Men who spend money on women are fools

[flowerthief00]

There is a lot of talk on these boards about why marriage, at least in Western countries, is a bad idea for men. My take is that we do not go far enough with this idea.

Of course marriage is a horrendous idea in this hyper-gynocentric male-unfriendly environment.

But not just marriage. The traditional male gender role in all its forms has become a bad idea, and the man who gives protection or provision freely to women is being scammed.

In order to understand why we need to first talk about investment.

Investment, whether of time, money, energy, or feelings, has ownership/authority as a prerequisite. What use is it to invest in a thing that can be taken away from you at any time? Would it be smart to invest in a financial asset or property that could be seized by another institution at any time for any reason? Would you spend all that energy on maintenance/customization of your computer, guitar, or motorcycle if you weren't the owner of it?

Personal relationships, however, are based on mutual investment. Your best friend is your best friend because you have invested your time, energy, feelings, and shared experiences in each other. No one owns that type of relationship because the score is more or less even. If it were otherwise, one of you would be using the other.

Okay, let's talk about men & women.

The traditional male and female gender roles are derived from our biology, women to birth and raise offspring, men to protect and provide for both. Back in the day when infant mortality was high, it was THE job of a woman to produce as many children as possible. Men evolved to perform the critical job of protecting and providing, because somebody had to.

Although the contribution a woman makes to a man's life has never been equal to the contribution the man makes to the woman's life, investment in a woman and family was, once upon a time, a rational investment for a man to make. Any children they produced could be put to work at an early age (this was before public education), and the ones that survived would take care of them in their old age (this was before Social Security). The woman, besides raising children, performed household chores which used to be quite time-consuming.

And all of this could not be taken away from him. The man had ownership of the family he had built, and was rewarded for investing in it.
It was the only way the traditional model could work. Otherwise, I think, few men would have participated in it at a time when life was brutal.

Women relied on men for literal survival to the point where it would have been unheard of that a woman would not want a man in the house.

But what does he gain from their union that she does not gain as well? Sex? Romance? Companionship? Children? The woman gains these and all the benefits that come with them just as much if not more than the man. Household chores, as mentioned, do count for something, but any man was capable of performing these himself. The woman got more out of the arrangement than the man did. Therefore it was only worth it to assume the enormous burden of being responsible for another person if he had ownership of the thing.

Okay, it's the modern age now.

The traditional model has been obliterated by various developments, mostly unrelated, and most of which most people would call good things.

Medical advances have lowered infant mortality. Higher standard of living and education have made children more a luxury than an investment. Technology has rendered those once time-consuming household chores considerably easier. Birth control has decoupled marriage from sex. The State now sees to the protection of all citizens male and female. Women have entered the workplace and are legally guaranteed the right to any occupation a man can have. Also (and this one thing I would not call a good thing) gynocentrism, which could not have existed before all these developments took place, has rigged the State to essentially force men to provide for women through redistribution of wealth, not to mention the family court system; a man's investment in woman or family can now be taken away without reason.

Some men may pine for the traditional system, but imho it is not ever coming back. Its destruction was not orchestrated by the Jews, as conspiracy theorists might think. (If it was, maybe we should be thanking them) It was not caused by the forces of Satan striving to bring about End Times as religious conservatives might think.

Traditionalism's demise was an inevitable outcome of a number of diverse developments probably no one could have fully predicted, most of which almost anyone would call progress. Even if we had the power to roll back the clock I really don't think we'd want to.

In some parts of the world you might still be able to find traditionalism, but those places too are changing fast. It is becoming more and more scarce. Like it or not, the traditional male role model is done for. Relations between the genders now and in the future are based on a new model...which is actually an old model. All personal relationships outside of blood-relations are based on it: the egalitarian model.

Egalitarian relationships are the kind of personal relationship I touched on in the beginning. They operate on mutual investment. As with your best friend, such a relationship comes into being because your respective investments in each other are equal. If it were otherwise, one of you would be using the other; one of you would be getting scammed.

There are only two ways of doing things:

1. Unequal investment with one party having greater ownership.
2. Equal investment with equal or no ownership.

We now do things according to 2.

I'm sure there will be a lot of balking at this concept, but like it or not, men had better understand this: The traditional model has already been abandoned by women and society.

Your woman can cheat and leave without negative consequence to her. Your children can be taken away. Material investments can be very easily taken away. Any money you sink into a woman should be considered a lost investment unless she is investing proportionate value into you. (proportionate value can include professional services such as massage or maid service)

Men who try to play the traditional male gender role in today's society with disproportionate investment into a woman, especially investment of their wallet, are being had. What do you gain by spending money on a woman that she does not gain herself? Sex? Romance? Companionship? Children? Certainly not any of those, as we have already discussed.

Isn't it bad enough that the State provides for women with your money?
Why give her material things when she can acquire material things by herself.
In fact, she is now competing with you for the very job that makes possible the money you have to spend, unlike women in the past!
In fact, there may be affirmative action discriminating against you in that regard.

Do you pay for the woman's expenses on dates? Do you buy a woman food or drinks every time you meet? Do you buy her vacations? Have you (shudder) bought her a car or a house? Would you protect her from dangers and threats around her? (investing your physical well-being, in effect) Do you White Knight for women? Do you attempt to win them over with any form of unrequited affection?

If you give any of these things freely then you are being scammed. You are trying to play the traditional male gender role despite there being no one around to complete the dance. Women long stopped honoring that arrangement. Oh, they will giddily accept your donations while pretending that they still do.

DON't BE FOOLED! Only if you are getting equal investment is any expenditure of time, money, energy, or feelings on behalf of women a rational move. They said they wanted equality so dammit give them equality!

One more time: The traditional male gender role has become a scam.
Cease its use, or be used.


With more time I would write Part 2: Why evolution will eventually catch up with the egalitarian model and why in the meantime we are going to have major societal problems...but this post has gone on long enough.

[Yohan]

I can only agree to all what is written here - Nowadays marriage makes no sense for any Western man - Forget about the girl next door - many Western women are plainly toxic and the feminist-friendly legal situation is totally against you.

About myself - I moved out from Europe, married an Asian woman more than 40 years ago. If you compare a marriage contract at that time with a marriage contract now you will understand why I do not recommend young men even to think about marriage and creating a family with children.

Yes, here in Asia, you will also find women who are not the good ones, but still the legal situation is not against men in general.
If you come to Asia and find a reasonable female and a long-term employment you can accept to live with a local woman, why not?
No reason really to marry - you will find women who are happy with co-habitation, as they have relatives/parents where they can go if the relationship breaks down.

Asian countries in general do not accept co-habitation as a de-facto marriage - visitation rights, child support and alimony cannot be forced, considered as a private matter - your home if fully paid and registered only in your name before marriage will belong to you forever in case of divorce - domestic violence laws are weak, not easy to accuse a man if you share the same rooms with him - parental rights are strong, no way that children have more rights than their parents etc....etc...

[Contrarian Expatriate]

True, unless it is something you enjoy doing or you are first getting what you want from them. If you give or spend money on a girl BEFORE you get what you want, you are a fool according to the Briffault's Law.

[fdiv]

The rest are virgins!

[Cornfed]

Tl;dr the ZOG crowds out men by providing for females itself and prevents men from getting anything in return for providing for females. True of course, but it is a pity it is not possible to somehow thwart the ZOG.

[flowerthief00]

Tl;dr the ZOG crowds out men by providing for females itself and prevents men from getting anything in return for providing for females. True of course, but it is a pity it is not possible to somehow thwart the ZOG.

If instead of writing all that I had copy and pasted text from a random page from Herman Melville's Moby Dick, I suppose you still would have seen the ZOG in it, huh.

[Cornfed]

Tl;dr the ZOG crowds out men by providing for females itself and prevents men from getting anything in return for providing for females. True of course, but it is a pity it is not possible to somehow thwart the ZOG.

If instead of writing all that I had copy and pasted text from a random page from Herman Melville's Moby Dick, I suppose you still would have seen the ZOG in it, huh.

You said "the government" and I just added more information in a succinct fashion. You should try succinctness.

[flowerthief00]

Nah, I wanted to spell this one out clearly and deliberately so that any schoolboy could understand. Even if I fail to influence other men I can at least refer back to this post when my position is questioned.

[Cornfed]

Nah, I wanted to spell this one out clearly and deliberately so that any schoolboy could understand. Even if I fail to influence other men I can at least refer back to this post when my position is questioned.

Yeah it's not too bad.

[poliq]

Only married men should spend money on women

[jamesbond]

Only married men should spend money on women

I know a lot of married guys and they do spend a lot of money on their wives, especially on Christmas gifts, birthday presents and valentines day gifts.

They subscribe to the notion of, "Happy wife, happy life."

[Splicelo]

My filipina is a single mom who was once married but now seperated not divorced yet, her husband was a cheater so she left, she is now in the process of getting an annulment. She has a 10 year old son with her husband and her son's father won't give her any financial assistance and his excuse is that he knows she can handle it well. My filipina girlfriend works but i make much much more than her and i intend to marry her. I love her so i don't see problem in helping her out to make things easier for her, she never ask for money, i just give her. We don't live together yet but we visit each other often, i pay for ticket to come see me every 5 weeks or if not i go there and stay with her, i am based in China due to my job. We will be living together in next 3 years though that's when i get transferred to the Philippines, she has land in Philippines and we are in the process of constructing a house with my money. A man is suppose to provide for his woman. My girlfriend is loving, caring and supportive, so why wouldn't i spend on her?

[Cornfed]

My filipina is a single mom who was once married but now seperated not divorced yet, her husband was a cheater so she left, she is now in the process of getting an annulment.

So she is a faithless whore who reneged on her marriage for no good reason. Wanting a relationship with such a person is stupid.

She has a 10 year old son with her husband and her son's father won't give her any financial assistance

Good for him.

[Splicelo]

My filipina is a single mom who was once married but now seperated not divorced yet, her husband was a cheater so she left, she is now in the process of getting an annulment.

So she is a faithless whore who reneged on her marriage for no good reason. Wanting a relationship with such a person is stupid.

Whore? she is not the one who cheated. You said she reneged on her married for no good reason. So was she suppose to stay with a cheating husband?

[Cornfed]

Whore? she is not the one who cheated. You said she reneged on her married for no good reason. So was she suppose to stay with a cheating husband?

Yes, females owe sexual fidelity to men, not the other way round. There is nothing wrong with a husband getting sex on the side. If you are going to be such a feminist cuck you may as well stay in the West and not contaminate other societies with your feminism.