Actual Victorian advice to women

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/09/13/victorian-era-advices/
Self culture books were popular then, for women and men.
Women weren’t all encouraged to become housewives, nor men husbands, that’s a lie.

“it is further said that a woman’s love “will wane” or that “her admiration will sicken and die” if her man over time acts with effeminacy.”
True but he shouldn’t be a brute either.
“Sexual indulgences, are, under marriage association, kept down to a reasonable and harmless minimum.”
Quality over quantity, true.
People are pressured to have more sex than ever, yet they’re miserable.

No coincidence.

Sexual hygiene went out the window in the 20th century and we’ve lived to see the result. Over-indulgence was known to lead to ill-health including self abuse. Nowadays we know it strains the body especially all this modern adrenal malfunction.

“The Victorian-era corset has been found to have had lasting damaging effects on women’s skeletons.”
False, feminists lying. There were X-rays done of women in corsets, it was about the same effect as pregnancy pressure. Average waist was something like 24 inches? Tightlacing was RARE.
Smaller for men of course. Food portions were tiny, just look at 50s diner portions.
“men do not fall in love with a tiny waist, unless the owner happens to have several other points of beauty to carry it off.”
true
and men have naturally smaller waists than women (taller, fewer organs).
Trannies have a number of unfair advantages. Many have the gamine look (large head).

Non-white births down in America

The sky isn’t falling you fecking idjits.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-the-most-among-minority-women

[Marriage is also a factor. Unmarried women don’t want a baby.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/no-ring-no-baby ]

I am shook. Women don’t wanna be lumbered with the baby of a man who doesn’t care enough to be a husband and father?* They aren’t attracted to feckless manchilds?

Those bitches!

“That’s because the decline in fertility has been far greater among minorities than among non-Hispanic whites”

FEATURE

NOT. A. BUG.

Chart for the lazy people:

Look at the actual data before whining.

That’s called a selection pressure, children.

Men won’t marry? Women won’t breed.

Who wins? [women, their relatives breed]

But the “white” fertility figure is a bit misleading, as it includes most Hispanics, who have historically had much higher birth rates than non-Hispanic whites. Looking at all Hispanics together, these women are missing nearly 19% of the babies that would have been born from 2008-2016, or about 2.2 million births, as their age-adjusted fertility rates have fallen from 2.85 births per woman to just 2.1, and continue to decline. Meanwhile, non-Hispanic fertility has only declined from 1.95 births per woman to 1.72, yielding about 2.3 million missing births. Solidly half of the missing kids over the last decade would have been born to Hispanic mothers, despite the fact that Hispanics only make up about a quarter of fertility-age women.

Thus, in racial or ethnic terms, America’s “Baby Bust” is kinda, sorta, a little bit racist”

Telling them to be breeding sows isn’t?

Hey, what exactly are they claiming these women should do?

Get back in the maternity ward? Pump out future Dem voters?

*If you really “care” (virtue signal) about Western birth rates, Chicken Littles of the internet, ask MGTOW why they’re complaining about the birth rate but not marrying. You don’t get to complain if you’re causing the ‘problem’.

https://www.rt.com/usa/us-white-births-census-613/

https://nypost.com/2017/09/02/cheap-sex-is-making-men-give-up-on-marriage/

A problem you cause is a CHOICE.

[GDP will go up in a generation with fewer lower IQ drains on its system.]

Other data article:

For the lazy:

“That is, most long-run change in fertility can be accounted for by changes in the marital composition of society.”

Marital status is a key determinant of whether or not women have as many kids as they want.”

HALF OR MORE.

Meanwhile, student loans must be written off if you care about IQ.

“It’s possible that debt may also reduce fertility, independently of marriage. Some studies do show that student debt has a strong effect on delaying fertility. The economic rationale is simple: having and raising children costs money, and student debt gobbles up a share of income right off the top of the budget. Crucially, even income-based repayment doesn’t fix this, as it resets with higher incomes: a debtor can’t earn their way out. As income rises, so do debt payments. At some high threshold, of course, the debtor can exceed the required payments and can advance the date of final repayment, but the point is that student loans, no matter how they are structured, divert money that might have gone towards planning for a child. It’s even possible that student loans delay marriage because they cause debtors to change their childbearing anticipations: maybe debtors realize they won’t be able to afford a child for a long time, and so they postpone marriage until they are (financially) ready for a child.”

Men can’t afford to marry, have kids unless loans are much lower.

Loan control would be a conservative policy, boosting high IQ fertility.

More babies being born are born to high IQ, educated parents.

Again, actual data.

“Finances, and student debt, specifically, aren’t the only reason for delayed marriage. Most unmarried people who want to get married say either that they are too young and unready for marriage, or else they haven’t found the right person. It may be that part of the problem is the decline in “marriageable men.” At the metro area level, the imbalance in sex ratios can sometimes be enormous.”

“The simple fact of the matter is that marital status is a key determinant of whether or not women have as many kids as they want.”

ACTUAL. DATA.

Women want to have kids, it’s the mens’ fault.

“Combined, it turns out that a combination of marital status, age, and fertility ideals is a pretty good predictor of individual-level fertility. In other words, marital status serves as a circuit-breaker on fertility aims: married people get close to achieving their aims, while never-married people generally don’t.”
“But one vital driver of birth rates is marriage. And as long as the average age of first marriage rises and the number of prime childbearing years the average woman spends married falls, we can expect to see fertility linger at low levels. Therefore, any policy supporting childbirth—however generous it may be—that does not also somehow impact marriage trends is unlikely to boost long-term fertility.”

It isn’t women’s fault they won’t man up.

The data is loud and clear.

White bachelor men are cucking themselves.

America’s stop hitting yourself

The logic seems to be: Women can’t oppress me, if I oppress them first. How is that going away? The lampreys on MGTOW have utterly ruined it. Who actually supports rapists and murderers without mental issues themselves?

The characteristic of revenge fantasies is that they never actually work.

Logically, if they did keep all 100% of women under male control, all women would be able to renounce all forms of legal responsibility to the man in charge of them. It used to be that way in some places that if women ran up massive credit debt, her husband would be automatically expected to pay. If a woman broke the law, her husband would be expected to provide her alibi or, sometimes, be blamed for forcing her to do it – and be punished in her place. You really want total responsibilities over all those idiotic messes? REALLY. Even SJWs don’t want to be held accountable for what men do. They also want women controlled for life but believe women have expiry dates… need I mention how impractical that is? You can’t drop a responsibility. This is like the people who take a commitment (e.g. marriage) then complain it’s limiting…. The men against marriage would be forcing themselves into a de facto marriage of statistically older (longer lifespan) women. They also wouldn’t be getting sex either, consent still exists. Plus they’d have a recession economy, since half the workforce is gone and never has to work again (sounds nice).

Many of their economic woes are caused by globalization.

They blame the West instead of the East. That is irrational. The propaganda is about the West because it isn’t the West, we were doing well until the rise of Asia stealing our production and student places (most women in top Western universities are Asian, in on forged transcripts, they never mention this).

Mostly, it’s immigration.

If you showed the happy 50s husband the MGTOW posts online they’d probably tell you it was a mental problem. It does share similarities with borderline personality (assuming all people hate you, insecurity, flashy purchases, assuming all people will take things from you and abandon you eventually, feeling out of place).

Hating women (okay, distrusting is visible) so much they deny their own gender role (and thus, power).

from their own files


Do they cut off their nose to spite their face, or their dick to spite SJWs?

You don’t want to pay income tax but want women to pay it?

You don’t want to pay child support but expect mothers to live off air?

You don’t want to fund schools if you don’t have children (that one is fair).

You don’t want men to protect women but refuse the death penalty for the worst criminals? How else do we get rid of them?

You want socialism (the Pill, abortions, STD shots) without the pricetag, seriously? Why not crawl back into your mother’s womb at this point? You don’t want to be an adult. If disabled people can be responsible and productive, what’s your excuse?

Apparently being our gender role oppressed them first. Somehow. Women oppressed them by needing to be provided for, due to the choice to be the baby-carrying and physically weaker sex. Because we choose those, we choose our sex apparently and fuck Darwin, “man up” is apparently hate speech.

Asking an adult male to act like a responsible man is now “sexism”, according to these guys.

(Why do you think a man cannot be a responsible adult without being married ? HMMM?)

Are your parents pushing you to get married? Diddums, you think that doesn’t happen to women?

Are your parents pushing you to have kids? That one REALLY happens more to women. By an order of magnitude.

Is nobody allowed to criticize baby, for fearing he feel SHAME?

Why can’t we shame men who deserve it? They shame women all the time. Shame is good. It makes people question immorality.

If you’re so immoral that shame works, that’s called a conscience and you should listen to it.

Because funding the mother of your children is evil but foisting them on an expensive nanny is good parenting. Studies be damned.

Can I point out the obvious?

If men don’t want to be men – that might explain why women don’t want them.

If we wanted girly men, we’d be lesbians?

A man is not his car or cologne, that would be sexist and dehumanizing. Replacing dignity and masculinity with material possessions and arrogant bragging just puts women off. The good women. Brands are telling you you need to buy stuff to impress women. Is money all they have to offer as a person? How did that work before credit cards?

Oh yeah, men gave the one thing women couldn’t provide for themselves. Men were manly.

If you want to be a metrosexual man, fine. You can’t change biology to make women get the hots for it. This is like fat acceptance but for pajama boys.

“Why can’t the woman pay me paternity leave?”

Because you didn’t give birth. If you gave birth, one day, we’d support you 100%. However, in reality, men cannot give birth, whatever the BBC says. Maternity leave happens after the birth to medically recover from the worst of it (really it takes about a year biologically).

“Why are women congratulated for conceiving?”

Because it’s a medical phenomena that happens inside their body. 

Are they really this dumb? [yes]

They continue to grow and support life itself, that’s impressive. They’ll also have to give birth, which you won’t.

Most of their complaints can be answered with: well, you don’t have to.

Women who choose not to have children still see pregnancy test adverts. They aren’t bitching about it.

Spinsters see marriage programmes on TV. Where is their forum bitching?

Society doesn’t stop because of Princess.

They sound transgender, with all this talk about the ‘evils’ of gender roles and being fluid in their societal duties.

You’re either a man or you’re not. This isn’t hard.

Don’t they get this? I think many of them just have such a low IQ they think the basics of adult living are a huge accomplishment. Women should scatter rose petals at their feet for… not having a criminal record and other things that are… normal.

They want to be spoiled but they aren’t even gay.

Men do the spoiling. Get a boyfriend, let him spoil you. Why do you think men get a sex change? They want a sugar daddy, they need to look female.

Women do provide for men but not the maternal succour they try to demand. Women are maternal to children, not adults and especially not sexual partners. It’s creepy. To be that needy as an adult, just go get it from your actual mother. You will never find a sexy mother replacement. It’s irreconcilable. Women respect (and are attracted to) adults.

(They also won’t find a new one every decade as they age. They think they don’t age.)

Yeah, demanding things from women they cannot biologically (are not evolved to) provide is a recipe for failure.

You can’t blame that on women, broflake.

I deserve this and this and this…” is bullshit in entitled women and men!

You deserve nothing and respect has to be earned. They don’t even respect themselves.

If I hated American men and wanted their legacy to die out, I’d convince them women are like the Jewish Lilith and never to marry or have kids (both of which extend male lifespan and joy).

Males commit more suicide because most of those suicides are bachelors.

Being single (bachelor) is the biggest suicide risk factor for men.
https://psychcentral.com/news/2013/06/11/mens-suicide-rate-is-3-times-that-of-women/55897.html
Almost like they evolved to have a spouse?

ding ding we have a winning study, they’ll never look into it

admitting their lifestyle is medically bad for them would require self-critique

(single women by contrast live longer, especially nuns or the celibate women)

asking happily married men how they did it would require change

Men are also at risk once they are hit by the reality of aging in the 50s. Men young enough to be their children outcompete them.
I’m sure that’s a coincidence. It can’t be regret, right players? There’s no such thing as player burnout, is there?

Men can have children any time they like, sperm doesn’t accumulate mutations year on year, does it? [does]

 

Don’t get me started on the narcissists who feel entitled to sex with women ….without the women part. Well, if you encounter any human socially, you’re bound to expect problems from that. The original MGTOW was quite brilliant in forsaking women and even dating them altogether. Fucking women causes 99% of women “problems”, you signed up for it. Nobody feels sorry for somebody that stupid.

Patriarchy hates bachelors

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/11/23/bachelor-tax/

Always has done, always will.
It was a wealth tax on those who inherited from their family but refused their family’s wishes to continue the line, spitting on generations of sacrifice.

“Single, footloose, and fancy-free, the bachelor life is often portrayed as an ideal existence.”
Only in the 60s. Look how they turned out.
Historically, they were objects of pity and vice.
“For 2,000 years, bachelor taxes have periodically appeared in societies across the world, targeting single, childless men who were thought to be a useful source of revenue.”
No, they owed their family children (the purpose for their own birth) and, not being able to press the matter of family lineage, it was a useful incentive for the useless pajama boys of their age alongside tying inheritance to making a ‘good match’ and delivering at least one heir. Would you object to that too? Or should we further encourage the aptly named trust fund babies?
A single man doesn’t need a husband and father’s income. They’re spoiled brats who, if they did marry, would ‘marry their mother.’ It’s a good thing the difficult genes are seldom passed on.
They don’t even have to risk death in giving birth unlike the woman, it’s like refusing the draft. (Which bachelors often did, childish).
“In 9 AD, the Roman Emperor Augustus levied the ‘Lex Papia Poppaea’, which imposed a tax on single men and married couples who did not have children.”
Husbands who ‘prevented’ their wife’s fertility, in the latter case.
What about the Spartans?
They were successful because bachelors were considered like children. No responsibility was expected because they were incapable, too soft for it. As such, they were disrespected but at least not slaves.
“The purpose of the tax was to encourage marriage and procreation and to prevent immoral behavior.” They owe society by virtue of being in it, neglecting their duties to the nation – they’re funding, among other things, the women who cannot provide children because they refuse to marry. That’s a direct loss of population to the state.
If they didn’t like it, they could have left.
It was unpatriotic to be single for selfish reasons.
That’s bloody why.
The old wisdom is also coming back on the subject but the West can afford to drop back to its normal pre-WW populations, as long as its resources and infrastructure are not strained by immigration and foreign ‘aid’. We aren’t responsible for the world.
Look at Italy, picture how much better off they’d be now if they imposed a bachelor tax in the 50s.
I heard an old wives’ tale (untrue) that anyone who doesn’t want children, whatsoever, in an earlier era of less medical intervention, would have been destined to die as one, and that was Nature’s way of addressing the fate neatly, just one generation down. Funny how these stories explain things in the fatalistic manner. The impulse to have a healthy, happy family is connected to survival instinct and does frequently diminish in the sickly or traumatized. You could say a lot of modern men are traumatized by the modern world of globalization that forces them to financially compete with the world – so they can never afford a housewife. At minimum, they’re stressed by global concerns. I’d like to see studies on paternal instinct but the bitter segment of bachelors (and they do exist) would cry about it.
“In 1695, when the English Crown was struggling to raise capital for yet another expensive war with France, a bachelor tax was imposed to generate income. This law, known as the Marriage Duty Act, placed a fixed tax on all single men over the age of 25.”
A luxury tax, since you’d have to be rich to afford it. Taxing playboys is a national right, they’re a bad influence. Look how they ruined London. There goes the neighborhood.
Basically it was a eugenic tax on the dead-ends.
It worked.
“Bachelor taxes could also be used to regulate population growth. In South Africa, in 1919, a tax was imposed on bachelors in order to encourage white families to have children, a policy rooted in pre-apartheid racial politics and born out of fears that the white population would soon be eclipsed by the black community.”
No comment.
“In other cases, however, the bachelor tax was more about imposing moral order on society in a time of heightened panic about the hedonistic behavior of young single men.”
They were right…? The degeneracy of today is fueled by vain male demand.
Shut down the porn industry and women might listen. You can’t complain women are showing more skin without complaining about the billboards of lingerie models viewed by toddlers, sex scenes in minors’ films and free porn viewed by five-year olds online because age restrictions and checks would be a mild inconvenience to adults. They know about the brain damage of various vices, they don’t care to ban it. Why would anyone take them seriously? You must also complain about the double standards, like men walking around topless at gyms. We don’t actually want to see that. Plus it’s homoerotic. Sets a bad example.
“Many men complained that such an initiative was an intolerable form of gender discrimination, questioning why men ought to be singled out for extra taxation and not women.”

Men were bitching about muh sexism for decades first.
Broflakes. Men were the ones to propose, duh. It was a one-sided choice.
Plus the men were splashing the cash in illegal avenues difficult to trace (mobs).
Unmarried men only caused trouble to civilized society.
They still do.
Everyone complains about the marriage rate but never gets on the case of men who could marry but refuse.
It reminds me of Leonardo DiCaprio and how he rails against pollution while flying a private jet.
The men bitching about low marriage and birth rates in a personal way can’t be hypocrites, either marry or shut up.
Why don’t they just…? Well, why don’t you?

It’s a valid question, you begged it.

~mic drop~

If you’re rejecting your own gender role, that’s one potential wife you deprive of hers.
They sound like old women, traditionally the ones trying to force marriages.
With such paternalism, and that’s what it is, they must get married or get over it.
The worst are the bad husbands you see online, avoiding their family to lecture others on why they’re single.
Well… people like that. People who shouldn’t have married but wanted the status to browbeat others.
“More successful initiatives appeared at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. The arguments that prevailed during these debates often centered on the behavior of single men, and the perceived need to coax men into marriage.”
All they had to do was shut the gin shops and brothels.
Make the manwhores leave the country, where they can’t be a bad influence on the native and naive.
The old-fashioned attitude was lynching for seduction.
“Opponents of the bill, however, suggested that if the bachelor tax were to stand, then a similar tax needed to be imposed on all women of marriageable age who had refused marriage proposals.”
This is hilarious. That would be fine?

Single men really don’t understand women, do they?
No woman would refuse a proposal from a man she was seriously courting.
However, to make it fair, men should be taxed according to the number of women they proposed to (including false promises and ex-wives) without a successful match.
Just punish the r-types until they move abroad, it’s very simple.
“In addition to this, in 1934, the state of California proposed a $25 bachelor tax, primarily as a strategy to boost the state’s falling birth rate. However, the proposals were not taken forward and the bill was never actually implemented.”
And look how well they’re doing!


This is like the elusive search for an atheist society that didn’t die out.
Such taxes will come back in the age of impossible unfunded pension liabilities.
Not might, must.
Why should they be entitled to live off other people’s children?
Why do you think the Boomers felt safe to abort their children? Social Security!
Then there’s the contribution to moral decay.
It’s funny how the very men who complain loudly about “degeneracy” also drink, smoke, fornicate, gamble and attend “massage parlors”.

We are not fooled.

What about a broad Hypocrite Tax?
Nobody could object.
That’d bring back the honor culture you so desire.
If you wouldn’t want an establishment opening next to a school, why is it allowed in your society at all?
At least make all of it underground and difficult to access. Don’t glamorize it.

It would make more sense to give all bachelors free vasectomies and make them sign a document that they’ll never ask the public to fund their sexual healthcare.
They won’t take you up on it though, r-types enjoy the idea of reproductive abuse.
They are the creeps who remove condoms against consent and don’t think of themselves as rapists.
Actually why aren’t there more child support cases about that? Most women are not on the Pill. Deliberate STD infection is a crime too. One very chiseled actor was in a Canadian court about that. Sometimes misogyny is obvious.

Traditionally, it was known rapists wanted to steal fertility* without the male investment of marriage. Why isn’t it assumed that producing such a child was an act of rape? Especially if the mother expressly didn’t want it? I’m sure we’ll come back to that legal position again soon, by necessity.

*or else they’d favour non-reproductive sex

I guess we could tattoo their forehead with a B for bachelor.
So they can’t lie to women about their intentions.

Suicide and low IQ

http://anepigone.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/suicide-and-iq-does-it-take-smarts-to.html

Bet you won’t hear the manosphere explain one of its pet victimhoods.

You can’t make a silk’s purse out of a sow’s ear.

The findings of a 2005 study out of Sweden contradict Lisa’s assertion:

In one of the largest studies on suicide ever conducted, researchers found that men with especially low scores on intelligence tests are two to three times more likely than others to kill themselves.

Duh?
Average IQ men aren’t overwhelmed.
Look at EI/EQ too. The emotionally disturbed ones suck on that but denies its existence.
As you’d expect.
The study was carried out in Sweden, which, along with other Scandinavian countries, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.
good design
Epidemiologist Finn Rasmussen at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and two colleagues monitored nearly 1 million Swedish men, measuring their IQ when they entered national service at 18 and following them until age 44.
They should also do a study of bachelors. (see end)
In that time, 2,811 men committed suicide, with the highest rate found among those who scored lowest on the logical component of the IQ test.
Suicidal people make bad decisions, really.
Men academically in over their heads–those with low IQs who had received at least some higher education–were the most likely to commit suicide.
The “women shouldn’t be allowed to attend Uni, even if they qualify” crew literally want to increase male suicides. Most of you aren’t smart enough to go! Same goes for women! We need less people attending overall!
End
Unemployed and divorced men had a consistently higher RR in each year analyzed.
A protective effect of marriage has been observed in a number of previous studies and this article updates figures up to 2005. The article shows that despite changes in marriage  patterns over the last 25 years, those who are married still have the lowest risk of suicide, and there has generally been no obvious decline in the difference in suicide rates between those who are married and those who are not.
Reminds me of the quote “A bachelor’s life is a fine breakfast, a flat lunch, and a miserable dinner.”