Germans, and GoodWhite equalist leftoids in general, have no one to blame but themselves for their autogenocide. The occupiers they have let in are just doing what occupiers do when no native sons will put them under the boot. Will the White man find his heart again? Or has the rot reached the bone? The answer to this question will determine the shape of the 21st Century.
Executive Summary: There’s a tight link between female fertility and divorce.
Do women initiate the majority of divorces because men are innately “badder” than wives? Or, is it more likely something else which motivates wives — something intrinsic to the demands of their female desires — to push for marital dissolution at greater rates than husbands push for it?
CH has tackled the subject of female-initiated frivorce. It’s good to revisit the topic for clarification, because there are a lot of people who still labor under delusions about the malign effects on society of the divorce industrial complex, and what exactly incentivizes wives to file for the majority of divorces.
Feminists like to point to statistics that supposedly show that divorced women experience a fall in their standard of living as proof that wives are reluctantly initiating divorces to get out of marriages to ill-behaving husbands. There are two problems with this highly misleading statistic (assuming the stat is true in the sense it is being used):
1. The presumption that women are thinking through the long-term and less tangible financial consequences of divorce when the short-term and more tangible incentives are all in the woman’s favor.
A woman who knows she will get half, the house, and custody with child support thinks she will hit the jackpot in the event of divorce, because those rewards are immediate and tangible. She won’t be as likely to think through the prospect of diminished career potential or sexual market value. Incentives matter in human behavior, and front-loaded incentives matter more than downstream disincentives.
2. The drop in a divorced woman’s standard of living, if true, is likely based on a faulty comparison with her standard of living while she was married. The better and more relevant comparison is between the standard of living of a divorced woman and her life as a single woman before she got married. Do divorced women live better than they did as single women BEFORE they got married? That is the useful metric which will shed light on whether divorce really is a bad economic decision for women.
Regarding the supposed post-divorce drop in women’s standard of living, WPrice added:
I tend to reject the statistic, because it usually refers to a feminist study from the 1980s (when academic feminism had carte blanche to make things up). However, it’s true that a woman’s income often looks low on paper following divorce. This is because child support, child tax credits, EIC, property transferred to woman from ex-husband and other benefits are not counted as income. In the meanwhile, it looks like a man’s expenses have gone down, because he no longer gets to claim these expenses on his tax returns. The truth, however, is that she gets all of the supposed increase in his living standard and then some directly in her pocket. The statistic is so deliberately dishonest that it ought to be called what it is: a lie.
Divorce is deliberately set up to ensure that women lose as little as possible when leaving their marriage for whatever reason. Men, of course, are punished no matter what the reason.
The reason our laws, and in particular divorce laws, are biased in favor of women, has to do with the human psychological underpinnings that emerge from the Fundamental Premise.
The divorce rate skyrocketed right after no-fault divorce was passed in CA in 1969, followed by most other states. It has since declined from its mid-1970s high and leveled off (but still nowhere its historical lows in the US pre-1969), so whatever shock to the marital system no-fault divorce instigated seemed to have worked itself out by the 1980s.
CH is fond of the Diversity + Proximity = War equation, but there’s another one we love just as much for its pithy descriptive power:
Options = Instability.
A young woman in her nubile prime has more romantic options than a same-age young man. This makes commitment at that age inherently unstable (especially for naive beta males). The formula reverses for men, who experience a rise in romantic options as they get older and gain social and financial status, (and given that men of all ages are attracted to female youth and beauty, there would be incentives for an older husband to trade his status for a younger second wife).
Theoretically, then, we should find that female-initiated divorce is mostly by YOUNG wives, and male-initiated divorce by OLDER husbands. And that is pretty much the case… but for the former only.
From Dalrock:
As I’ve shared previously the data shows divorce rates are highest when the wife is young and has the incentive to commit divorce theft, and lowest when the wife is older and the husband has the incentive to commit divorce theft. Divorce is actually least likely when conventional wisdom suggests it occurs most, when the wife is older and the husband has the opportunity to dump her for a younger woman.
On the surface, this result is strange. But thinking about it, I can tell you why the divorce rate doesn’t follow a symmetrical “U-curve” that reflects older husbands “trading up” for younger second wives: men, unlike women, are simply more comfortable keeping two lovers simultaneously. Husbands don’t have a problem screwing a mistress and coming home to a doting wife. Wives DO have a problem screwing around and maintaining a happy facade with their cucked beta hubbies.
In short, men have a harem mentality. Women don’t.
One glaring correlation that emerges when examining divorce trends is that the divorce rate mirrors women’s likelihood of getting pregnant (aka how fertile she is, aka how hot she is).
The divorce rate and the female fertility rate, if superimposed, are practically IDENTICAL. Divorce is, to a great degree, a function of a woman’s sexual desirability and her options in the sexual market. The more romantic attention from desirable men a young wife can command, the more unstable her marriage.
If stable marriages are a noble societal goal, then encouraging later marriages would work to lower the divorce rate. But, this strategy also works to lower the marital fertility rate, as older mothers have fewer children than younger mothers. Plus, beta males with rising SMV (sexual market value) don’t much like marrying road worn and put away hard women in their 30s, and they won’t if they don’t have to.
A better social strategy would be to instruct young men in the ways of seducing women — both premaritally and maritally — so that they can better tame and redirect their young wives’ hypergamous compulsions to themselves and away from alpha male interlopers. Still another possibility is pairing off younger wives with older husbands, for a balanced SMV match. Or, removing the disincentives to stay married that have become part of divorce and family laws.
(FYI, women will always receive the bulk of child support, and child custody, because women are naturally disposed to the task of child-rearing in a way that men aren’t. Most men don’t much like the drudgery of child-raising, but for that minority of ex-husbands and fathers who crave the joys of being a full-time dad, the family court system should be reformed to better sympathize with their needs.)
Bottom line: If divorce laws are grossly unfair to either sex, they need to be changed. Lamely indulging in “life is unfair” white knightism posturing is no excuse for accepting the continuance of bad laws. (Perspective: “racial quotas are wrong.” “life is unfair.” See how that doesn’t work?)
Dat contrapposto. The old timers knew how an alpha male should stand (and how a woman should look when she’s ecstatically submitting to him).
Crucially, notice how Mars’ chest faces outward (while Venus’ entire body is devoted to him). His eyes pierce Venus’ soul with divine love, but his torso belies a longing in his heart for conquests and glory that are apart from her. See also: CH Poon Commandment III.
The game maestros are, yet again, correct in their worldview. ♂SCIENCE♂ clearly confirms the field observation that women are instantly and romantically curious about a man who is in the company of other women, especially if those women aren’t fat bluehair feminists.
[Female preselection] solves a more important adaptive problem for females than for males—getting information about a potential partner. Because men are often initially concerned with the attractiveness of a partner, they can look at a female and instantly discern a fair bit of mate-relevant information. That’s often less the case for women. […]
Back in the 1970s, a pair of researchers conducted an experiment to examine the importance of having a physically attractive partner. Participants evaluated men who were either the boyfriend of, or unassociated with, a female; and the female was either attractive, or unattractive. Of the four conditions, the men with an attractive girlfriend were evaluated the most favorably. The men with the unattractive girlfriend were evaluated the least favorably. This was taken as evidence of how the company you keep seems to be important. […]
Because physical attractiveness is an important cue for female mate-value, the perceived quality of a man’s female partner can be determined to a large extent by how physically attractive she is. Due to positive assortative mating, this can have a bearing on a man’s own mate-value. Some studies have demonstrated that mate copying effects are stronger when the female partner of a man is physically attractive than if she is less attractive or perceived as unattractive. In some research I personally conducted, a man’s mate-value was elevated simply by having physically attractive female friends. […]
Based on the research presented above, a man looking to romantically attract women might do well to surround himself with beautiful women. And if one (or all) of them behaves favorably toward him, all the better.
CH has discussed this topic many times, because it is important. You can fast track your seduction successes by rigging the game with a powerful attraction-building shortcut: the presence of an (attractive) woman to cue other women that you are a HSMV man.
But be careful. Being seen with an ugly fatty will actually hurt your attractiveness to other women more than being seen alone! The ideal set-up is one in which your female company is a young, cute girl who acts a little too vajcurious with you. (Btw, older men can greatly increase their close rate with younger women through the application of this principle.)
Of course, getting that first cute babe to join you on your nightly poon expeditions isn’t a small feat. But one you have her, successive cute babes become easier to score. It’s like the stock market; you’ve gotta find the money to invest, but once you’ve got a steady return on investment you can let the magic of compound interest work and live off your dividends.
In the future, I will have a post about game specifically designed for ugly men (bottom 20% in physical appearance), and preselection will play a big part in the ugly man’s ability to extend his dating market victories beyond a few one-off flukes.
Occasionally, and getting less frequent all the time, I consult the radio/TV/print Hivemind media organs for the disinformation of the day. I don’t know why I do this, except as an exercise in having my cynicism affirmed. Without fail, I’m subjected to the exquisite pain of a fagged up torrent of leftoid lies, war on women crap, and race creationism… every topic infused with the easy assumption that White men are the root of all evil, and delivered with the butt-clenched sanctimony that only a shitlib in the middle of a set of Kegels can summon.
Lately though, listening in on the enemy has become intolerable. I’m talking about the uptalk. It’s outta control? I mean, everyone has to speak their sentences like a question now?
For instance, on a recent excursion to the freaky farm, in the span of fifteen minutes I had to endure hearing four women and two men uptalk NEARLY EVERY GODDAMN SENTENCE that poured out of their mouths. And once you pick up on the repetitive nature of this Millennial verbal tic, the sound quickly hits the ear like nails on chalkboard.
But it’s not just Millennials. One woman had the gravelly voice of late middle age, and she uptalked as badly as the younger women. The men sounded like recent college grads, and while they didn’t exhibit the degree of commitment to uptalking that the women did, (taking a break every so often to deliver a statement in the form of a statement), when they did uptalk it struck my nerves harder, so unused was I to hearing grown males speak like insecure preteen girls. Like, wow just wow?
I’m continually amazed at how faggy shitlib Americans are becoming, in speech, belief, and behavior. I wonder sometimes if they aren’t a new developing species; a branch on the evolutionary tree hanging low with a load of fruit.
In theory, a little bit of uptalk should sound feminine coming from a woman, but in practice it just comes across whiny and passive-aggressive, as if the speaker is so thin-skinned she has to phrase everything as a question so that she can coerce the listener’s head-nodding agreement. And, I suppose, if in a rare planetary alignment one of the un-vetted guests on these news shows were to actually challenge the uptalking shitlib on her faulty premise, she can mentally retreat to the ego-saving fake-out that she was only “questioning the received wisdom”.
As you can see, the scenery is clearly racist and problematic. You can see at least 9 Europeans there.
This hate must end. We must all work together to make Germany a hate-free, multicultural country free of Germans.
This is the inevitable logic of anti-White leftoid equalism, unless leftoids want to argue that they will work to protect native White German interests if their share of the total population falls below some predefined number like, say, 30%. But then we’re just arguing numbers, not morality, and once the leftoid goes there they have no tool left in their moral torture chamber to argue against a Germany that is 100% native German.
It all circles back to an inescapable truth:
This is what separate nations are for.
***
The Pushback, continued: Heather Mac Donald recently unloaded a full clip of Narrative-busting Realtalk™ on the assembled at a frickin’ Senate hearing! The woman has balls.
Any member who was paying the least bit attention to her mass destruction knowledge droppage could not in good conscience leave that room and ever again mouth the lies of anti-White BlackLivesMatter propaganda. But I suppose that would presume US public servants have an ounce of personal integrity.
…that older Middle Eastern men all walk the same, with their hands clasped behind their backs, bent over a little at the waist, shuffling slowly, heads nodding theatrically to punctuate very important points in their conversations? They like to walk shoulder to shoulder in big groups, so they take up a lot of space on the sidewalk.
Friendzoned by a tard. Does it get worse than that?
“We are just friends”
😆 She said it twice, for the nosebleeds.
As a reader put it, female hypergamy knows no bounds. Downygirl has a beta orbiter — a fellow tard — who looks like he was ready to hug her with the love of ten men. But, you know, she’s a “model”, and no ordinary provider Corky will do for her, even if he’s sporting a righteous clip-on tie.
I tell ya, a girl gets a taste of that sweet chromosomally correct manmeat, and she ain’t looking back!
A reader came up with an excellent idea: use reverse psychology (the old-fashioned term for trolling) against the women who exploit beta male chumps for money and emotional support without giving the betas any sex in return.
The concept is simple. Whenever you come across an attention whore on social media bragging to anyone who will listen about the asexual lump she keeps around as a “great friend” to “help raise her child (which is not his)”, you slyly imply, or directly state if that’s your style, that she and her beta toy “look like a great couple together!! ”
Attention Whoring Beta Exploiting Sociopath: “This is my best friend, Chodester McChode! He buys me stuff!”
Despicable You: “Aw you guys are so cute together! It’s obvious you two are in love.”
Attention Whoring Beta Exploiting Sociopath: “Whaaat? No, we’re not together….”
Despicable You: “Stop trying to be so modest. We get it, you have a real catch, and you don’t want to make your girl friends jealous.”
Attention Whoring Beta Exploiting Sociopath: “No, really… don’t get the wrong idea….. OMG I can’t belive you think that??!”
Despicable You: “Look at you playing coy. Come on, we can all see what a great match he is for you. You’re not going to do better honey!”
Etc, etc, insert shiv, etc. You can dial up the sadism as much as you like, and have fun while doing it. Bonus: I believe this will make a dent in America’s Attention Whoring Beta Exploiting Sociopath population. Or at least a dent in their willingness to humiliate their pet betas online to throngs of cackling cunts.
A man was in a Massachusetts park, holding a camera and taking a stroll. A woman got the vapors from this horrible sight, and called the cops to tell them there was a pedophile stalking children. SIX cops surrounded the man and questioned him for twenty minutes, before letting him go. He wrote an open letter to the fevered bitch who wanted to criminalize his existence.
Dear Neighbor,
Yesterday was a beautiful day, I think you will agree. I decided to take a short walk from my house on Hamilton Street to Dana Park, which I have been coming to almost daily since 1989, the year my son was born. As I often do, I brought my camera, sat on a bench for about 10 minutes, did one lap around the park and headed home.
I had barely gotten across the street when three police cars pulled up: I was told to stop, and swiftly surrounded by six policemen. I was “detained” there for approximately 20 minutes and questioned; another officer returned to the park to find out why you had called them.
My suspected crime, apparently, was having a camera in a public park, and allegedly taking pictures of children. As it turned out, I had taken no pictures that day. But I have been photographing in this neighborhood for 30 years, and have published a children’s book of poems and photographs, always with permission.
The policeman returned and wanted to see my “flip phone,” and then asked me if I knew how he knew I had a flip phone: I didn’t. He knew, he told me, because the woman who called the police had taken a picture of ME, sitting on the bench, and shown him the picture. They then took away my phone, scrolled through the few pictures that were on it.
They continued to hover around me asking questions. As it happened, I was standing near the house where my son now lives, and when my wife appeared, walking down the street after work, and saw me standing in front of his house with six policemen, she instantly feared something terrible had happened to our son. She was shaking, and I explained the situation. She is an English teacher at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School; I am a college professor of English. Our son spent much of the first 15 years of his life in Dana Park.
You must be new in the neighborhood. I am often in the park, on foot or on a bike, talking to friends who have children who play in the playground. I know you were standing very near to me for the entire time I was on the bench, though I could not figure out why. Now I know: you were taking my picture.
Suggestion: the next time you suspect someone is up to no good, perhaps you should say hello, speak to them first and, if still anxious, ask what they are taking pictures of. That’s what people do in a neighborhood park: talk to each other. This would save someone the humiliation and degradation of being stopped and held by the police, and might save the police from wasting their time when they could be doing something more useful, like managing the daily mayhem in Central Square.
The fact that you now have my picture in your phone is both sadly ironic and, well, creepy. Could you please delete it?
Your neighbor,
— David Updike, Hamilton Street
I’m convinced Americans are currently living through a second Puritan age, and our witch burners are feminists, SJWs, antiracists, and TV talk show snarkmeisters.
Meanwhile, skulking Somalis stream into Maine and Minneapolis. Welcome to anarcho-tyranny. Jefferson wept.
***
Reader Tacitus James writes,
Writing a reasonable letter to a hyper-alarmist egg layer? You might as well try to talk reason to the egg itself. No, the problem we have in our culture is closer to the police on up, especially the men. We are allowing this to happen by reacting submissively to the hyper-alarmist cries of the uteruti. Women will cry, accuse, lie, and manipulate — it is their nature. The movement, our movement, will reach it’s apex when these unsubstantiated cries are met with the skepticism they deserve. The present authorities allow these injustices to happen. We allow these injustices to happen.The police, the law makers–when we finally succeed, they will be the object of our reprimands.
Don’t take women seriously. Where have we heard that sterling advice before? *prepares to preen*
