jim’s Blog) has talked about this. But, until we have that stringent environment, whatever it may entail — probably, new laws and the support of a Church — these women cannot be trusted.
Of all of Britain’s monarchs, by their track record — the success of their countries during their reign — we might have to give the highest honors to Queen Victoria, who reigned from 1837 to 1901. This was a time when British Kings really did have a lot of power, although over time this diminished.
During this time, Britain was master of the world. It gained full control of India; expanded throughout Africa; and gained influence in Asia and the Americas. The birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, Britain was the leader in the increasing industrialization of the world; particularly before 1880, after which the United States took a leading role. During the entirety of Victoria’s reign, over sixty years, Britain just got wealthier and more powerful. In military might, domestic wealth and prosperity, a full array of social virtues, and indeed as the primary inventor of the modern industrial world as we know it, Britain was at the top of its game.
How did Victoria do this?
For one thing, she did not engage in any large wars. But, besides that, as the monarch of the richest and most powerful country in Europe, master of the world’s largest empire, in full view on the world’s stage she … acted out the role of the middle-class housewife.
Mostly, she left the job of governing the world to men — an array of very capable men, including her own husband. She was a strong anti-feminist, an overt opponent of the suffragette movement. Imagine this! The Queen of the world’s most powerful country, the country that literally invented modern Parliamentary democracy, thought that women shouldn’t vote. “We women are not made for governing, and if we are good women, must dislike these masculine occupations” she wrote.
Later, she wrote that she “feels so strongly upon this dangerous and unchristian and unnatural cry and movement of ‘woman’s rights’… that she is most anxious that [prime minister] Mr Gladstone and others should take some steps to check this alarming danger and to make whatever use they can of her name… Let woman be what God intended; a helpmate for a man – but with totally different duties and vocations.”
And this:
I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights’, with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection. … It is a subject which makes the Queen so furious she cannot contain herself. God created man and woman different — and let each remain in their own position.
She had nine children and — unlike the typical patterns of Monarchs in Europe at the time, both male and female — was completely faithful to her husband, Prince Albert.
She became Queen at age 19, still unmarried. Following convention of the day, she lived with her Mother.
Alexandrina Victoria, on accession to the throne.
She married the next year, and said this of her husband:
I NEVER, NEVER spent such an evening!!! MY DEAREST DEAREST DEAR Albert … his excessive love & affection gave me feelings of heavenly love & happiness I never could have hoped to have felt before! He clasped me in his arms, & we kissed each other again & again! His beauty, his sweetness & gentleness—really how can I ever be thankful enough to have such a Husband! … to be called by names of tenderness, I have never yet heard used to me before—was bliss beyond belief! Oh! This was the happiest day of my life!
Basically, she left the problems of government to her husband.
The weak-willed youth [Albert] who took no interest in polities and never read a newspaper had grown into a man of unbending determination whose tireless energies were incessantly concentrated upon the laborious business of government and the highest questions of State. He was busy now from morning till night. In the winter, before the dawn, he was to be seen, seated at his writing-table, working by the light of the green reading—lamp which he had brought over with him from Germany, and the construction of which he had much improved by an ingenious device. Victoria was early too, but she was not so early as Albert; and when, in the chill darkness, she took her seat at her own writing-table, placed side by side with his, she invariably found upon it a neat pile of papers arranged for her inspection and her signature. The day, thus begun, continued in unremitting industry. At breakfast, the newspapers—the once hated newspapers—made their appearance, and the Prince, absorbed in their perusal, would answer no questions, or, if an article struck him, would read it aloud. After, that there were ministers and secretaries to interview; there was a vast correspondence to be carried on; there were numerous memoranda to be made. Victoria, treasuring every word, preserving every letter, was all breathless attention and eager obedience. Sometimes Albert would actually ask her advice. He [German] consulted her about his English: “Lese recht aufmerksam, und sage wenn irgend ein Fehler ist,”[“Read this carefully, and tell me if there are any mistakes in it.”] he would say; or, as he handed her a draft for her signature, he would observe, “Ich hab’ Dir hier ein Draft gemacht, lese es mal! Ich dachte es ware recht so.”[“Here is a draft I have made for you. Read it. I should think this would do.”] Thus the diligent, scrupulous, absorbing hours passed by. Fewer and fewer grew the moments of recreation and of exercise. The demands of society were narrowed down to the smallest limits, and even then but grudgingly attended to. It was no longer a mere pleasure, it was a positive necessity, to go to bed as early as possible in order to be up and at work on the morrow betimes.
Albert, Victoria, and their nine children, 1857 (Age 38). Albert looks ten years older here, but actually he was a couple months younger. Albert died in 1861, Age 42. Note that everyone is dressed in clothing then typical of the Upper Middle Class, not royalty.
The important and exacting business of government, which became at last the dominating preoccupation in Albert’s mind, still left unimpaired his old tastes and interests; he remained devoted to art, to science, to philosophy, and a multitude of subsidiary activities showed how his energies increased as the demands upon them grew. For whenever duty called, the Prince was all alertness. With indefatigable perseverance he opened museums, laid the foundation stones of hospitals, made speeches to the Royal Agricultural Society, and attended meetings of the British Association. The National Gallery particularly interested him: he drew up careful regulations for the arrangement of the pictures according to schools; and he attempted—though in vain—to have the whole collection transported to South Kensington. Feodora, now the Princess Hohenlohe, after a visit to England, expressed in a letter to Victoria her admiration of Albert both as a private and a public character. Nor did she rely only on her own opinion. “I must just copy out,” she said, “what Mr. Klumpp wrote to me some little time ago, and which is quite true—’Prince Albert is one of the few Royal personages who can sacrifice to any principle (as soon as it has become evident to them to be good and noble) all those notions (or sentiments) to which others, owing to their narrow-mindedness, or to the prejudices of their rank, are so thoroughly inclined strongly to cling.’ There is something so truly religious in this,” the Princess added, “as well as humane and just, most soothing to my feelings which are so often hurt and disturbed by what I hear and see.”
Victoria, from the depth of her heart, subscribed to all the eulogies of Feodora and Mr. Klumpp. She only found that they were insufficient. As she watched her beloved Albert, after toiling with state documents and public functions, devoting every spare moment of his time to domestic duties, to artistic appreciation, and to intellectual improvements; as she listened to him cracking his jokes at the luncheon table, or playing Mendelssohn on the organ, or pointing out the merits of Sir Edwin Landseer’s pictures; as she followed him round while he gave instructions about the breeding of cattle, or decided that the Gainsboroughs must be hung higher up so that the Winterhalters might be properly seen—she felt perfectly certain that no other wife had ever had such a husband.
Her devotion to husband and family, played out on the world stage, became the model that all of British society imitated. The degeneracy of the 18th century faded; and the Victorian Age remains not only an example of moral discipline and strong family values compared to the twentieth century, but also, to all previous British history.
Diamond Jubilee portrait, 1897. (Age 78)
With wives like these, it is no surprise that British men kicked the whole world’s ass, whether in industry and commerce; science, letters and learning; or warfare.
Among these men were her own husband, who, with Victoria’s support and encouragement, went from being a floppy youth with typical rich-kid vices, to an exemplar of masculine expertise, industry and leadership.
This is how Queen Victoria became, as measured by the success of her country during her rule, one of the greatest national leaders of all time.
In the past two weeks or so, there has been a burst of interest in the divide between Leftist females and — although hardly conservative — a lot Less Leftist males.
In Poland:
Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy) opined:
“Peachy Keenan,” who had a pretty good book recently, recalls her own Libtard Era:
In other words, you have to Tell The Bitches What To Do.
This includes: what to do to be a viable prospective Wife and Mother, at least a good enough risk that someone is willing to take a chance on her.
Although we generally attribute low birth rates in the US to “degeneracy,” birth rates are even lower among those Asian societies that are more “traditional” in character. Also, the divorce laws, and other such factors, are different than in the US, and generally more family-friendly. What’s going on?
The first, and obvious, thing is that the married birth rate in the US is about the same as in Asia. About 40% of children in the US are from unmarried mothers, while in Asia the figure is more like 3%. Multiply the present US birth rate (1.78 tfr) by 60% (married mothers), and you get an Asian-like figure (1.06 tfr). (South Korea recently posted a total fertility rate of 0.78.)
The idea of the stay-at-home Mom is more common in Asia, such as Korea, Japan, Taiwan or Singapore. This is generally thought of as high status. However, there has nevertheless been a creeping feminism. Women go to college, and then get jobs. This itself chews up a lot of time and energy, and also, does not press women toward marriage since they can live alone. We also have the factor that women don’t want to marry men that make less than they do, or even the same amount.
We then have the factor of extreme K-selection tendencies, especially in Asia, but also among typical upper-middle-class families in the US. All of childhood becomes a constant struggle to “achieve” according to some metric, although nobody seems to be getting much of an education in this process, or even developing meaningful hobbies or other interests. This struggle for “achievement” is exhausting for parents and children alike. As these children become parents themselves, they do not want to put their children through this process, nor undertake the parental responsibilities involved either. Probably, they should just give it up, relax, and find something better to do. But, instead, I think that there is a tendency to think that, if a child doesn’t “achieve” according to this process, there isn’t much point in doing the whole thing at all. Who wants to plan on failure in advance?
All this activity for “achievement” takes enormities of time, energy and effort. It is a daunting prospect for one child, and difficult to imagine even for two children, especially if the wife is also working. Three seems like fantasy. But, in the past, even the wealthy adopted more of an R-Selection process, or the more the merrier. Even with all the advantages of wealth, you would get some good kids and some not so good. Look at Pride and Prejudice for example. Mr. Bennett had five daughters, all raised with roughly the same care. Two were excellent, one was rotten, and two were middling. That’s why you had five.
Related to this is the extreme cost of all these things. With a stay-at-home Mom, daycare costs are not an issue. However, that also means that the family must live within a lower income. College costs are daunting for even one child, and more than two seems like total fantasy. In the US, working Moms face daycare costs, and $1000 a month is common. $2000 a month is common in some cities. That consumes a lot of after-tax income for one working Mom, and becomes ridiculous at three. The way out of all this is, of course, staying at home, and homeschooling, since then you have the private school/public school issue.
Retirement is an interesting issue. Old people need care, especially as they get over 75 — and, with better medicine, a lot of people are reaching those ages, rather than dying from some other factor before that time. Traditionally, children were a retirement plan. But today, both children and elderly reject the idea of living with their children in retirement. Money is their retirement plan; and with more children, they may feel there is less money.
This is mostly a good thing, since not many of these teens are married. Note the peak in teen births in the 1950s. The 1950s were about the best time, in terms of moral tone, in living memory, but already there had been a long deterioration from the way things were around 1900.
The difference just since 2008 — from 41.5 to 17.4 — is amazing. Also, this is only to 2018, already six years ago. Probably, we should have a few more teen births, among those women who get married at 18.
Has anything positive been achieved by allowing women to vote? By all indicators, the result has been worse, not better. But, women themselves anticipated this; which is why most women did not support women’s suffrage.
If we look at the 18th and 19th century history of Feminism/suffrage, we find that it was driven by unmarried women over 30. With their hopes of home and family fading, they wanted some place in the world. But, these women were a small minority.
Most all feminism, from the 18th century (Mary Wollstonecraft) to today, assumes that there will be no children to raise. Because, once you have children to raise, women should be doing that, in the home full time.
Our Polly is a sad slut, nor heeds what we have taught her; I wonder any man alive will ever rear a daughter; For when she’s drest with care and cost, all tempting, fine, and gay; As men should serve a cucumber, she flings herself away.
Young women will always “throw themselves away.” Unfortunately, now parents themselves throw their daughters to the wind, mostly by sending them to college. I think young women themselves have come to understand that they are at some considerable risk; and many are careful as a result. But, they still don’t know what to do. How could they? Trial and error? The better women tend to embrace careerism, as simply the only clear alternative. But where does that lead. Young women should stay at home, educate at home if desired, and marry young.
Like him, I conclude that we will need to form a new “Home and Family Tribe,” which will largely take the form of religion. There is no particular need for a new religion here, and, as Jim shows, Christianity actually works quite well. Indeed, Jim argues that Christianity spread in the late Roman world precisely because it served as a Home and Family Tribe in the midst of a breakdown of Roman society, much like our own.
Marriage
The core of the reactionary program is to make marriage legal again. Without marriage, the higher races cannot reproduce successfully, and reproduction is dysgenic.
Leftist marriage, modern marriage, is gay. Marriage has been gay since 1928.
Obviously reactionaries must reintroduce marriage that is suitable for heterogamous organisms, and we will have to introduce it as a matter of faith and morals before we can introduce it as a matter of law.
The left offers your wife cash and prizes for destroying the family assets, destroying you and destroying your children. The lawyer and the marriage counselor will tell her she is oppressed, and she can get a court order that gives her cash and prizes, raises her status, and will result in her marrying a six foot six billionaire athlete with a dong the size of a salami.
Modern marriage is gay. Everyone who gets married gets gay married. If your wedding vows are symmetric and interchangeable, the same of the man as for the woman, your marriage is gay and you are being gay married.
If your wedding has a master of ceremonies or a priest who acts like he, rather than the groom, is the big important man at the wedding, that he is the alpha male, your wedding is gay, and you are being gay married. (And the master of ceremonies is usually gay, and if he is not gay, he thinks that two males pretending to marry each other with the intention of cruising for nine year old boys to transexualize is smart and fashionable.)
The wedding organizer appoints a gay master of ceremonies whose main job is to define the groom as Homer Simpson, to emasculate him in the eyes of the bride. The minister conducts a gay wedding ceremony that treats the bride and groom as equal and interchangeable, even though experience has demonstrated that wives will not tolerate househusbands, and will invariably leave a domesticated man for a wild man who beats her, rapes her, and rapes and beats her husband’s children.
…
I agree that, at a wedding, the Husband should be the master of the show, followed by the bride’s Father — not the Church, or State. If the Church or State is the Chief, then basically the man is signing himself into slavery, enforced by the Church and State. And what woman can respect that?
Also, we should make sure that our best women, from the best families, the high IQ girls, the best looking girls, the girls with the best character, behavior and morals — should reproduce in large numbers.
Cornerstone 