Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by USN_Hokie »

Stick with it and watch the whole thing - it's more provocative at first. This ties together a bunch of concepts I and other people have talked about here.
PolyTech
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:05 am

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by PolyTech »

Was this funded by Cdub?
#JusticeForNolan
VTDante
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:49 pm
Alma Mater: VT
Party: Libertarian

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by VTDante »

Read civilization analyses like A Fate of Empires or books by Carroll Quigley. They discuss periods of resource abundance for empires and the subsequent decline. The American empire is no exception. Feminism is a symptom of affluence. I'll listen to those who will discuss feminism's rise with powerful institutions in the 70s but civilization has seen this before. Society today is this weird social experiment where many women are acting masculine and men tapping into their femininity.

Imo, commitment is rigged, and marriage is horrible deal for a man's self interest. Men are open to a tremendous amount of risk offering women security in exchange for reproduction. The truth's a hard pill to swallow. More men are opting out of traditional relationships for good reason.

That's why you see a rise in the manosphere. More men are rejecting traditional societal narrative and choosing a male first approach like men's rights movement (no win movement imo), PUA, MGTOW, etc.

Are there women worthy of commitment? Sure. There are a few. I think most men would agree if you discard our natural desire to protect and self sacrifice, women will treat you better the more insecure they are in a relationship.

My advice for the younger generations: keep your commitment conditional. No marriage. Sexuality is amoral. Focus on your freedom. Minimize female traps like oops babies and false rapes. Sex has never been easier if you know how to get it.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by awesome guy »

great video, thanks for sharing.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
CWHOKIECPA
Posts: 3521
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:50 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: In your Moms mouth
Location: Mom's basement.

gooood. Gooooooood.

Post by CWHOKIECPA »

VTDante wrote:Read civilization analyses like A Fate of Empires or books by Carroll Quigley. They discuss periods of resource abundance for empires and the subsequent decline. The American empire is no exception. Feminism is a symptom of affluence. I'll listen to those who will discuss feminism's rise with powerful institutions in the 70s but civilization has seen this before. Society today is this weird social experiment where many women are acting masculine and men tapping into their femininity.

Imo, commitment is rigged, and marriage is horrible deal for a man's self interest. Men are open to a tremendous amount of risk offering women security in exchange for reproduction. The truth's a hard pill to swallow. More men are opting out of traditional relationships for good reason.

That's why you see a rise in the manosphere. More men are rejecting traditional societal narrative and choosing a male first approach like men's rights movement (no win movement imo), PUA, MGTOW, etc.

Are there women worthy of commitment? Sure. There are a few. I think most men would agree if you discard our natural desire to protect and self sacrifice, women will treat you better the more insecure they are in a relationship.

My advice for the younger generations: keep your commitment conditional. No marriage. Sexuality is amoral. Focus on your freedom. Minimize female traps like oops babies and false rapes. Sex has never been easier if you know how to get it.
Gooood. Gooooood.
Last edited by CWHOKIECPA on Thu Feb 25, 2016 4:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
My women clients think I'm so sweet.
CWHOKIECPA
Posts: 3521
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:50 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: In your Moms mouth
Location: Mom's basement.

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by CWHOKIECPA »

USN_Hokie wrote:Stick with it and watch the whole thing - it's more provocative at first. This ties together a bunch of concepts I and other people have talked about here.
That is a fantastic video. I wish I could put it all together like he did.
My women clients think I'm so sweet.
CWHOKIECPA
Posts: 3521
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:50 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: In your Moms mouth
Location: Mom's basement.

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by CWHOKIECPA »

VTDante wrote:Read civilization analyses like A Fate of Empires or books by Carroll Quigley. They discuss periods of resource abundance for empires and the subsequent decline. The American empire is no exception. Feminism is a symptom of affluence. I'll listen to those who will discuss feminism's rise with powerful institutions in the 70s but civilization has seen this before. Society today is this weird social experiment where many women are acting masculine and men tapping into their femininity.

Imo, commitment is rigged, and marriage is horrible deal for a man's self interest. Men are open to a tremendous amount of risk offering women security in exchange for reproduction. The truth's a hard pill to swallow. More men are opting out of traditional relationships for good reason.

That's why you see a rise in the manosphere. More men are rejecting traditional societal narrative and choosing a male first approach like men's rights movement (no win movement imo), PUA, MGTOW, etc.

Are there women worthy of commitment? Sure. There are a few. I think most men would agree if you discard our natural desire to protect and self sacrifice, women will treat you better the more insecure they are in a relationship.

My advice for the younger generations: keep your commitment conditional. No marriage. Sexuality is amoral. Focus on your freedom. Minimize female traps like oops babies and false rapes. Sex has never been easier if you know how to get it.

Commitment is rigged. And women don't like to give their youth to just anyone. A lot of guys have to wait too long for commitment to be viable. My saying is, no youth, no fertility, no marriage. A woman's youth is the most important thing to a guy. If you haven't or won't get that, their shouldn't be a thought of marriage. Really though, like you say, you shouldn't ever do it. You are brilliant. Who are you? Become my apprentice. The force is strong with you.
My women clients think I'm so sweet.
User avatar
Bay_area_Hokie
Posts: 6026
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:53 am
Alma Mater: VT
Party: Surprise Party

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by Bay_area_Hokie »

Great vid


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
“With God there are only individuals” - Philosopher Nicolas Gomez Davila
HokieJoe
Posts: 13123
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by HokieJoe »

Good video.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by USN_Hokie »

CWHOKIECPA wrote:
VTDante wrote:Read civilization analyses like A Fate of Empires or books by Carroll Quigley. They discuss periods of resource abundance for empires and the subsequent decline. The American empire is no exception. Feminism is a symptom of affluence. I'll listen to those who will discuss feminism's rise with powerful institutions in the 70s but civilization has seen this before. Society today is this weird social experiment where many women are acting masculine and men tapping into their femininity.

Imo, commitment is rigged, and marriage is horrible deal for a man's self interest. Men are open to a tremendous amount of risk offering women security in exchange for reproduction. The truth's a hard pill to swallow. More men are opting out of traditional relationships for good reason.

That's why you see a rise in the manosphere. More men are rejecting traditional societal narrative and choosing a male first approach like men's rights movement (no win movement imo), PUA, MGTOW, etc.

Are there women worthy of commitment? Sure. There are a few. I think most men would agree if you discard our natural desire to protect and self sacrifice, women will treat you better the more insecure they are in a relationship.

My advice for the younger generations: keep your commitment conditional. No marriage. Sexuality is amoral. Focus on your freedom. Minimize female traps like oops babies and false rapes. Sex has never been easier if you know how to get it.

Commitment is rigged. And women don't like to give their youth to just anyone. A lot of guys have to wait too long for commitment to be viable. My saying is, no youth, no fertility, no marriage. A woman's youth is the most important thing to a guy. If you haven't or won't get that, their shouldn't be a thought of marriage. Really though, like you say, you shouldn't ever do it. You are brilliant. Who are you? Become my apprentice. The force is strong with you.
This is why morality is important and waiting to become married (women) or marrying an older person (men) reduces your odds of having a successful marriage. Society encourages young people to be promiscuous for 10+ years after college and then settle down...and then folks wonder why their spouses are selfish, full of baggage, and their marriage fails. Our society has basically disregarded monogamy for the first half of one's life....then destroyed the mechanisms to make them successful (the government now competes with men to fill the roles that men traditionally have and even incentivizes women to leave marriages or hae kids out of wedlock). Men can exploit the former, but as you and Dante pointed out - put themselves at risk with the latter.

BUT - marriage can work and be rewarding when morality is present. This is why (just one example) people (even atheists) shouldn't scoff at organized religion. Religion established the moral norms necessary for society to flourish and remains the basis for the system of laws we have today (a good example: monogamy laws). Monogamy wasn't some crap that a priest thought up. It is a lesson learned after thousands of years of human interaction. As the video mentioned, monogamy is necessary for a society to flourish. Now that religion is ignored, the basis for laws relating to morality are in question.

Now, I'm not saying we need religion in government, but we can't disregard the impact Judeo-Christian values have had on the success of western civilization. Multiculturalism seeks to diminish/destroy Judeo-Christian values. Europe is already beyond the point of no return. If anyone has aspirations of visiting Europe they should do it now - it will be indistinguishable from present-day Turkey in the next 50 years.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by ip_law-hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:
VTDante wrote:Read civilization analyses like A Fate of Empires or books by Carroll Quigley. They discuss periods of resource abundance for empires and the subsequent decline. The American empire is no exception. Feminism is a symptom of affluence. I'll listen to those who will discuss feminism's rise with powerful institutions in the 70s but civilization has seen this before. Society today is this weird social experiment where many women are acting masculine and men tapping into their femininity.

Imo, commitment is rigged, and marriage is horrible deal for a man's self interest. Men are open to a tremendous amount of risk offering women security in exchange for reproduction. The truth's a hard pill to swallow. More men are opting out of traditional relationships for good reason.

That's why you see a rise in the manosphere. More men are rejecting traditional societal narrative and choosing a male first approach like men's rights movement (no win movement imo), PUA, MGTOW, etc.

Are there women worthy of commitment? Sure. There are a few. I think most men would agree if you discard our natural desire to protect and self sacrifice, women will treat you better the more insecure they are in a relationship.

My advice for the younger generations: keep your commitment conditional. No marriage. Sexuality is amoral. Focus on your freedom. Minimize female traps like oops babies and false rapes. Sex has never been easier if you know how to get it.

Commitment is rigged. And women don't like to give their youth to just anyone. A lot of guys have to wait too long for commitment to be viable. My saying is, no youth, no fertility, no marriage. A woman's youth is the most important thing to a guy. If you haven't or won't get that, their shouldn't be a thought of marriage. Really though, like you say, you shouldn't ever do it. You are brilliant. Who are you? Become my apprentice. The force is strong with you.
This is why morality is important and waiting to become married (women) or marrying an older person (men) reduces your odds of having a successful marriage. Society encourages young people to be promiscuous for 10+ years after college and then settle down...and then folks wonder why their spouses are selfish, full of baggage, and their marriage fails. Our society has basically disregarded monogamy for the first half of one's life....then destroyed the mechanisms to make them successful (the government now competes with men to fill the roles that men traditionally have and even incentivizes women to leave marriages or hae kids out of wedlock). Men can exploit the former, but as you and Dante pointed out - put themselves at risk with the latter.

BUT - marriage can work and be rewarding when morality is present. This is why (just one example) people (even atheists) shouldn't scoff at organized religion. Religion established the moral norms necessary for society to flourish and remains the basis for the system of laws we have today (a good example: monogamy laws). Monogamy wasn't some crap that a priest thought up. It is a lesson learned after thousands of years of human interaction. As the video mentioned, monogamy is necessary for a society to flourish. Now that religion is ignored, the basis for laws relating to morality are in question.

Now, I'm not saying we need religion in government, but we can't disregard the impact Judeo-Christian values have had on the success of western civilization. Multiculturalism seeks to diminish/destroy Judeo-Christian values. Europe is already beyond the point of no return. If anyone has aspirations of visiting Europe they should do it now - it will be indistinguishable from present-day Turkey in the next 50 years.
Does the blonde get naked in the video?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by awesome guy »

USN_Hokie wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:
VTDante wrote:Read civilization analyses like A Fate of Empires or books by Carroll Quigley. They discuss periods of resource abundance for empires and the subsequent decline. The American empire is no exception. Feminism is a symptom of affluence. I'll listen to those who will discuss feminism's rise with powerful institutions in the 70s but civilization has seen this before. Society today is this weird social experiment where many women are acting masculine and men tapping into their femininity.

Imo, commitment is rigged, and marriage is horrible deal for a man's self interest. Men are open to a tremendous amount of risk offering women security in exchange for reproduction. The truth's a hard pill to swallow. More men are opting out of traditional relationships for good reason.

That's why you see a rise in the manosphere. More men are rejecting traditional societal narrative and choosing a male first approach like men's rights movement (no win movement imo), PUA, MGTOW, etc.

Are there women worthy of commitment? Sure. There are a few. I think most men would agree if you discard our natural desire to protect and self sacrifice, women will treat you better the more insecure they are in a relationship.

My advice for the younger generations: keep your commitment conditional. No marriage. Sexuality is amoral. Focus on your freedom. Minimize female traps like oops babies and false rapes. Sex has never been easier if you know how to get it.

Commitment is rigged. And women don't like to give their youth to just anyone. A lot of guys have to wait too long for commitment to be viable. My saying is, no youth, no fertility, no marriage. A woman's youth is the most important thing to a guy. If you haven't or won't get that, their shouldn't be a thought of marriage. Really though, like you say, you shouldn't ever do it. You are brilliant. Who are you? Become my apprentice. The force is strong with you.
This is why morality is important and waiting to become married (women) or marrying an older person (men) reduces your odds of having a successful marriage. Society encourages young people to be promiscuous for 10+ years after college and then settle down...and then folks wonder why their spouses are selfish, full of baggage, and their marriage fails. Our society has basically disregarded monogamy for the first half of one's life....then destroyed the mechanisms to make them successful (the government now competes with men to fill the roles that men traditionally have and even incentivizes women to leave marriages or hae kids out of wedlock). Men can exploit the former, but as you and Dante pointed out - put themselves at risk with the latter.

BUT - marriage can work and be rewarding when morality is present. This is why (just one example) people (even atheists) shouldn't scoff at organized religion. Religion established the moral norms necessary for society to flourish and remains the basis for the system of laws we have today (a good example: monogamy laws). Monogamy wasn't some crap that a priest thought up. It is a lesson learned after thousands of years of human interaction. As the video mentioned, monogamy is necessary for a society to flourish. Now that religion is ignored, the basis for laws relating to morality are in question.

Now, I'm not saying we need religion in government, but we can't disregard the impact Judeo-Christian values have had on the success of western civilization. Multiculturalism seeks to diminish/destroy Judeo-Christian values. Europe is already beyond the point of no return. If anyone has aspirations of visiting Europe they should do it now - it will be indistinguishable from present-day Turkey in the next 50 years.
BOOM! Great post.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by TheH2 »

USN_Hokie wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:
VTDante wrote:Read civilization analyses like A Fate of Empires or books by Carroll Quigley. They discuss periods of resource abundance for empires and the subsequent decline. The American empire is no exception. Feminism is a symptom of affluence. I'll listen to those who will discuss feminism's rise with powerful institutions in the 70s but civilization has seen this before. Society today is this weird social experiment where many women are acting masculine and men tapping into their femininity.

Imo, commitment is rigged, and marriage is horrible deal for a man's self interest. Men are open to a tremendous amount of risk offering women security in exchange for reproduction. The truth's a hard pill to swallow. More men are opting out of traditional relationships for good reason.

That's why you see a rise in the manosphere. More men are rejecting traditional societal narrative and choosing a male first approach like men's rights movement (no win movement imo), PUA, MGTOW, etc.

Are there women worthy of commitment? Sure. There are a few. I think most men would agree if you discard our natural desire to protect and self sacrifice, women will treat you better the more insecure they are in a relationship.

My advice for the younger generations: keep your commitment conditional. No marriage. Sexuality is amoral. Focus on your freedom. Minimize female traps like oops babies and false rapes. Sex has never been easier if you know how to get it.

Commitment is rigged. And women don't like to give their youth to just anyone. A lot of guys have to wait too long for commitment to be viable. My saying is, no youth, no fertility, no marriage. A woman's youth is the most important thing to a guy. If you haven't or won't get that, their shouldn't be a thought of marriage. Really though, like you say, you shouldn't ever do it. You are brilliant. Who are you? Become my apprentice. The force is strong with you.
This is why morality is important and waiting to become married (women) or marrying an older person (men) reduces your odds of having a successful marriage. Society encourages young people to be promiscuous for 10+ years after college and then settle down...and then folks wonder why their spouses are selfish, full of baggage, and their marriage fails. Our society has basically disregarded monogamy for the first half of one's life....then destroyed the mechanisms to make them successful (the government now competes with men to fill the roles that men traditionally have and even incentivizes women to leave marriages or hae kids out of wedlock). Men can exploit the former, but as you and Dante pointed out - put themselves at risk with the latter.

BUT - marriage can work and be rewarding when morality is present. This is why (just one example) people (even atheists) shouldn't scoff at organized religion. Religion established the moral norms necessary for society to flourish and remains the basis for the system of laws we have today (a good example: monogamy laws). Monogamy wasn't some crap that a priest thought up. It is a lesson learned after thousands of years of human interaction. As the video mentioned, monogamy is necessary for a society to flourish. Now that religion is ignored, the basis for laws relating to morality are in question.

Now, I'm not saying we need religion in government, but we can't disregard the impact Judeo-Christian values have had on the success of western civilization. Multiculturalism seeks to diminish/destroy Judeo-Christian values. Europe is already beyond the point of no return. If anyone has aspirations of visiting Europe they should do it now - it will be indistinguishable from present-day Turkey in the next 50 years.
Caveat - I didn't make it through the video - but I'm commenting on your post, not the video.

Interesting take. I think there is probably a sweet spot in the marriage age. Early 20's probably has higher divorce rate than mid to late 20's. I'd imagine that late marriages (30's) divorce rates would likely increase - the hey why not get married because we've been living together for X years anyway effect.

With that said, millennials are having less sex (fewer partners) than their parents, i.e. are less promiscuous. You seem to be making the opposite conclusion. Or, do you think the "encouragement" (I'm not sure how you measure) is more important than the action - being promiscuous. If your premise is based on people being more promiscuous, I think it breaks down since they seem to be less so, at least based on the number of partners. Maybe you have a better objective way of measuring.
People who know, know.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by HokieFanDC »

TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:
VTDante wrote:Read civilization analyses like A Fate of Empires or books by Carroll Quigley. They discuss periods of resource abundance for empires and the subsequent decline. The American empire is no exception. Feminism is a symptom of affluence. I'll listen to those who will discuss feminism's rise with powerful institutions in the 70s but civilization has seen this before. Society today is this weird social experiment where many women are acting masculine and men tapping into their femininity.

Imo, commitment is rigged, and marriage is horrible deal for a man's self interest. Men are open to a tremendous amount of risk offering women security in exchange for reproduction. The truth's a hard pill to swallow. More men are opting out of traditional relationships for good reason.

That's why you see a rise in the manosphere. More men are rejecting traditional societal narrative and choosing a male first approach like men's rights movement (no win movement imo), PUA, MGTOW, etc.

Are there women worthy of commitment? Sure. There are a few. I think most men would agree if you discard our natural desire to protect and self sacrifice, women will treat you better the more insecure they are in a relationship.

My advice for the younger generations: keep your commitment conditional. No marriage. Sexuality is amoral. Focus on your freedom. Minimize female traps like oops babies and false rapes. Sex has never been easier if you know how to get it.

Commitment is rigged. And women don't like to give their youth to just anyone. A lot of guys have to wait too long for commitment to be viable. My saying is, no youth, no fertility, no marriage. A woman's youth is the most important thing to a guy. If you haven't or won't get that, their shouldn't be a thought of marriage. Really though, like you say, you shouldn't ever do it. You are brilliant. Who are you? Become my apprentice. The force is strong with you.
This is why morality is important and waiting to become married (women) or marrying an older person (men) reduces your odds of having a successful marriage. Society encourages young people to be promiscuous for 10+ years after college and then settle down...and then folks wonder why their spouses are selfish, full of baggage, and their marriage fails. Our society has basically disregarded monogamy for the first half of one's life....then destroyed the mechanisms to make them successful (the government now competes with men to fill the roles that men traditionally have and even incentivizes women to leave marriages or hae kids out of wedlock). Men can exploit the former, but as you and Dante pointed out - put themselves at risk with the latter.

BUT - marriage can work and be rewarding when morality is present. This is why (just one example) people (even atheists) shouldn't scoff at organized religion. Religion established the moral norms necessary for society to flourish and remains the basis for the system of laws we have today (a good example: monogamy laws). Monogamy wasn't some crap that a priest thought up. It is a lesson learned after thousands of years of human interaction. As the video mentioned, monogamy is necessary for a society to flourish. Now that religion is ignored, the basis for laws relating to morality are in question.

Now, I'm not saying we need religion in government, but we can't disregard the impact Judeo-Christian values have had on the success of western civilization. Multiculturalism seeks to diminish/destroy Judeo-Christian values. Europe is already beyond the point of no return. If anyone has aspirations of visiting Europe they should do it now - it will be indistinguishable from present-day Turkey in the next 50 years.
Caveat - I didn't make it through the video - but I'm commenting on your post, not the video.

Interesting take. I think there is probably a sweet spot in the marriage age. Early 20's probably has higher divorce rate than mid to late 20's. I'd imagine that late marriages (30's) divorce rates would likely increase - the hey why not get married because we've been living together for X years anyway effect.

With that said, millennials are having less sex (fewer partners) than their parents, i.e. are less promiscuous. You seem to be making the opposite conclusion. Or, do you think the "encouragement" (I'm not sure how you measure) is more important than the action - being promiscuous. If your premise is based on people being more promiscuous, I think it breaks down since they seem to be less so, at least based on the number of partners. Maybe you have a better objective way of measuring.
That's about right. From mid-20s to early 30s, the divorce rate is lowest, with the rate being lowest at 32-33 y/o. Younger that, or older than that, the divorce rate goes up.
And overall, divorce rates have been falling since the mid-90s, which should be good news.
User avatar
Hokie CPA
Posts: 2634
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 am
Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
Party: I reject your party
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by Hokie CPA »

Nice... the missus and I got married right in the sweet spot there at the age of 26. Of course, she's my only wife and she had a first husband (shotgun wedding at the age of 16, lasted 8 years).
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.

Image
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by USN_Hokie »

TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:
VTDante wrote:Read civilization analyses like A Fate of Empires or books by Carroll Quigley. They discuss periods of resource abundance for empires and the subsequent decline. The American empire is no exception. Feminism is a symptom of affluence. I'll listen to those who will discuss feminism's rise with powerful institutions in the 70s but civilization has seen this before. Society today is this weird social experiment where many women are acting masculine and men tapping into their femininity.

Imo, commitment is rigged, and marriage is horrible deal for a man's self interest. Men are open to a tremendous amount of risk offering women security in exchange for reproduction. The truth's a hard pill to swallow. More men are opting out of traditional relationships for good reason.

That's why you see a rise in the manosphere. More men are rejecting traditional societal narrative and choosing a male first approach like men's rights movement (no win movement imo), PUA, MGTOW, etc.

Are there women worthy of commitment? Sure. There are a few. I think most men would agree if you discard our natural desire to protect and self sacrifice, women will treat you better the more insecure they are in a relationship.

My advice for the younger generations: keep your commitment conditional. No marriage. Sexuality is amoral. Focus on your freedom. Minimize female traps like oops babies and false rapes. Sex has never been easier if you know how to get it.

Commitment is rigged. And women don't like to give their youth to just anyone. A lot of guys have to wait too long for commitment to be viable. My saying is, no youth, no fertility, no marriage. A woman's youth is the most important thing to a guy. If you haven't or won't get that, their shouldn't be a thought of marriage. Really though, like you say, you shouldn't ever do it. You are brilliant. Who are you? Become my apprentice. The force is strong with you.
This is why morality is important and waiting to become married (women) or marrying an older person (men) reduces your odds of having a successful marriage. Society encourages young people to be promiscuous for 10+ years after college and then settle down...and then folks wonder why their spouses are selfish, full of baggage, and their marriage fails. Our society has basically disregarded monogamy for the first half of one's life....then destroyed the mechanisms to make them successful (the government now competes with men to fill the roles that men traditionally have and even incentivizes women to leave marriages or hae kids out of wedlock). Men can exploit the former, but as you and Dante pointed out - put themselves at risk with the latter.

BUT - marriage can work and be rewarding when morality is present. This is why (just one example) people (even atheists) shouldn't scoff at organized religion. Religion established the moral norms necessary for society to flourish and remains the basis for the system of laws we have today (a good example: monogamy laws). Monogamy wasn't some crap that a priest thought up. It is a lesson learned after thousands of years of human interaction. As the video mentioned, monogamy is necessary for a society to flourish. Now that religion is ignored, the basis for laws relating to morality are in question.

Now, I'm not saying we need religion in government, but we can't disregard the impact Judeo-Christian values have had on the success of western civilization. Multiculturalism seeks to diminish/destroy Judeo-Christian values. Europe is already beyond the point of no return. If anyone has aspirations of visiting Europe they should do it now - it will be indistinguishable from present-day Turkey in the next 50 years.
Caveat - I didn't make it through the video - but I'm commenting on your post, not the video.

Interesting take. I think there is probably a sweet spot in the marriage age. Early 20's probably has higher divorce rate than mid to late 20's. I'd imagine that late marriages (30's) divorce rates would likely increase - the hey why not get married because we've been living together for X years anyway effect.

With that said, millennials are having less sex (fewer partners) than their parents, i.e. are less promiscuous. You seem to be making the opposite conclusion. Or, do you think the "encouragement" (I'm not sure how you measure) is more important than the action - being promiscuous. If your premise is based on people being more promiscuous, I think it breaks down since they seem to be less so, at least based on the number of partners. Maybe you have a better objective way of measuring.
You should definitely watch the video.

Regarding age - I didn't mean to imply absolutes. People who get married very young often do so for other reasons and the marriages fail for reasons that are probably obvious to all of us. The fact remains that the current divorce rate is about 3.5x the rate it was in 1960. Something is broken.

Not sure where you interpreted that I was singling out millennials, that was not my intention - this problem goes back to the boomers. I know the study you're citing and (without being able to read it since it's behind a pay wall) - will just point out that it also states millennials are more accepting of premarital sex than older generations. The gap in sexual partners could be for a number of reasons - including the prominence of HIV/AIDS.
User avatar
Bay_area_Hokie
Posts: 6026
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:53 am
Alma Mater: VT
Party: Surprise Party

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by Bay_area_Hokie »

I need to find the time to research the bit in the video about the occupied European wimminz taking up the Nazis. I had never heard that. Sounds interesting.
“With God there are only individuals” - Philosopher Nicolas Gomez Davila
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote: And overall, divorce rates have been falling since the mid-90s, which should be good news.
Yes, fallen from 4x the rate they were in 1960 to 3.5x.
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by VisorBoy »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: And overall, divorce rates have been falling since the mid-90s, which should be good news.
Yes, fallen from 4x the rate they were in 1960 to 3.5x.
Good chart here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upsho ... 0002&abg=0

The upshot is that women have more options now than they did in the 1950s. Couple that with a return to low divorce rate and I'd say we're in a better state now (though it took 30 years of turmoil).
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by awesome guy »

VisorBoy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: And overall, divorce rates have been falling since the mid-90s, which should be good news.
Yes, fallen from 4x the rate they were in 1960 to 3.5x.
Good chart here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upsho ... 0002&abg=0

The upshot is that women have more options now than they did in the 1950s. Couple that with a return to low divorce rate and I'd say we're in a better state now (though it took 30 years of turmoil).
3.5 times the divorce is better?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
Hokie CPA
Posts: 2634
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 am
Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
Party: I reject your party
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by Hokie CPA »

Bay_area_Hokie wrote:I need to find the time to research the bit in the video about the occupied European wimminz taking up the Nazis. I had never heard that. Sounds interesting.
Oh yeah... they showed it in Band of Brothers when Easy Company rolled through Holland.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.

Image
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by USN_Hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: And overall, divorce rates have been falling since the mid-90s, which should be good news.
Yes, fallen from 4x the rate they were in 1960 to 3.5x.
Good chart here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upsho ... 0002&abg=0

The upshot is that women have more options now than they did in the 1950s. Couple that with a return to low divorce rate and I'd say we're in a better state now (though it took 30 years of turmoil).
3.5 times the divorce is better?
He's also ignoring the folks who never even attempt to get married and just have kids out of wedlock.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by awesome guy »

USN_Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: And overall, divorce rates have been falling since the mid-90s, which should be good news.
Yes, fallen from 4x the rate they were in 1960 to 3.5x.
Good chart here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upsho ... 0002&abg=0

The upshot is that women have more options now than they did in the 1950s. Couple that with a return to low divorce rate and I'd say we're in a better state now (though it took 30 years of turmoil).
3.5 times the divorce is better?
He's also ignoring the folks who never even attempt to get married and just have kids out of wedlock.
Yeah, I don't see how this is better in anyway. And on the other side of it, the kids from intact marriages are the ones doing well and the others are part of the 47% living off the government.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by VisorBoy »

awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: And overall, divorce rates have been falling since the mid-90s, which should be good news.
Yes, fallen from 4x the rate they were in 1960 to 3.5x.
Good chart here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upsho ... 0002&abg=0

The upshot is that women have more options now than they did in the 1950s. Couple that with a return to low divorce rate and I'd say we're in a better state now (though it took 30 years of turmoil).
3.5 times the divorce is better?
It's not 3.5x.

Also, per capita marriage and divorce rates depend on the demographics at each moment in time. So, for instance, in the 1950s, the baby boomers were too young to marry or divorce, but in the 1970s and 1980s, that changed. Obviously, whatever age range the plurality of the population is at a given time will affect the per capita calculation at that point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... one-chart/

You can use the same logic today. Just like in the 1960s, the boomers aren't getting married (or divorced), so again the overall per capita marriage and divorce rates are low.

In sum, it's a combination of demographics & changing social habits.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: Why Women Destroy Nations/Civilizations

Post by VisorBoy »

USN_Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: And overall, divorce rates have been falling since the mid-90s, which should be good news.
Yes, fallen from 4x the rate they were in 1960 to 3.5x.
Good chart here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upsho ... 0002&abg=0

The upshot is that women have more options now than they did in the 1950s. Couple that with a return to low divorce rate and I'd say we're in a better state now (though it took 30 years of turmoil).
3.5 times the divorce is better?
He's also ignoring the folks who never even attempt to get married and just have kids out of wedlock.
Definitely true that births to unwed mothers are much higher today.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
Post Reply