Marriage and feminism as shit tests
Now to address these tough questions, we'll need to resort to both EP and game concepts, namely:
- shit test: a question where the right answer is not the one that is seemingly expected; a demand where doing what is seemingly expected is the wrong thing to do. Example: a woman asks you to do something, then thinks less of you for doing it.
- Number of theoretically possible offspring per year: female, one, male, a lot.
The latter is essential to EP. It explains differences in male-female parental investment, reproductive strategies (r/K), sex-drive, etc.
This means that men have by definition a lot more to lose from monogamy than women. Our current serial monogamy system is neither universal nor widespread nor has always been the norm, polygyny is still widespread.
The old social regime was a fragile combination of inequalities compensating other inequalities - men having more power in marriage (as they still do in a large part of the world), men being expected to pay but having more money, etc.
Feminism has entirely skewed this - women expect the same wages as men, not for the same work, but for easier work with less hours, and they still expect men to pay for everything. They expect men to still enter marriages, a losing arrangement from the start, but now with on top of that a legal right to basically steal their money on divorce, cuckold them and still expect them to pay for their bastard children, while taking the dad's actual children away from him.
This means that now by definition accepting that kind of contractual agreement implies a shit test failure and betaness. Add to this the fact that even that outrageously skewed in favor of women arrangement becomes superflous thanks to the state subsidizing of single moms. Add the fact of women empowerment through contraception or basically (most) women's utter freedom of having or not having a child, whatever the guy may think, and then legally binding some random guy to pay for it. Add all these, and the nice guy/beta provider/loyal husband becomes utterly superflous.
In this system the smart move for women becomes even more than ever to have sex with alphas only, then marry some rich lesser alpha and dump him after a few years and take his money.
So yeah, both marriage and feminism appear as mere shit tests, weeding out betas and favoring selection of alphas, as nature would have it, nothing new here.
But here's the interesting angle.
Feminism is a creation of the losers of sexual competition, the beta females so to speak.
We're talking about women who are either ugly or lesbian, and who have therefore given up on the possibility of getting any man, be it alpha or beta, to court them, marry them and voluntary impregnate them (or were not interested in the first place). Their agenda is therefore simple:
- get men to marry them
- Enforcing information asymmetry, in its more Western form, campaigning against hot babes on posters or any showing of the naked body of hot females.
- Making men more desperate, hopefully desperate enough to bang them, by banning prostitution and pornography
- force men to give them offspring
- A woman has full freedom of abortion, a man has not.
- Legally forcing men to pay for children even if they never wanted them and are not the fathers.
- if the above fails, is not desirable or as a follow-up to the above
- Force either men or "society" to pay for their single motherhood.
Now let's recall another thing:
Women tended to have two strategies: getting a cad (alpha male) for the best genes (short term) and getting a dad (beta provider) for the best care and support (long run). They still want an alpha for the short run, and now they'll want either an alpha or nobody for the long run. Since the alpha won't fall for their current long run he doesn't care either way.
So to summarize, this won't change much for alpha men, if anything they'll win (becoming even more interesting to all women). This won't change that much for alpha women, but they'll lose a little.
Beta women win, having furthered their agenda and increased their fitness. Beta men lose, becoming utterly superfluous, best they can hope for is to be temporarily used by a beta female, gaining a little sex, while drained of a lot of money, with zero fitness.
Thus Game as self-defense of the beta male against the plottings of the beta female.
Two more effects:
- men born into these feminist households are more likely to be betas, thus the number of betas increases.
- women become more empowered, more self-confident, less caring about their looks, therefore less attractive women available while more betas trying to get them, thus situation even worse for betas.
In conclusion, marriage has become a shit test due to feminism. Since feminists have made marriage so unattractive that women can but despise men who enter it, marriages don't last.
Feminism is partly a shit test and partly a fitness-redistribution scheme.
Since marriages are more unstable, there will be less children and less happy children.
Solutions?
No sense in crying over the past equilibrium, which was far from perfect. But we should realize that inequalities and advantages for men over women in marriage were there for a reason, namely to counterbalance the inherent female advantage in marriage. For instance, wives had a legal duty to provide sex to the husband (legally no rape within marriage), men had decision power, adultery was punished more harshly when done by women (which makes sense, a woman can know who the father is).
There's no need to impose this old balance at state-level though. Equality before the law is a good thing, and there's no need for stoning adulterous women now that we have paternity tests. But a new and better balance could and should be reached through free and improved marriage contracts, which would entirely replace current divorce, alimony etc. laws. Freely entered contracts that would reflect the new economic order and thus provide no financial benefits in case of divorce, mandate paternity tests, etc.
2011-05-01