The total fertility rate for the US is well below replacement levels. However, even this includes about 40% of births to unwed mothers, and 25% among White mothers. What is the fertility rate among non-Hispanic White women alone? I think it is pretty low.

Hey White girls:

The White Race has a long and glorious history, that you are a part of. Keep it going!

Don’t make any babies with Black or Hispanic men. Asians are not so bad, but it would be best if you stick with your White brothers.

White Babies please.

Get married first.

Get married young.

No sex before marriage. Get married young, and then have a lot of sex.

In the past, the primary way that young women got married was Family and Friends. Mostly, their Mom helped them find a husband.

Plan on being a Stay At Home Mom, and having a lot of babies, at least four before you turn 30.

You can stay at home and live with your father until you are married. Then, you don’t have to learn a trade, and can avoid any student debt. You should still educate yourself, because you will have to educate the next generation (your children) of the White Race, and White Americans.

Read lots of good books. Mostly, old ones, before 1910.

I recommend the eleven-volume Story of Civilization series, by Will Durant. Learn the history of the White Race.

No vaccines.

Breastfeeding only.

Homeschool.

Cook healthy food at home.

Not too much screen time. I recommend NO screens before Age 6. It is very tempting, but don’t do it.

Get together with the other young White moms, and let your children play together.

Forget about the other bitches. Don’t imitate them.

What if we just didn’t “get married,” but lived together, were basically monogamous, and raised children together? We are effectively married, in “common law marriage.” “Common law marriage” is not just the State pulling the rug on you with fine print. It is the “Natural Law” that exists even without the State. Humans just “get married,” whether or not there is any legal aspect to it.

Sigma Frame observes that for most of the history of the West, this “Natural Law marriage” was the norm. The State was just not involved. It was like a live-in girlfriend/boyfriend relationship today. This is actually “Biblical” in the sense that it was what the people in the Bible actually did, when they “got married.”

With legal marriage a disaster today, both men and women are trending toward Common Law marriage as an alternative. Sigma Frame suggests that women’s behavior also changes dramatically when she has a Legal Marriage. Basically, she has the State to tear your arms and legs off at her whim. Men naturally avoid this. Mostly this is just feeling your way in the dark these days, but I think that a more deliberate embrace of Common Law Marriage may be a good way of proceeding until the regular Marriage Laws are fixed; or, perhaps, mostly eliminated.

This is more common in Europe, where young people are often establishing families without legal marriage.

I think it is good to have a formal recognition of marriage, or a wedding, but in the Common Law sense — a church service. An agreement between husband and wife, family and friends. Maybe even a written agreement, which, without enforcement of the State, amounts to: vows. Don’t involve the State. Don’t sign any Marriage Licenses or Birth Certificates, which, among other things, are an agreement to sell your children into slavery.

This was not always the case. When women began attending colleges in the late 19th century, the primary purpose of this was, I would say, to find husbands among the men who also attended college (under 5% of men in those days), and also, to have the kind of educated background that a man of that sort would want in a wife, to raise his children and take a positive role in society. I think there was also an element of career prep, mostly as a schoolteacher, which was a typical job for a young woman before she married.

Basically, Anne of Green Gables.

This general pattern persisted into the 1960s. Women mostly went to college to find husbands, and to be trained to be the kind of wife that such a husband would want. Typically this was in arts and literature, maybe history.

Today, women don’t find husbands at college. Mostly, they avoid any kind of lasting connection, that would cause problems after college. For example, what do you do when you are attached to a man that is two years older (the norm), and he graduates and moves to a new city to begin work? In the past, women would quit college, without graduating, and move to the new city with her new husband. Maybe she would transfer credits and finish her degree in the new city.

So, college romances (if we can even use that term today) are typically intended to be short-term and provisional from the start.

The education a woman received, prior to 1970, was actually quite useful and important. Basically, look at the Hillsdale College curriculum today, which was probably pretty similar to what most colleges offered in the 1950s. We would want women to be educated in the elements of the civilization that they would take part in and pass on to their children, although typically more in the arts and literature sphere than government or science. This actually provided a nice complement to a man who was involved in business and politics.

We have a serious problem today in that the very best girls, typically from intact upper-income families, are channeled into college and careerism from an early age, and certainly by Age 17. When are you supposed to marry these girls? How? Often they are already rather a mess by the time they become “available” around Age 22, or Age 25 — either due to sluttishness and debauchery, or careerism, or all the Leftist garbage they picked up in college, or a general attitude that they can put off family until their 30s.

There are actually some very nice girls around Age 19, virgins, but you can’t exactly hang around the college to meet these girls, and they are probably already serious Leftist knuckleheads by then. Probably you would either have to know them from earlier, when they were living with their parents, or be introduced by their parents. Not exactly easy.

Churches are probably a good place to look, not for the Age 28+ and Single Moms that are looking for husbands in churches, but for the daughters Age 16-18 of families at church.

The people born in the 1990s are now between 25 and 35 years old. Let’s see how they’re doing:

Not so well.

It would be interesting to limit this to Non-Hispanic Whites. The destruction of the Black Family skewed the statistics for the 1970s and 1980s generation. Non-Hispanic Whites mostly managed to get married, with about 92% marrying at some point.

The grey band was an earlier projection. As we can see, it was completely off. It looks like this might finally normalize around 40%, about ten or fifteen years from now. That probably means 50% for Non-Hispanic Whites, which is actually just around my prior predictions.

But, most of this future result is being determined now. In the past, if you were not already in a relationship at Age 30 — actually “single” — a woman had only about a 20% chance of getting married. Many people married around 32 or 33, to people that they became attached to in their late 20s.

Today, with the average time from first “connection” to marriage about five years, we are seeing the results from the pre-Covid era and also pre-RedPill era, when MGTOW (remember that one?) was still a small group. Today, it has become much more mainstream. Also, since 2019 or so, we’ve seen the collapse of dating apps as a functional means of interaction. Actually, they always were, but now nobody expects any success here. Anyway, the curve of marriage over the next five years or so is being set now; and it doesn’t look very good if you ask me.

Men have two basic ways of dealing with women:

The first is to take an estimate of the average of women, putting them all in a group, and then devising a strategy to deal with this average.

This is already quite difficult. You have to get a reasonable understanding of “women’s behavior.” This term is already an “average.” Individual women have different behaviors. If we group them all into one overall assessment, we have “women’s behavior.” Then, we have to devise a strategy of how to deal with this. Probably, this involves a series of planned and then practiced responses in a variety of social situations. Pickup “game” is one such series of planned and practiced responses or strategies. A man who is not interested in being a manwhore, but is actually looking for a monogamous girlfriend or a wife, might have a different series of planned and practiced responses. Or, a man might conclude that women today, in general, as a rule, are nothing but trouble. He will minimize contact and interaction, basically to reduce risk and avoid difficulty.

Today, many men have concluded, in America in 2025, women “on average” are unsuited to be wives, and unsuited even to be girlfriends. This does not leave much role for them. Probably, they are also unsuited to be employees, in many cases, except for fairly simple jobs (sales clerk) or traditional women’s roles (nurse or real estate agent). From this we establish a series of strategies, which are then implemented into practice. Part of this assessment is related to the legal situation today, which is terribly hostile to men and families. We can appreciate that, whatever the legal situation is, nevertheless there are some good wives out there. They made a choice to be good wives, and they are, no matter what the laws are. But, we can also appreciate that, women who destroy their families and husbands in divorce court, or destroy their male co-workers with false accusations, are also making a choice. Whatever the laws are, they didn’t have to do that. Most women don’t. But, if even 10% of women do, it is too high a risk for men.

I actually agree with this assessment. But, I do not recommend that a young man today take this approach. This leaves basically a Selective Strategy. I’ve said that we have to Take A Stand with the Top 30% of women. This includes the uglies, who are nevertheless capable of being a Good Wife and a Good Mother, and whom we can pair with equally ugly men.

But now things get very complicated. It is hard enough to generate a series of social skills and strategies appropriate for various situations. Now we have to determine not only “women’s behavior,” or one assessment for the average, but behavior for certain groupings, which we also have to determine. There is a certain, fairly large, population of rather nice and family-minded young women in their twenties, who are nearly involuntary celibates. Basically, despite their imperfections, they are in our Top 30%. We have to be able to define the characteristics of this group; figure out their behaviors; and then figure out what to do with them. Then there are other classes of women, in our somewhat arbitrary but necessary classification system, which we also have to reliably identify and then devise strategies for. Practicing just one series of strategies and behaviors is hard enough. But, practicing a series of very different strategies, for different times and different sorts of women, becomes quite difficult indeed.

This is a demanding challenge for anyone, but particularly for a young man.

Maybe I am making it too difficult. We can eliminate pretty easily some groups:

Too old (over 35)
Single Moms (including divorced)
Divorced
Uglies
Confirmed Sluts
Excessive tattoos, nose rings, etc. (but some Nice Girls have this today)
Married to the Corporation
Feminist nutjobs

Unfortunately, most of our Top 30% of women, or even the Top 10%, are going to have significant problems, including Leftist brainwashing, possibly grew up in a single-parent household, a sordid history of attempted relationships that never amounted to more than situationships, and on and on. Mostly, it is better if you get them young; and, girls who are enthusiastic about being Stay At Home Moms with multiple children.

It might seem that sticking with the Top 30% means that 70% of men would have nobody. It seems like there is a shortage of good women. But, there is also a shortage of men that want to pursue home and family in today’s environment. Since only about 10% of men might follow this strategy I am laying out, there are actually plenty of women for these men.

Tragically, the very best girls, basically from intact Upper Middle Class families, and virgins, are almost certain to be channeled into College and Career. Some even survive this, but mostly you are going to have to start around Age 16 and maybe up to about 19.

What’s wrong with “transactional relationships?”

Most of our dealings in the world are “transactional.” We might spend 15 years at an employer, without much in the way of “romance.” We just benefit from cooperation. These can be happy times. Indeed, “romance” can be a problem with employers. They would rather praise you than pay you. Don’t fall for it.

“Transactional,” over an extended period of time, becomes “contractual.” We need to develop trust in what amounts to contract, or agreement.

Many marriages in the past were not really based on “feeeelings.” They were, in large part, contractual agreements of mutual benefit. In Pride and Prejudice (1813), an idealized representation of a time of perfect courtship manners, the not-very-attractive Charlotte Lucas marries the not-very-attractive Mr. Collins, and neither is very attractive to the other. Mr. Collins proposes to Elizabeth Darcy, and is rejected. He then moves quickly on to Charlotte Lucas, and is accepted. It is clear that he had no thoughts whatsover for Charlotte Lucas a few days earlier, while Charlotte was joking with Elizabeth about Mr. Collins’ repulsive conversation habits. But, he took what he could get, as did Charlotte Lucas.

But, Mr. Collins could perform the role of a Good Husband and a Good Father, and Charlotte Lucas could perform the role of the Good Wife and a Good Mother. And, we presume, they did so — both gaining much from their mutual cooperation. Their contract worked out.

Today, it is often said that the marriage contract is completely ridiculous, when observed as a contractual agreement. It rewards women for breaking the contract! Under such conditions, trust is hard to come by, so men, seeking safety, avoid such situations altogether. Beyond this, women today do not expect to be Good Wives and Good Mothers, and even laugh at the words if they are spoken. Men still expect to be Good Husbands and Good Fathers, since men still understand that, if you are going to be a husband and father, you should be a good one, or don’t bother even to start.

There is now a movement to end no-fault divorce across the US.

This naturally raises the question: What should the divorce laws be?

Should there be any divorce laws at all?

Historically, there always was a provision for “no-fault divorce,” under whatever terms both parties could agree upon. Probably, this should be kept.

I do not think the typical divorce laws of the 1960s, before no-fault divorce, are necessarily very good. Mostly, they also, like today, had an excess of favoritism toward the woman. It was very common in those days to falsely claim that a man was an “abusive alcoholic,” to get divorce benefits. Basically, no different than today, but more significant since such claims were required for an advantageous divorce settlement. Although the 25% divorce rates of that time were far less than the 50%-ish rates of today, nevertheless that is still very high, and due in part to the advantages women received in divorce, such as alimony. It was basically a reflection of 1960s Feminism. You have to go back before the Feminist era, before 1880, when divorce rates were below 5%, to find good examples of divorce law that actually functioned to produce beneficent outcomes.

I think there probably should be some sort of divorce law, but let’s think about what the situation would be if there were no laws at all — if divorce was, essentially, the same as a live-in boyfriend/girlfriend relationship today, something the State doesn’t really take any part in.

In that case, the man and woman would keep whatever assets were in their name, and have nothing else to do with each other. There would have to be some careful assessment of in whose names various assets belonged, during and before the marriage. This would be established by tradition and common practice. Mostly, houses and cars should be in the man’s name. He would keep them. Probably, he paid for them. A woman would keep any assets that she came into the marriage with; and perhaps, those that she acquired during the marriage, probably in the form of inheritance. A second car can be in her name. A woman would also keep any debts that she came into the marriage with. If a woman works during the marriage, her income should basically go to the man, to be disposed of, including paying mortgages. She can pay down her own debts. Retirement-type assets, arising from a woman’s income, stay with the woman. Other income issues can be decided during the marriage. But, in the end, if it is in your name, you keep it; otherwise you have no claim on the other’s assets or income.

Children are simple: whoever keeps them, pays for them. There is no child support or alimony. Mostly, the man would keep them, since he has the income to pay for them. Also, this tends to make men hesitant to divorce their wives, in favor of a younger woman, since someone needs to care for the children, and who better than their own mother? Most women do not want to take care of another woman’s children — thus the long tradition of “evil stepmothers” in fairy tales.

While I think it is not too uncommon for a man to wish to throw his wife out onto the streets — some wives are simply a daily torment — I also think it is uncommon for a man to throw his own children on the streets, just so he can whore around with younger women. The Romans, in the patriarchal tradition, required a man to keep custody of his children, even if he divorced his wife. In general, a man would prefer to whore around with younger women, while also keeping his wife and children. This is certainly uncomfortable for a wife, but she can also leave if she wants to. Anyway, Jackie Kennedy put up with it.

In all the various scenarios that come up, the fallback is basically family. What if a woman is abandoned by her man, along with the children, and all are kicked out of their own house? Basically, if she does not simply keep the household herself as a single mother, she goes to live with either her parents or her brother.

What if a man is abandoned by his wife? She just leaves one day to go be a whore. The man keeps the children; and his house. Most men are pretty content with this, and make good fathers. He keeps his assets, and basically not much changes except that he doesn’t have to take care of his trashy wife anymore.

What happens to the children? We assume that a man and a woman can come to some kind of agreement about the custody of children. They are not assets obviously held in the name of one party or another. Often this “agreement” comes about as the consequence of some other action. If a woman just leaves to be a whore, she leaves her children. We have the situations where children are desired by both parents; or perhaps, desired by neither. In general, the default where children are desired by both parents should be the father, it seems to me. Where children are desired by neither, typically relatives step in to take up the slack. This is already common today, where children are raised by their grandparents or aunts, since their own parents are apparently incapable of the task. Such has been the character of human society for a long time. In the past, these situations developed more commonly because one or the other parent would die young. A man would die young, perhaps with no significant assets, and in a rented house, leaving his wife and children alone. Or a woman would die young, commonly in childbirth. How is this different than if a man or woman abandons the family to go be whores? Except for a sense of injustice, the functional outcome is almost the same. In general, things are easier today than they used to be.

In general, there are two basic forms of contention: Where nobody wants a child, and where both parents want a child. Somehow this would need to be resolved. Also, there would have to be some establishment of legitimate custody — that one parent or the other couldn’t change their mind somewhere along the way, and contend either for custody of a child or abandonment of a child, in some open-ended fashion. Again I tend to think that the father should get first choice in all matters involving the custody of children. But, probably women would be a lot less interested in custody if they didn’t get any child support or alimony. Men just assume that if they have a child, they will pay for them.

A woman that just leaves her family one day to go be a whore — a very common scenario today — is still married, at least at first. Then what? In the past, this meant that she could not marry again, since she was already married; although not living in her husband’s house. I’m not sure this would be relevant in this situation. Maybe it doesn’t matter.

In short, the effect would be that the “terms of divorce” would be set in advance, in the form of ownership of assets. This being the case, some care should be taken on these points, and would be. Probably nothing should be held “jointly,” as this just invites legal trouble later on. Household fixtures are assumed to be part of the household in which they are located.

I do not want make an argument here about eliminating divorce laws altogether. Phyllis Schlafly, who certainly knows more about the laws than me, was opposed to the Libertarian argument that the State should basically be out of marriage; but she doesn’t say why, or what exactly her alternative is. Usually, as a general principle, we find that the Libertarian Argument is mostly correct, although perhaps not applied in 100% of all situations. It turns out that the State does a pretty good job of maintaining public roads, but that does not mean we have to accept the other 90% of its activities today, which were explicitly banned in the Constitution explicitly to avoid the consequences we have today. Perhaps we do not need the State to be 100% out of the marriage sphere altogether; but 90% would work well. I have to admit that this scenario, painted here, seems pretty functional. Certainly it allows for many injustices; mostly in the form of adultery. But, on balance, these injustices seem less than the injustices handed out today by the family courts every day of the week.

This was interesting:

The funny thing, of course, is that the American men are basically toeing the Feminist Line, which women don’t like so much; and the Russian men are traditionally Patriarchal, which women like.

Of course Traditionally Patriarchal is the correct choice. I suggest that young men should emulate their Russian brothers and express, clearly, that they expect their wives to Stay At Home and Raise The Children, possibly homeschooling.

For one thing, this will quickly weed out the Feminist types. If a woman doesn’t like the idea of staying at home and raising the children, then of course we can use her for a little fun time, but don’t marry her.

We might allow a short period of dual income/no kids basically to pay down debts, or possibly enable the purchase of a house. But, when a woman gets pregnant, she should quit her job permanently. Plan on breastfeeding. DINKing is easier when you marry young, since it is not such a big deal if you spend four years working to pay down debts, if a woman is 22. But, living on one income, with children, should be the goal, so don’t buy a house so big that you can’t afford the mortgage without two incomes.

Of course if women expect to get married, and live on one income, and also live a lifestyle that most two-income households can’t afford (they’re faking it), then they will be restricted to men of unusually high income. And, men of unusually high income are in their fifties, and already married. Or, maybe they were married, and have no intention of getting married again. Most of the women — 90%+ — who pursue this strategy will fail.

In other words, if women are actually going to marry young (18-24), and have children during peak childbearing years (18-32), instead of just fantasizing about it with their fantasy husband who makes a Top 5% income for his age group, you are going to have to live cheap. With children.

This is not actually that hard. A woman, and even one with two small children, doesn’t actually cost that much. They can live in the same place that a man might live alone, a one-bedroom apartment (babies don’t take up much space). I would say it is about $1000 or $1500 a month, but against that are some savings, such as no dating and no need for restaurants, since a wife at home should be learning to cook well.

I’ve come to conclude that men are good at cooperative enterprise. A group of men — three, ten, fifty, a hundred, a hundred thousand — organize themselves into a productive team of some sort. Some of the things they achieve are amazing.

And then we have women. A ship with too many women tends to sink, in good weather.

“New Zealand ship didn’t sink because its captain was a woman” riiiight.

“Norwegian warship accident raises questions on women in armed forces.”

Raises answers is more like it.

I think women are naturally suited for one-on-one leadership, with a man. Basically, a husband and wife, or a father and daughter. As soon as you get multiple women in a room, things tend to fall apart. This is especially true if the leader of such a group is also a woman.

In other words, Matriarchy Does Not Exist.

I think there are exceptional women who can discipline themselves to perform what is normally thought of as a man’s job, and do it well. There are a few Margaret Thatchers, although I can’t name a single one except for Maggie herself.

But, as soon as you have two or more women, and especially if you have five or six, the Law of Averages tends to take hold.

I’ve been following these issues for a while now, but even with all I’ve learned over the years, seeing all the obstacles to marriage and family, and all the difficulties that men face, laid out end to end is a daunting prospect.

Phyllis Schlafly, the conservative commentator and advocate, gained the nickname “Mrs. America.” After raising a family of six children in the 1950s, as a stay-at-home Mom, she took up political affairs (mostly still at home), and played an especially important role in blocking the horrible Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and early 1980s. She had a Master’s in Government from Harvard, and a JD from the Washington University School of Law.

A little before her death in 2016, she summed up all that she had seen happen during her lifetime, in Who Killed the American Family? (2014).

The fact of the matter is, someone is going to have to fix all this stuff, and it is obviously not going to be women, although there may be a few, the younger Schlaflys (although I can’t name one with her level of expertise), that take a role in the process. Basically it is going to be men. So, we need to know, at very least, what it is we are going to fix. This includes things like No Fault Divorce of course, but it goes way beyond that, even to such things as the United Nations Treaty on the Rights of the Child, or everything related to the family courts, or Child Protective Services, or Child Support in general, the welfare state that rewards single motherhood, or even the student debt scam that has rendered both women and men of prime childbearing age burdened by debt that not only prevents young couples from even considering a chid; but also, marriage to a heavily-indebted partner. In short, everything since 1960 which has gradually made marriage and family a bleak and risky prospect.

The Black family actually survived both slavery and the Great Depression; but welfare killed it.

Men need to stop complaining on YouTube, and basically do what Schlafly did in her time, which was to figure out what the problem is, figure out what the solution is, and then make it happen, mostly at the level of State government. This means political organization. You can start on the weekends and evenings; in time, you can get good enough at it to start asking others to help support you with a few donations.

By the way, I always associated this sort of hairstyle with elderly women in the 1980s. It turns out that women commonly settle on a hairstyle during their youth, and keep it through their lives. It is not an “old women’s hairstyle,” it is a young women’s hairstyle from the 1950s, often paired with a tweedy jacket and pearls.

For example, here’s Barbara Billingsley as June Cleaver, a young stay-at-home mother, from the 1950s TV series Leave It To Beaver.