Here is Roosh V on “How to Save Western Civilization.”

—–

I’ve had a front-row seat in the culture war for over a decade, but I haven’t made any big policy declarations like other movements. Men’s rights activists have their “family law reform” platform. The MGTOW group has “legalize prostitution and invent realistic sex bots.” The alt right has “white ethno-state.” The alt lite has “civic nationalism.” When it comes to policy, I’ve been quiet, solely focusing on fostering truth and masculinity. Only now am I ready to make the commitment to a policy platform which nips the essential problem in the bud in a way that other movements do not. We must repeal women’s suffrage, starting with the 19th Amendment in the United States. Once this is accomplished, no other planned or conscious action must be taken to solve nearly all our societal ills.

The origin of our problems

Today’s problems are all branches of a radical leftist root that has been normalized through feminism, social justice, and socialism. Allowing women to vote has made it effortless to elect leftist politicians who hate the family unit, men, and healthy market competition, while simultaneously weakening society by pushing women into work and giving them generous welfare in the form of handouts to single moms and the able-bodied along with make-work jobs for females in bloated government bureaucracies.

Thanks to leftism, we have seen the rise of a techno-matriarchy with an agenda of male disempowerment and persecution that transfers resources and soft power from men to women while solidifying hard power among elite globalists who control it all to uphold their own high-level aims. Individual globalists work together as an oligarchy to enact a divide-and-conquer strategy among races and sexes to fund leftist causes, politicians, and NGOs. The group with the most money to influence “democratic” politics and public opinion implants their useful idiots and political puppets to maintain control.

These puppets, whether on the “right” or “left,” have a true center on the left end of the spectrum for the sheer reason that votes from women must be gained. The manosphere cannon has shown that women have special mental faculties that operate almost exclusively on emotion, submission, and social conflict more than logic, dominance, and merit. Western countries have transformed into a national representation of the female psyche.

Appeasing women leads to civilizational destruction

To appease female voters and their destructive nature of promiscuity and drama, a symptom of which is collectively propelling a book about a woman being brutally dominated by a man (50 Shades Of Grey) to one of the best selling books of all time, society has veered so far to the left that it is crumbling at its base through declining birth rates and collapse of the family unit. Because we have given women suffrage, it has become necessary to gain their votes by promising whatever they want in the moment, including the removal of all gates to the sexual market so they can engage in the great game of “alpha male hunting,” which has led to such unbridled chaos and sterility that we have to import third-world people as these empowered female voters abort nearly 60 million American babies. The demographic crisis the West faces today is primarily due to allowing women to do as they please instead of imposing healthy standards on their behavior and choices. The direct cause of this horror movie is giving women the vote.

I haven’t even touched the surface of the problems we have today that stem from having to appeal to the female vote: lowering of academic standards in universities to allow them to “excel,” promotion of degeneracy in media, invention of apps and technology to allow frictionless casual sex with bad boys, promotion of sex change operations among children, re-defining fat women as “beautiful at any size,” legalization of gay marriage, use of murder (abortion) as birth control, maligning normal masculinity as “toxic masculinity,” and elevation of damaging myths such as “rape culture” and the “wage gap” to foment gender fear and confusion. The culture has degraded because women have been at the forefront of degrading it. Their true nature, once unimpaired by societal limits, embarks on a tragic mission of destruction to recreate reality in a way to make them appear more attractive to high-status men, no matter the consequence.

The problems I mentioned above would take thousands of local and Federal laws to address individually, and it would meet intense opposition from globalists who would fund the sort of antifascist protests and Deep State interference that we have seen thwarting Donald Trump. And even if those thousands of laws are passed, there is no guarantee that a renewed leftward push, thanks to ongoing demographic changes, wouldn’t roll them back. Is there a way to solve the problems while being assured that they couldn’t be repealed over the course of several generations? I’ve thought about this dilemma for years, after scratching the surface with previous thought experiments, and can only come to one conclusion: the problems in society can only be solved, and remain solved beyond one generation, by repealing women’s suffrage.

The ultimate solution

Take away the power of women to vote, and the degradation stops. The paltry population of male feminists, who are likely suffering from low testosterone due to environmental plastics, would offer no barrier in stopping the return to patriarchal normalcy. Women, helpless at enacting political change, would just whine and nag endlessly, and when they tire themselves out, they’d complete their protest by buying dildos or cats. Consider that no Democratic candidate for President since Jimmy Carter would have likely won if women were not allowed to vote. Upon repeal of women’s suffrage, a new party to the right of Republicans would be created as conservative men seek true conservatism and tradition.

Remove a woman’s right to vote and within just one national election, every single leftist party would be crushed. Within two elections, politicians would speak directly to men and their innate interest for patriarchy, economic success, stable families, and an equitable distribution of females among society. More than half of the candidates running for office would already be more conservative than Donald Trump, who is still liberal on social issues like equality and gay marriage.

Within three elections, the entirety of the liberal platform of the past 50 years would be rolled back, and the only living audience a woman can gain for her political opinions is from her feline friends. Within four elections, the global elite would be forced to retrench while sitting on billions of capital with no direct path of influence except sponsoring color revolutions and coups that can be defeated in the name of patriotic national defense. By then, the power of NGOs, media outlets, and day care universities will have declined. Within five elections, cultural standards would have tamed the sexual marketplace, and birth rates would rise once more as both women and men see the incentive in spending their free time building families instead of endlessly trying to secure a sex partner for the fleeting moment.

Repealing women’s suffrage would also diminish other dissident movements whose solutions can only bring temporary success as long as women have the right to vote. Men will automatically push laws that account for men’s rights. They will automatically regulate the sexual marketplace to make it more fair, diminishing MGTOW. They will automatically regulate immigration and replace it with a policy of natalism, diminishing the alt right. And they will automatically have high standards for citizenship, diminishing the alt lite.

Even the concept of masculinity will be built into the crust of society where only men have a political voice and not women. My game guides would no longer be needed, allowing me to buy land and operate a real farm instead of a content farm where most of my life has been spent pushing back the harmful effects that were unleashed after allowing women to vote. There will be no need for counter-cultural movements of men when those in charge of national politics only need to cater to male votes. If women’s suffrage is repealed, the most reviled dissident today would even be able to easily attain political office.

Conclusion

It should be clear to you that women will always use their votes to destroy themselves and their nations, to invite invaders with open legs, to persecute their own men, and to ravage their economies with socialism. Because they don’t operate on logic like men do, you will always have this destructive element within the political ranks of your nation as long as women have the right to vote. Giving them this right was a terrible mistake. I can now claim to have one political dream, and that is to repeal women’s suffrage. I will vote only for politicians who put me closer to realizing this necessary goal. Within my lifetime, I’m certain that at least one country, in an attempt to save itself, will elevate a barbarous and ferocious strongman to fulfill this task, and he will have my full support, because repealing women’s suffrage is the only issue of our day that can single-handedly solve all the others.

A stay-at-home Mom could have a home-based business of some sort. But, having your own business is no easy thing, and not everyone is suited to it, especially on top of all the demands of children and family. Nevertheless, there are two “businesses” that a Stay-at-Home Mom can easily do. They are: daycare services, and homeschooling.

When a woman has small children of daycare age, it is usually not very hard to set up as a small daycare provider. I know one woman who did this — she took care of our own son from time to time. Regulations probably allow a stay-at-home Mom to handle up to six children in her home, including her own children. So, if you have two children, you could provide daycare services for four other children. This could pay $600-$1500 per month, per child; so, four children would be $2400-$6000 per month. This would not be much more work than simply taking care of two children. It might even be less work — when children play with each other, it is often a lot less bother for a Mother.

As the children get older, our Stay-at-Home Mom might become a homeschooler. Then, she could also offer to homeschool other people’s children as well — basically, a small private school. I know of some homeschool Moms who homeschooled twelve of their own children. A student:teacher ratio of 12:1 would be considered very, very plush in any private school today. Again, our Mom could get perhaps $600-$1500 per child per month. With six other children, that is $3600-$9000 per month. Now she is making a possible six-figure income homeschooling other people’s children. She can also allow afterschool services to other working Moms that can’t pick up their children until after 5:30. That would be a big advantage over public and private schools. Regulations on whether a homeschool Mom can also homeschool other children varies from State to State, but it is often possible.

Again, this does not cost our Mom much extra time or effort. Whether you have one child or ten, it tends to absorb a full day of time and energy. Homeschoolers with a lot of children often find that, although they have less time to spend on each child, the children learn a lot more from each other.

Let’s say that you decide that it would be a good idea for mothers to stay at home with their children.

This is a good summary from Lori Alexander:

If that is not enough for you, consider this book by our recent presidential candidate, Elizabeth Warren:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap

It might seem like there are fewer problems when a family has two full-time parents. There is more money. And also, if one person loses their job, there is still another income. But, it doesn’t quite work out that way in practice. What often happens is, a family spends all its money. Now it has a financial disaster when either parent loses their job. In other words, it is now two times more risky.

Plus, there are additional problems. Having two people with a career creates issues when career opportunities appear in different cities, or when you are trying to find a home that is a tolerable distance for two commuting parents. If a wife has a career, and a man loses his job (which often happens to any working people), unfortunately many women would quickly divorce this man, thus breaking up the family. A stay-at-home wife is more likely to keep the family together.

Today, many American families have been having a hard time. It might seem difficult to get by these days, on one income. But, somehow people did it, back when incomes were lower than they are today, even in real terms.

It is easy for a wife to say: “Well, it would be nice if I could stay at home with the kids, but we don’t have enough money because of yadda yadda yadda.” Basically, a stay-at-home Mom is a luxury that only the upper-middle class can afford, and even then, these women often choose to work even when they can afford not to. The basic problem is that a stay-at-home Mom is not prioritized. It is a nice thing that is somewhere way down the list of priorities, a few steps past a two-week vacation in Italy.

But, if you prioritized it — if you were willing to give other things up so that you could have it — I think a lot of families today could afford to live on one income.

For example, we often prioritize a “big house in the suburbs with a yard.” Yes, we would like to live on one income, but our three-bedroom 2,200sf house costs a lot, and even then, we have to live 60 minutes from work, so there are a lot of costs of commuting as well. But, it is worth it because our kids get their own bedrooms.

But, if we were willing to give that up, perhaps we could live in a much smaller and cheaper situation, closer to work. Maybe it is a one-bedroom condo. That is a big step down, but maybe it is worth it, so that we could have a stay-at-home Mom.

There would be a lot of other savings from having Mom stay at home. Daycare and other childcare expenses plummet. Costs of working — transportation, clothing, lunches in restaurants, coffee from Starbucks, etc. — disappear. Then there are the “soft” costs of working, such as dinner from Chinese takeout or a frozen pizza instead of a homecooked meal; and, later, the health consequences of so much processed/restaurant food.

Then there are the big-picture costs of working mothers. Four years of college education. Maybe more vocational training on top of that. Many years of peak fertility and peak attractiveness squandered on climbing the career ladder.

When a woman stays at home, she (and her children) don’t really cost much. A man can pay for a wife and two small children for about $1000/month more than living alone.

You might be able to get by with one car. A smaller home also has a lot fewer costs in terms of maintenance, utilities, yardwork, etc. A woman’s income is also, typically, taxed at higher income tax rates, since it comes on top of the man’s income.

But, the biggest savings might come from homeschooling. Elizabeth Warren found that one reason that families were overstretched financially is that they were spending big $$$ to get a house in the most desirable school districts. But, if you are homeschooling, then even if you still want to live in a nice neighborhood, the school district is not so important.

You might have to give up a lot to get by on one income. You might have camping vacations rather than something involving an airplane. You might spend time in the park rather than spending money on dance lessons. You might have to learn to cook. But, you might get a lot too. You might get the most important things.

Women: stay away from hormonal birth control. Use condoms only.

When a woman follows the common Feminist Life Script — go to college, get a job and career, and maybe, somehow, get married and have a family — she commonly ends up Married to the Corporation. At least she is not Married to the Government, the common outcome of many women with less educational or career attainment.

Perhaps some women would deliberately choose this. But, I hope that most women would not. So, if you don’t want that, don’t do it.

What purposes does a Husband serve for a traditional stay-at-home wife? First, he provides a Frame — a system in which she functions. She has a home and family, and certain duties and responsibilities, and so forth. She is not aimless or idle. Her husband typically takes care of making the money, from which follows food, shelter and so forth. Her husband provides direction and leadership. At some level, the husband provides security and protection. There is someone she can rely upon for those purposes. The stay-at-home mother does not have conflicting allegiances. She does not attempt to serve Two Masters.

You could look upon this marriage as a sort of employment. It is more intimate than that, but nevertheless, at a basic economic level, the woman labors for the benefit of the family and perhaps community, and receives her sustenance, security and protection from the family (husband) in return.

In a similar way, you could look upon the typical full-time employment as a sort of marriage. The corporation provides a Frame — a certain set of expectations and duties. Show up at work at 8:30, lunch at noon, work until 5pm or perhaps later if it is needed. Instead of working for the benefit of the husband, children, family and community, the woman works for the benefit of the corporation and its shareholders. The outcome of this labor is not the prosperity of the family, children, community and nation, but instead, net profit. In return for this labor, the corporation sustains the woman, in the form of a salary. The corporation can also serve in some role for security and protection — and we find women today increasingly pushing corporations (and governments) toward protecting women from “sexual harassment” and other such discomforts; a role once taken by husbands, fathers and brothers.

Given that these basic needs are met by the corporation, not the husband, it is no surprise that a woman’s first allegiance is to her employer. A husband may be useful in forming a family and for raising children; but, he might be more useful, in her eyes, if he would just leave her alone and send a check every month. Most childcare these days is done by the public school system. Here, the government takes the role of the wife, while the mother is off acting like the husband. Many divorces begin when the youngest child is old enough to be dropped off at school in the morning.

A woman who is married to a corporation and to a husband also does not serve two masters. The corporation always comes first. Does a woman ever refuse the commands of her corporation? Does she ever show up at 11:00 am because she feels like it? She does not. She is always obedient to the last letter. She is “submissive” to the corporation. From this, it is no surprise that submission to the corporation tends to be accompanied by a notable lack of submission to any husband, by these women.

Being married to the corporation has its downsides. The corporation is overtly exploitive, and does not care much for the woman on any intimate level — not the institution itself, or its representatives such as her immediate superior. The corporation will give a woman no children and no family. There is little community and no nation. There is only endless labor for the benefit of the shareholders. The corporate workerbee has far less freedom than the typical housewife, who is largely free to arrange her day and manage the household as she sees fit.

I don’t think a woman can be easily married to both a corporation — or a career, a series of corporations in a pattern of serial monogamy — and a husband. A husband works at the corporation to sustain a family. It is because of his labor that the family can be formed and maintained. When a wife works at the corporation, the family is destroyed. I hope that some women will recognize where this leads, and divorce the corporation.

There is much to admire in the way people in the nineteenth century carried about the process of getting married — or, Traditional Courtship. The Victorian Age was a high-water time even then for Courtship, compared to the more corrupt eighteenth century. It was, perhaps, a low-water time for sexual satisfaction, however. They seemed to be very bad at sex, even by today’s low standards.

Nevertheless, as much as we can admire the way things were done in those days, it did have a flaw — and that flaw was: Chivalry. As Dalrock has explained in great detail, Chivalry is, basically, simping — a man debasing himself before a woman, becoming a beggar for her affection. Chivalry is “courtly love,” specifically, the love of a courtier (often a knight — i.e., a soldier) for a noble woman, commonly already married to a nobleman. The courtier was, literally, the subject (servant) of the Lady, so the servant-like behavior made sense.

This is bad on many levels, among them that women really don’t like it. Women want a man of power and leadership, who invites the woman to become part of His Thing — his Frame. He does not grovel to be accepted into her Frame.

Here we have a key moment in The Portrait of a Lady (1881), by Henry James. It is considered one of the finest novels in English by an American. Isabelle Archer is a pretty American girl from an upper-middle-class family. She is nice enough, but doesn’t really have any particular advantages besides a pretty face. After the death of her parents, she doesn’t have much to do, so she is invited to England by her mother’s sister, who married a rich American banker who retired to the English countryside. Here, she meets with one of her uncle’s neighbors, Lord Warburton.

In Pride and Prejudice (1813), we are told that Mr. Darcy is very rich, because he has an income of ten thousand pounds a year. A British pound was about a quarter of an ounce of gold, so that is equivalent to about 2500 ounces of gold, or $3,750,000 per year of income (not wealth). If we assume that the income is 3% of wealth, that implies wealth of about $3,750,000/3% or $125 million. Anyway, this is what it looks like — here is Darcy’s house, known as Pemberly:

By 1880, England had grown much wealthier. Lord Warburton does not have an income of 10,000 pounds per year — his income is 100,000 pounds. And, unlike today, this currency did not lose value. We could estimate his wealth around $1,250,000,000 in today’s money. Warburton was a billionaire. He did not have just one estate. He had six. And, as a Lord, he was not only literal lord and master of his own estate(s), and all the workers upon it (the money came from agricultural production, and, often, government bonds), and also the country seat that he likely administered as a kind of county government — somewhat like the mayor of a town. He had an inherited seat in the House of Lords, one of the houses of Parliament. So, think of a billionaire business owner who is also a Mayor and a Senator.

Lord Warburton is, perhaps, about 30 or 32 years old. He is not said to be physically ugly, which means that he was heart-rendingly attractive, as is any man who is under 50, not fat, and a billionaire. Isabelle Archer is 18 or 19.

In this scene, Lord Warburton proposes marriage to Isabelle Archer.

“My dear Isabelle,” Warburton began. “We have known each other only a few days. And yet, I have decided to ask you to be my wife. Perhaps it is your American sense of adventure and self-sufficiency. Or, perhaps your charming American accent. I have had many offers from many women. They throw themselves at me. Actually, it is their mothers that throw them at me. They are very nice girls, from the finest families. But, I find them dull, and you excite me.

“Any man wishes to have a family, but it is especially important for me, as I must have an heir, not only of my estate, but of my position in the leadership of this country, one of the greatest countries on Earth. Thus, the mother of my children must aspire to raise our children to their high station, and great responsibilities. Also, I have many duties, not only to manage my estates, but in society and even in Parliament and in diplomatic matters. This will require a woman of some capability, and I think you will excel at this. Do not be too intimidated by the demands of society. In time, you will excel at it. In truth, these society women are not so good as you are already.

“Let us be married next month, with the usual pomp and pageantry. It is not so difficult. All you have to do is show up and wear a dress. I will have my people take care of the other details. Then we will go to Italy for a month, where a friend of mine has a villa that we can borrow. I think that will be a lot of fun for both of us.”

“Oh, Warburton, I don’t know what to say,” Isabella sighed, as her head whirled. “Of course I accept. But, can we be married tomorrow? I want to go to Italy with you right away.”

OK, I just made that up. That is what Lord Warburton should have said. That is what the Warburton-like character does in fact say, in any one of hundreds of lookalike how-I-married-a-billionaire romance novels. And if the silly bitch still said no, Warburton could have said: “Well, this is where you can call [on] me when you change your mind.”

“Silly bitch,” is what Isabelle Archer’s own father would have called her, to her face, if he was still alive, and heard that she turned down an offer from Lord Warburton. And doesn’t Father know best?

But, this is what Warburton actually said, according to Henry James:

“I care nothing for Gardencourt,” said her companion. “I care only for you.”

“You’ve known me too short a time to have a right to say that, and I can’t believe you’re serious.”

These words of Isabel’s were not perfectly sincere, for she had no doubt whatever that he himself was. They were simply a tribute to the fact, of which she was perfectly aware, that those he had just uttered would have excited surprise on the part of a vulgar world. And, moreover, if anything beside the sense she had already acquired that Lord Warburton was not a loose thinker had been needed to convince her, the tone in which he replied would quite have served the purpose.

“One’s right in such a matter is not measured by the time, Miss Archer; it’s measured by the feeling itself. If I were to wait three months it would make no difference; I shall not be more sure of what I mean than I am to-day. Of course I’ve seen you very little, but my impression dates from the very first hour we met. I lost no time, I fell in love with you then. It was at first sight, as the novels say; I know now that’s not a fancy-phrase, and I shall think better of novels for evermore. Those two days I spent here settled it; I don’t know whether you suspected I was doing so, but I paid—mentally speaking I mean—the greatest possible attention to you. Nothing you said, nothing you did, was lost upon me. When you came to Lockleigh the other day—or rather when you went away—I was perfectly sure. Nevertheless I made up my mind to think it over and to question myself narrowly. I’ve done so; all these days I’ve done nothing else. I don’t make mistakes about such things; I’m a very judicious animal. I don’t go off easily, but when I’m touched, it’s for life. It’s for life, Miss Archer, it’s for life,” Lord Warburton repeated in the kindest, tenderest, pleasantest voice Isabel had ever heard, and looking at her with eyes charged with the light of a passion that had sifted itself clear of the baser parts of emotion—the heat, the violence, the unreason—and that burned as steadily as a lamp in a windless place.

By tacit consent, as he talked, they had walked more and more slowly, and at last they stopped and he took her hand. “Ah, Lord Warburton, how little you know me!” Isabel said very gently. Gently too she drew her hand away.

“Don’t taunt me with that; that I don’t know you better makes me unhappy enough already; it’s all my loss. But that’s what I want, and it seems to me I’m taking the best way. If you’ll be my wife, then I shall know you, and when I tell you all the good I think of you you’ll not be able to say it’s from ignorance.”

“If you know me little I know you even less,” said Isabel.

“You mean that, unlike yourself, I may not improve on acquaintance? Ah, of course that’s very possible. But think, to speak to you as I do, how determined I must be to try and give satisfaction! You do like me rather, don’t you?”

“I like you very much, Lord Warburton,” she answered; and at this moment she liked him immensely.

“I thank you for saying that; it shows you don’t regard me as a stranger. I really believe I’ve filled all the other relations of life very creditably, and I don’t see why I shouldn’t fill this one—in which I offer myself to you—seeing that I care so much more about it. Ask the people who know me well; I’ve friends who’ll speak for me.”

“I don’t need the recommendation of your friends,” said Isabel.

“Ah now, that’s delightful of you. You believe in me yourself.”

“Completely,” Isabel declared. She quite glowed there, inwardly, with the pleasure of feeling she did.

The light in her companion’s eyes turned into a smile, and he gave a long exhalation of joy. “If you’re mistaken, Miss Archer, let me lose all I possess!”

No woman on Earth would be interested in a man who would throw all he has away for a stupid bitch, even if she herself is that stupid bitch. This turbo-simpery produces much the effect that we would expect — a notable absence of pussy-tingles:

She wondered whether he meant this for a reminder that he was rich, and, on the instant, felt sure that he didn’t. He was thinking that, as he would have said himself; and indeed he might safely leave it to the memory of any interlocutor, especially of one to whom he was offering his hand. Isabel had prayed that she might not be agitated, and her mind was tranquil enough, even while she listened and asked herself what it was best she should say, to indulge in this incidental criticism. What she should say, had she asked herself? Her foremost wish was to say something if possible not less kind than what he had said to her. His words had carried perfect conviction with them; she felt she did, all so mysteriously, matter to him. “I thank you more than I can say for your offer,” she returned at last. “It does me great honour.”

“Ah, don’t say that!” he broke out. “I was afraid you’d say something like that. I don’t see what you’ve to do with that sort of thing. I don’t see why you should thank me—it’s I who ought to thank you for listening to me: a man you know so little coming down on you with such a thumper! Of course it’s a great question; I must tell you that I’d rather ask it than have it to answer myself. But the way you’ve listened—or at least your having listened at all—gives me some hope.”

“Don’t hope too much,” Isabel said.

They did not get married.

This is fiction, of course, but to be believable (this is supposed to be a Great Novel, not a cheapie romance) it must either reflect reality, or at least, reflect some ideals held at the time. You see this kind of turbo-simping (chivalry) throughout all the novels of that time.

So, it seems that we cannot simply imitate old forms and ideals. We will have to create something new — an updated version of Traditional Courtship, with the Chivalry carefully excised, like a cancerous growth.

Or, as Sigma Frame recently put it:

No.

Yes.

Lady is a new how-to guide by Daryush Valizadeh, also known as Roosh V. Roosh, long known as a writer of pickup-artist books, in recent years has had something of a conversion, including the adoption of an active Christianity, and now intends to tell young women how they should navigate the meatgrinder of “dating” today, with the intention of “how to meet and keep a good man for love and marriage.”

Like a number of other men in the “redpill” space, he came up to The Abyss, and decided to turn back. His conclusions are much like my own. But most of all, he follows our rule here, which is: Tell The Bitches What To Do. Young women really have no hope of figuring this out on their own without the assistance of an experienced older male like Roosh; especially, in the absence of assistance from another experienced older male, her own father. If you don’t Tell Them What To Do, they won’t know what to do. Let’s take a look.

It turns out that feminism, and the idea of equality in general, are entirely dedicated to feeding your devil and decreasing the chance that you will get married, or if you happen to marry, stay happily married. If feminism feeds the negative side of female nature, why do all the major institutions support it? Why is it the default mentality among modern women? As I said earlier, the direct answer is money. Feminism has two aims. First, it’s to double the supply of labor in the workforce in order to reduce the price of wages. Second, it’s to weaken the family unit so that women depend on corporations and government, which the elite control, instead of strong men.

You are being thrown under the bus so that men at the very top can make an extra billion in profits every year, and more money means more power. You’re being manipulated by a group of ultra-rich oligarchs and their useful idiots in universities, government, and the media to have contempt for men and seek to become “independent” from them. They train you to put career, status, hedonism, and fame before love, family, and God, brainwashing you to think that normal men are trying to enslave you with child-raising and household chores. This causes you to voluntarily enslave yourself to corporate bosses and massproduced consumer products.

Mmmm, yep. That’s pretty much the way it is.

Roosh recommends that women live at home with their fathers until they are married.

Instead of asking how you can find fulfillment through a career, it’s better to ask how holding down a basic job will enable you to find fulfillment through a good man with whom you can establish a family. If you leave your parents’ home, you’re essentially forcing yourself to have a career so that you can pay for the high cost of enjoying a Sex and the City lifestyle. A better solution is to live with your parents so that you can devote more of your energy to finding a husband instead of wasting it on the rat race.

Your parents are unlikely to mind you living at home, and doing so makes it harder for you to feed your devil through casual sex. It’s so easy to have sex while living alone that I’ve told men to assume that a woman has at least three new sexual partners for every year she has lived on her own. It won’t take long for her ability to form a pair-bond with a good man to be irreversibly damaged. When I wanted only sex from girls, I deliberately filtered out the ones who lived with their parents, because they were much harder to sleep with. Now, I am unable to contain my excitement when I meet a girl who lives at home and has to check in with mom by sending a text message stating she’ll be home soon. While you may think that I’m the exception in how I judge girls by their family values, there is a reactionary trend among men against women who have a feminist lifestyle.

I wonder if the “strong, independent” women will figure out that men want women who have minor jobs that they will immediately discard in favor of a family, and who live at home with their fathers?

Women who marry should be stay-at-home mothers.

Single-income households won’t have a lavish lifestyle, but they will be full of meaning because the mother can spend much more time at home instead of devoting her energy to pleasing the demands of a corporate boss while her children are raised by strangers making close to minimum wage. Tales of abuse in day-care centers are enough for me to insist that my children never step foot in one. I find it unfortunate that so many women go against their maternal instincts and leave their children with strangers for most of the day during their most crucial years of development.

Is it possible to have both a successful career and a happy family? Unless you’re a millionaire and can hire an army of assistants and nannies, such as Lean In author and Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg, the answer is no. A typical middle-class woman will not be able to live the feminist dream of pursuing a high-powered career while raising a family. It cuts her nature in two, causing intense inner conflict and dissatisfaction. At work, she is forced to feed her devil, compete like a man, and pursue materialist gains for the sake of money, while at home she is expected to listen to her angel and be a nurturing mother who also wants to please her husband. This doesn’t work in practice. What ends up happening is that she stays in work mode at home, makes demands on her husband as if he were a co-worker, and treats her children like a business project to be managed, and this is assuming she has any energy left after a full day at the office.

Don’t go to college.

First, let’s describe what happens to a typical 18-yearold girl who goes to university today. She will spend four years racking up tens of thousands of dollars in debt for a degree that is likely to be in the humanities or social sciences. She will be immersed in an environment that promotes hooking up with men who are “hot,” “sexy,” or “popular.” She will spend hundreds of hours studying and
reading books, but zero hours becoming a good wife from learning basic cooking or homemaking skills. No matter what she majors in, she will be indoctrinated in feminism and embrace the belief that men are the enemy, pushing family down her list of priorities. And she will consume copious amounts of junk food, alcohol, and maybe drugs.

Some women have been able to resist the temptations of a university environment, but it’s safe to say that most emerge from the experience spiritually poorer, less in tune with their feminine nature, more committed to securing a career, more in debt thanks to student loans, and less likely to get married within five years. For every story you hear of college sweethearts getting married, you hear dozens more of a woman who dyed her hair green, got her first tattoo, experienced a threesome, and got pumped and dumped by multiple Chads. Unless a woman goes to college specifically with the aim of meeting a potential husband, the outcome will be negative.

If they are interested, women should pursue education and career after their childcare duties are done.

Let’s imagine that you skip university and become a low-paying assistant in a predominately male office. One of these men with a promising future falls in love with you and proposes marriage. You get married at the age of 22 and become pregnant a year later. It is assumed that once you have the baby, you will quit your job, which doesn’t bring in much income anyway. As your child grows up, you will have more time to focus on your hobbies. And then you get pregnant again.

You and your husband decide that two children are enough. Eventually, both of them will be in elementary school. You’ll now have more free time because when the kids come home from school, they won’t need constant attention and care as was the case when they were younger. This is when it makes sense for you to pursue higher education if you still want to. While your children are at school, you are free to go to school part-time, assuming it doesn’t conflict with your household duties. When they become young adults and go to university, you have the option of easing into a full-time career. Yes, your female co-workers will be ahead of you on the corporate ladder, and you will start at a lower pay grade, but you will have something they won’t: grown-up children. …

[T]he culture should encourage only men to go to university so women can focus on starting a family at an age that is in line with their biological clock.

Women should be a virgin at marriage, and courtship should be short. Get married and get it on.

If you’re a virgin, you may be wondering if it’s better to wait until marriage before having sex. I personally think that is a great idea, and I would consider marrying a virgin myself if the courtship wasn’t longer than a year, but this is challenging to pull off if you’re not embedded within a religious community.

I used to look for Sexy Stacy with her flirty behavior, revealing clothing, and “come hither” face, but now I seek out Bookworm Betty or Virgin Vicky, who is shy and slightly awkward with understated beauty.

Being attracted to the “librarian type” didn’t happen to me overnight. It was a process that took years after repeated experiences with Sexy Stacys taught me they are not suitable for starting a family.

We may not think very much about Roosh’s history as a pickup artist (Roosh himself doesn’t think very much of it.) But hardly anyone knows more about “dating” and “hookups” than Roosh. Women: get married young. Start a family. Be a stay-at-home mom. Avoid premarital sex. Stay married.

Sometimes we wonder if everyone actually participated in the Courtship process, or was it only people who lived in country estates? Here is a description of courtship among the working classes, from Moira Weigel’s book Labor of Love.

The son of a rabbi, Samuel Chotzinoff came with his family from Vitebsk, Russia, to New York when he was seventeen years old. They lived in a housing project on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Chotzinoff grew up to be a well-known music critic, and in his memoirs he described their home in the Stanton Street Settlement.

“The average apartment consisted of three rooms: a kitchen, a parlor, and a doorless and windowless bedroom between.

“The etiquette of courting was strict,” he added.

If a young man came to call on his older sister, the two of them would have to crowd in the kitchen. If his parents were out, they made Samuel stay in to spy on his sister and any suitors who turned up.

Of course, traditional parents would have preferred to set up their children through family members of matchmakers. In the Old Country, your family and community had controlled courtship. Many ethnic and religious groups funded political and theatrical clubs in the hopes that their children would meet there.

There is a lot in this little passage: a formalized “visiting” custom, supervision, the participation of parents, “matchmakers” and community, the establishment of institutions where young people could meet, and more. It wasn’t the Feminist Life Script and “dating” without sex.

Labor of Love: The Invention of Dating (2016), by Moira Weigel, is a nice, short book about the history of “dating,” or, if you like, the replacement of Traditional Courtship, beginning around 1890 but really getting going after 1920.

This book could have gone wrong in many ways. One of the reviews calls it “a radical Marxist feminist tract disguised as a salmon-pink self-help book.” It is not that, thankfully, although the reviewer wishes that it was. There is more detail about faggots and trannies than I care for, but that is to be expected in these dark days. The author has a PhD in comparative literature from Yale, but she also got married, so she is not completely nuts. She looks about 30 on the back cover, and she says the book arose from her attempts to figure out what exactly was this thing that she spent so much time doing, and where it came from.

Fortunately, most of the book is history rather than opinion/analysis (the author’s attempts to do this in the last chapter are rather pathetic), and since it covers about 130 years of history in 267 pages, it is a fairly light treatment of the major features of each age. The author did a lot of work reading from materials from those times — advice columns from the 1920s, self-help books from the 1950s, or How To Court guides from the 1890s. There is a lot of valuable material in this historical study.

Basically, “dating” arose from the trend, beginning around 1890, for young men and women to migrate from farming communities to cities. In Courtship, women lived at their father’s houses, until they moved to the house of their new husbands. However, these single working women, living alone in the big city, were not so constrained, and soon began to meet with similarly single and displaced men. From the beginning, it was rather degenerate. Often, women would walk around amusement centers hoping for attention from men. Since they often had no money, they would hope the men would buy them something to eat. Kissing and sex often followed soon afterwards. The 1913 term for them was “charity cunts.” Police didn’t know what to do with these women. They appeared to be very cheap prostitutes. But, the women themselves, at times finding themselves in jail, would insist that they were doing it for love.

This was a fringe activity at first, but by the 1920s, “dating” had become more mainstream, and also, as it assimilated the mainstream, somewhat less degenerate. If they weren’t leaving their parents’ house to go to the big city to get a job, by this time women were often going to college. The “boyfriend” appears, which doesn’t exist in Traditional Courtship.

All in all, the book confirms my view that “dating” has been one long slope of disintegration from traditional Courtship models that existed for centuries. In 1946, the anthropologist Margaret Mead, who had become reknown for her studies of courtship processes worldwide, was asked to give a talk at Stanford University about American Courtship Rituals. She did not see “dating” as a dysfunctional courtship ritual. Dating, she said, had nothing to do with courtship. Americans had no courtship rituals at all.

I thought I would add a comment to the recent post at SigmaFrame regarding concerns among many Christian men (virgins or nearly so) as to whether they can achieve sexual “compatibility” with their future wife, without giving it a try beforehand.

Here is a quote from that post, from a young man with some concerns:

Caterpillar: I’m probably overthinking it but I just fail to understand how I’m going to end up with any semblance of a fulfilling physical relationship by me and a hypothetical potential wife going from none to anything goes after saying “I do”.  But I suppose it will just happen naturally or it will just happen because I’ve done what God said and stayed chaste until marriage or something…

So again, the question I keep asking is something like “How do I, coming from a rather traditional, “hands-off, no touching” approach to relationships (and presumably intending to marry a similar woman) understand whether we will be sexually compatible for the rest of my / our life?”  Perhaps there is no good / straightforward / universal answer.  As I have a tendency to do, I’m probably looking for an “equation” that I can solve and get “the answer”.  One way to look at it is that the process of discovery along the way is what makes life interesting.  But another way to look at it is that I’d like to seek the advice of men with more experience than me so that I might make fewer mistakes.

For men, “sexual compatibility” is an easy matter: if she is not repulsive (grossly fat), and you find her sexy with her clothes on, then there is hardly any chance of a problem. It is true that some women have sexual hangups of one sort or another, but those can be resolved in time. Men with some experience (with their own wives or other women) would probably express some puzzlement that this notion is even being considered.

In general, I find that a woman’s appearance is somewhat less important during the sex act itself, than it is during the earlier stages — where a man appreciates her beauty from some distance. A 5/10 girl can be a ton of fun in bed, even if she is somewhat uninspiring in day-to-day life. Likewise, a 10/10 girl who lacks all responsiveness in bed is inevitably a disappointment. Even so, you should probably avoid fatties.

Unfortunately, for women, more previous history tends to mean more dissatisfaction with the man she married — the “alpha widow” as mentioned in the linked post. This is yet another factor in favor of the virgin bride. She will be happy with what she has.

Since it appears that many men are bad at sex, a man today should have some ambition to be a capable lover. I do not think this is very hard to do, but it appears that most men fail here.

If you did have a 10/10 wife who was unresponsive (the old word was “frigid”) in bed, I think this can be resolved in time if she is willing to do so. Some women perhaps think they will control their men by restricting sex, and to do so they suppress their own sexual response. Women damaged by “dating” may want to avoid “catching feelings,” and steel themselves for the breakup they expect soon. But, if a woman actually wants to have a good time, I think it is nearly certain that she can eventually arrive at that goal, without too much difficulty. Then you would have a 10/10 wife who was also a sex goddess. This might be rather a nice thing.

In general, sexual responsiveness and satisfaction in a woman tends to be related to:

1. Women who feel that they are in secure long-term relationships tend to have more fun. They feel that they can trust their man, and “let down their guard.”
2. Women who “submit”/“surrender” to their husbands, or in other words take a traditional Biblical role, have more fun.