In the comments of a post by Audacious Epigone an anonymous commenter advances a pretty succinct formulation of the idea that the welfare state allows some women to avoid long term relationships with men they find insufficiently attractive while still being able to make babies.
With regards to women and socialism, I don't think it's merely risk-aversion. Socialism allows them to have their cake and eat it too. They get the financial support of provider males while mating with whoever they want. They basically get to cuckold half of the male population. It's more beta-aversion than risk-aversion, IMO.
Beta aversion. An interesting way to look at a certain variety of socialism. What do you think of this argument?
This comes in response to comments by Audacious Epigone about women who vote for alpha males as an exercise in fantasizing.
The treatment potentially accorded those who make a Watson- or Summers-esque comment in a public setting usually limits my discussion of HBD issues to face-to-face conversations or pseudonymous online postings.
There are times when discipline fails me, though. A friend answered in a facebook social interview question asking what she'd talk to Barack Obama about by responding that she hoped the two of them wouldn't do much talking. Trying to maintain levity, I commented:Great illustration of another reason it was a mistake to give women the vote! Because politicians of prominence tend to be in their early forties at the youngest, female politicians are sexually invisible to most men (with rare exceptions like Sarah Palin, who apparently puts lead in the pencils of many middle-aged guys). Women fall for social dominance, which consists primarily of financial affluence, social prestige, good frame (physical attractiveness, deep voice, facial symmetry, etc) and occupational success--all hallmarks of successful politicians (our current President being no exception). And men don't wilt in their twenties, occasionally remaining in full bloom into their senior years (see Silvio Berlusconi). So we have women voting for politicians in the hopes that it'll somehow bring their personal fantasies to fruition!
The idea of cuckolding taxpayers reminds me of a recent Robin Hanson post about cuckolded ex-husbands who are forced to pay child support. Hanson argues that if an ex-husband should be expected to pay child support why don't the people who support this idea support the taxing of all other non-fathers to support the same kid?
I find these contrary arguments to be extremely weak. If we worry about the kid’s financial security, why don’t we tax everyone instead of just this one man? What basis could we have for calling this man’s reluctance “irrational,” if the rest of us are equally unwilling to pay for this kid?
Men need to become more conscious of female interests and female strategies in relationships and politics. Know better how your own interests are harmed by females following their instincts.
Truly an amazing and disgusting story: “I pay child support to a biologically intact family”.
For four years, Mike had known that the girl he had rocked to sleep and danced with across the living-room floor was not, as they say, “his.” The revelation from a DNA test was devastating and prompted him to leave his wife — but he had not renounced their child. He continued to feel that in all the ways that mattered, she was still his daughter, and he faithfully paid her child support. It was only when he learned that his ex-wife was about to marry the man who she said actually was the girl’s biological father that Mike flipped. Supporting another man’s child suddenly became unbearable.
Two years after filing the suit that sought to end his paternal rights, Mike is still irate about the fix he’s in. “I pay child support to a biologically intact family,” Mike told me, his voice cracking with incredulity. “A father and mother, married, who live with their own child. And I pay support for that child. How ridiculous is that?”
Is the Law fair? Not remotely. Guys, be careful. Love isn't a battlefield. Love is a minefield.
Roissy advocates mandatory paternity testing at birth. I agree.
This is why I support mandatory paternity testing (MPT) at birth. MPT would completely negate the risk of having to choose between loyalty to a child to whom the father has already bonded, and walking away to leave the child to the whore mother to raise. It’s a simple procedure that would intrude on no one’s rights or emotional well-being, similar to how the state requires driver’s tests for people who want the privilege of driving. By making it mandatory, all issues of trust are rendered moot. If it’s discovered the child isn’t his, the father is legally absolved of any further paternal or marital obligations, and is welcome to exit the marriage without having to pay one red cent to the bitch.
The guy Mike above feels emotionally bonded to his non-daughter. How cruel is nature to give him an emotional matrix that makes him feel that way? How cruel is his ex-wife? He'd have been far better off to find out right after the birth so that he could file for divorce before the wife left the hospital.
On a related note, I'm currently reading Geoffrey Miller's Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior. For realists about human nature the book is an informative synthesis of what is known about how we seek status by buying things. People waste a lot of money buying things to signal status that do not do much (if anything) to raise their status in the minds of potential mates and other observers. The book will help you understand your buying impulses and think more rationally about your desires.
Thinking about getting married? Here's another indicator on whether it will last.
University of Denver (DU) researchers find that couples who live together before they are engaged have a higher chance of getting divorced than those who wait until they are married to live together, or at least wait until they are engaged. In addition, couples who lived together before engagement and then married, reported a lower satisfaction in their marriages.
The research, which appears in the "Journal of Family Psychology," was conducted by Galena Rhoades, senior researcher, Scott Stanley, research professor, and Howard Markman, professor of psychology.
"We think that some couples who move in together without a clear commitment to marriage may wind up sliding into marriage partly because they are already cohabiting," Rhoades says.
"It seems wise to talk about commitment and what living together might mean for the future of the relationship before moving in together, especially because cohabiting likely makes it harder to break up compared to dating," Stanley says.
What's the direction of cause an effect here? Does living together change the relationship in a way that increases the odds of divorce? Or do people who have reservations about their relationship decide to live together first? Or do the people who avoid living together have a greater commitment to marriage as a special spiritual union that should not be torn asunder?
Maybe the pre-marriage time living together makes the relationship that much older and closer to dissolution by the time the married phase begins.
The second most popular reason for living together is convenience. Whose convenience? The guy's or the girl's?
The three researchers also studied the reasons why couples decide to live together. That study, which appeared in the "Journal of Family Issues," shows that most couples chose to live together in order to spend more time together. The second most popular reason is convenience, followed by testing the relationship. This is different than previous research that found most people cohabit to test the relationship.
"Cohabiting to test a relationship turns out to be associated with the most problems in relationships," Rhoades says. "Perhaps if a person is feeling a need to test the relationship, he or she already knows some important information about how a relationship may go over time."
In marriages that end in divorce which side of the relationship had to convince the other side to divorce? Guys, your main concern should be the sticking power of the woman to stay committed to the marriage. If you have doubts about her level of commitment then do not marry her. She'll shaft you in divorce. Avoid it.
Single parenthood unsurprisingly boosts the odds of homelessness.
Women make up 81 percent of adults in homeless families, according to the report. And unlike homeless men, who are usually middle-aged, homeless women tend to be younger than 25 with children younger than 5. "The life of a homeless woman is particularly fraught with danger," said Suzanne Wenzel, a community psychologist and professor at the University of Southern California School of Social Work. "These young women are at much greater risk of being victimized when they have no stable home. It can be more difficult to obtain needed services. For anyone in this situation, it is destabilizing and extremely stressful. That's why these new figures are horrifying."
How have these women found themselves homeless with children? How'd it happen? Vicious evil male patriarchal capitalism? Nope. The women chose to put themselves at risk as single mothers. They also chose to put their children - their babies! - at risk. These are unthinking irresponsible women.
First off, women initiate 2/3rds or more of all divorces. States which have higher rates of awarding sole custody to moms also have higher divorce rates. In such states women who get divorced can be assured of getting rid of the father. Once the early feelings of love wear off getting rid of the father is attractive for many women - especially if they can be assured child care payments. But suppose dad says to hell with child care payments since he can get no satisfaction from having either a wife or kids? Well, especially in an economic downturn suddenly mom is either homeless or living on welfare.
Some might argue that it isn't the fault of women that their men turn out to be no good and that they decide that divorce is necessary. But that argument doesn't work because it doesn't explain the rise in illegitimate births where women let themselves become pregnant without even getting married in the first place.
You might be surprised to learn that in Iran women initiate most divorces as well.
In a look at the gender gap in voting patterns between men and women Roissy argues that women vote for the welfare state that allows them to ditch beta providers in favor of government aid and alpha male lovers.
There are a few predominant reasons for the gender gap, which I explained lucidly in this post. In short, women are voting more Democrat because the Democrat Party is the prime force for turning the government into the world’s biggest provider beta. From the time of the “sexual revolution” (which was really a “sexual devolution” back towards pre-agricultural mating norms when 80% of the women and 40% of the highest testosterone men reproduced) women have been more free to choose mating opportunities based on their gina tingles and the economic and social empowerment granted, respectively, by their pointless humanities degrees and the disintegration of traditional slut shaming mechanisms. The life of serial monogamy and alpha cock hopping has never been more attainable for the average American woman, and the result has been predictable: Women are substituting the beta males they no longer want or need for marriage with a Big Brother Daddy government to help them foot the child-raising bills that their PUA, drug running and serial killer lovers won’t.
Illegitimate Nation with a big welfare state could be our future.
Really. If you are going to commit adultery do it efficiently using the latest internet technology. That way the affairs will take less time to set up and leave you with more family time. Isn't that a great idea?
"Drew" is a 37-year-old businessman who lives in the Troy area.
His wife is consumed with work. And they don't have sex.
"The truth is I love my wife, but sometimes I feel like I need something on the side," says Drew, who spoke to the Free Press on the condition of anonymity.
So Drew hooks up through the adultery dating service AshleyMadison.com. He said he has met, and had sex with, about 10 women, and he credits the illicit trysts with helping him stay married.
"It has enabled me to meet women in my similar situation and has helped fill the void of the lack of intimacy in my life," says Drew, whose wife has no clue. "Strange as it may sound, it's helped my marriage. The pressure is off ... It's probably a lot cheaper than divorce."
Save money by avoiding the divorce. Make sure kids have 2 parents. Okay, does this actually work?
Seriously, when men have affairs on the side while married and they do not get caught does this increase or decrease the odds of divorce? Is adultery a release valve or a destabilizer? This is hard to tease out because married men who commit adultery probably have stronger sex drives than married men who do not. Can social science data give us any insights into this question?
A surgeon wants his kidney back or $1.3 million from his cheating wife.
Dr. Richard Batista of Long Island, N.Y., didn't chop off his right arm for his ailing wife, but he did something many would consider equally noble: He gave up a kidney to her when she needed one in 2001.
How did Dawnell Batista repay this remarkably selfless expression of his love?
According to Dr. Batista and his attorney, she repaid him by having an affair with her physical therapist and filing for divorce.
She also, they claim, locked him out of their million-dollar mansion and denied him access to their three children.
He donated the kidney in 2001. She filed for divorce in 2005. The divorce proceedings still are not settled.
What is needed: genetic testing and brain scanning technology that'll give a person insight into the depth of the bond that another person has for them.
He feels betrayed. No kidding.
"I feel humbled and betrayed and disregarded. This divorce is killing me."
He probably thought his status as a surgeon made him too attractive to a woman to be treated like this. Er, no.
Update Also see Roissy on the surgeon whose ex-wife has his kidney. Says the always provocative Roissy "Like an innocent beta lamb to the slaughter."
A Toronto Canada man has to pay child support for kids who genetically are not his.
Madam Justice Katherine van Rensburg ordered Pasqualino Cornelio to continue paying child support to the 16-year-old twins – regardless of whether he was bamboozled by a philandering wife.
“While the failure of Anciolina Cornelio to disclose to her husband the fact that she had an extramarital affair – and that the twins might not be his biological children – may have been a moral wrong against Mr. Cornelio, it is a wrong that does not afford him a legal remedy to recover child support he has already paid, and that does not permit him to stop paying child support,” Judge van Rensburg said.
Does anyone know of American states where discovery that the kids are from an extramarital affair lets the guy off the hook for child support? Even better, for alimony?
Marriage is in dire need of a more realistic appraisal of its uses and abuses.