672
673
674

Red Pill TheoryBased on past history, it appears that a civilization that embraces feminist values will cease to exist in just a few centuries. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by [deleted]

TL;DR in The Roman Empire : Peace caused Feminism, Feminism and its values caused very low fertility rates + virility drop among men ( they became more and more weak fat apathetic, homosexuality and prostitution became normal ), it resulted in a massive immigration to sustain demography and to do the dirty jobs romans didn't want to do anymore. A new religion came in and grew in followers very quickly. Government public debt skyrocketted. Politics went nuts, leaders were either hated or puppets. Most of the army was made of mercenaries ( paid immigrants because romans didn't want the dirty job anymore ). Romans were about to become a minority in Rome. Mercenaries eventually overran and pillaged the Empire.

My personal theory is this : if a country's fertility rate per woman goes below 2 for a considerable amount of time, it will end in an economical and political crisis. If that country uses immigration to sustain demography, it will end in a civil war.

Edit : I said feminism causes economical crisis... but why ? Someone linked a very nice video explaining a very plausible theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w__PJ8ymliw

Please note that I didn't write any of the following text, it is a comment u / tomek77 / made 7 years ago on r / Equality / making observations about how we're following the same path as the roman empire . It ultimately led me to believe that the western part of the world will pretty much cease to exist in the next 50 years.


Unfortunately, feminism and future is an oxymoron (or fortunately, depending on your point-of-view), as it seems to be unsustainable on the long run.

Based on past history, it appears that a civilization that embraces feminist values will cease to exist in just a few centuries. This is why we have never seen a feminist civilization aside from very short spans at the end of the Roman empire and possibly a few other more ancient civilizations.

Reading the history of the roman Empire brings such glaring similarities with our own civilization, it is as if human social dynamics are literally stuck in a cycle that repeats every couple thousand years (there were two matriarchical, extremely advanced civilizations: one at the end of the Roman empire, 2000 years ago, one possibly at the end of Babylon, 4000 years ago).

For those who enjoy history, here is a short recap of social changes in Rome, 2 millenia ago (most historians focus on military and political facts, but I find the social aspects just as fascinating):

  • ~5 century BC: Roman civilization is a a strong patriarchy, fathers are liable for the actions of their wife and children, and have absolute authority over the family (including the power of life and death)

  • ~1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work. They have running water, baths and import spices from thousands of miles away. The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children rights and women become emancipated. No-fault divorce is enacted, and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century.

  • ~1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a "bachelor tax", to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers, Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies. The wealth and power of women grows very fast, while men become increasingly demotivated and engage in prostitution and vice. Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.

  • ~3-4 century AD: A moral and demographic collapse takes place, Roman population declines due to below-replacement birth-rate. Vice and massive corruption are rampant, while the new-born Catholic Religion is gaining power (it becomes the religion of the Empire in 380 AD). There is extreme economic, political and military instability: there are 25 successive emperors in half a century (many end up assassinated), the Empire is ungovernable and on the brink of civil war.

  • ~5 century AD: The Empire is ruled by an elite of military men that use the Emperor as a puppet; due to massive debts and financial problems, the Empire cannot afford to hire foreign mercenaries to defend itself (Roman citizens have long ago being replaced by mercenaries in the army), and starts "selling" parts of the Empire in exchange for protection. Eventually, the mercenaries figure out that the "Emperor has no clothes", and overrun and pillage the Empire.

  • humanity falls back into the Bronze Age (think: eating squirrel meat and living in a cave); 12 centuries of religious zilotry (The Great Inquisition, Crusades) and intellectual darkness follow: science, commerce, philosophy, human rights become unknown concepts until they are rediscovered again during the Age of Enlightenment in 17th century AD.

Regarding the Babylonian civilization (~2,000 BC), we have relatively few records, but we do know that they had a very advanced civilization because we found their legislative code written down on stone tablets (yes, they had laws and tribunals, and some of today's commercial code can even be traced back to Babylonian law). They had child support laws (which seems to indicate that there was a family breakdown), and they collapsed presumably due to a "moral breakdown" figuratively represented in the Bible as the "Tower of Babel" (which was inspired by a real tower). Interesting and controversial anecdote: some claim that the Roman Catholic Religion is nothing more than a rewriting and adaptation of an ancient Babylonian religion!


[–]Online_Identity 249 points250 points  (42 children)

Feminism can only happen in ‘first world’ settings (they were first world for their time) where people can live comfortably enough to even think about feminism. When youre busy working on survival and basic life necessities, you dont have time to roleplay feminism. Guys hunt, kill, protect, etc. Girls cook, clean, nurture, etc

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (16 children)

Even in the first world, we've got "masculinism" at the borders, and feminism in the gooey caramel center. No matter what you do, survival requires brutal strength and sacrifice, the kind of which feminism has not yet worked out how to provide.

[–]nrjk 35 points36 points  (11 children)

No matter what you do, survival requires brutal strength and sacrifice, the kind of which feminism has not yet worked out how to provide.

And it never will. Women marry the invaders (or were captured in more primitive times). Look at French women marrying Nazi's, Vietnamese women with American men, today's "pro-refugee" moderate/liberal woman, etc.

Because men are more (biologically) expendable (egg vs. sperm), and are physically bigger/stronger, we have the duty to protect. Feminists would be unable to even conceive of such a notion. Even the most hardcorest, cunty feminist's interests lies in a 'soft' protection-like woman to baby.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 13 points14 points  (1 child)

we have the duty to protect.

I would argue that we have an urge to protect, not duty.

[–]gELSK 1 point2 points  (0 children)

duty to protect

We have as much of a duty to protect as they have a duty to reproduce.

[–]Velebit -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

whats with traitorous nazis marrying untermensch? aint that a more pathetic, dygenic and traitorous move lol

[–]Hellrot69 1 point2 points  (1 child)

When did the nazis consider the French untermenschen?

[–]Velebit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

because they surrendered in 2 weeks xD

[–]honoraryjap 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Surely you mean "unterfrauen" and "dysgenic".

[–]canadianmooserancher 3 points4 points  (0 children)

ok but largely irrelevant in any shape or form of what the OP is randomly throwing together. meritocracy dies in all those cases because power in those instances don't allow for it. so eventually all the levers of power is filled with corruption, incompetency or aristocrats born with silver-spoons in their asses. i just don't see the connection when these others things cause so much more damage.

theories should be more concise and more factual, especially in this forum where it's kind of just emerging as a field of thought on male and female relations.

edit: spelling is awful, lord have mercy on me

[–]kagetsuki23 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The problem for the future will be AI and robots, because robots can be even stronger than men and take care of the protection of society. So, corruption may rule forever once they appear.

[–]sd4c 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if it's drones, they have to be piloted by somebody. Men have superior spatial reasoning, and are thus, necessary.

When robots are the backbone of the armed forces, and are commonly given the authority themselves, to determine shoot/don't shoot, we've abdicated our sovereignty back to the earth. Let us pray that never happens.

[–]KrmBo3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha thats true in Africa women know their place and men know theirs they should not get that twisted

[–]Jigsus 21 points22 points  (19 children)

But for technology to evolve and humans to evolve we need free time. How do you propose we evolve without falling into a trap of navel gazing?

[–]NSFWIssue 53 points54 points  (5 children)

No species avoids natural limiting factors within their populations. Wolves don't ration elk, they'll hunt them to extinction then starve to death if they're able. It happens all the time in nature, and humans are part of nature.

We don't exercise as much control over our fate as we think.

[–]Jigsus 12 points13 points  (1 child)

We should find a way to exercise that control.

[–]ProfessorDemon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Once we develop technologies that provide complete control over birth rates, this will no longer be an issue. However, there will be many moral hurdles to get over alongside technological ones to get to this point.

[–]Velebit 1 point2 points  (1 child)

that is actually wrong, there are members of the packs that kill of excess members, usually kids look at "silver eye lioness killing cubs" you see how the alpha female controls the number of members by killing offspring, even her own

[–]MCDownlow 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Technology usually "evolves" out of necessity. An example is the steam engine. The medieval European economy and energy base was based on wood. Ships, homes, heating, metallurgy, even pipes for sanitation and water delivery, all needed wood. As population grew the forests shrank. Eventually, it became too expensive to use wood for heating. People began using coal.

The first modern industrial use of steam engines were water pumps for mining deeper to get to new coal deposits. The Industrial Revolution was caused by the necessity of using coal as an energy base. Happy people don't make history and necessity is the mother of invention. The Dark Ages ended not simply because of "progress", but because of over population. In turn, we won't enter the Solar/Nuclear Age until we exhaust our coal and oil deposits. Humans don't change unless we have to.

[–]Online_Identity 22 points23 points  (10 children)

Idk, everyone needs to realize that focusing as much time and energy on the sub-par topic of feminism as we do could be better spent on more resourceful things. ending world hunger, solving homelessness, etc

[–]2Archterus 23 points24 points  (2 children)

Some of these issues are more than tangentially related to feminism. Homelessness for example. Male homelessness, who cares! Female, watch the response. Many men (certainly not all), have found themselves on the bench after they have been divorce raped, or the traditional job structure has evaporated favouring part time, service/admin female friendly work rather than manufacturing/heavy industry. Or killed themselves as life and traditional sources of meaning have fallen apart around them. Whilst your comment has merit, feminism is more malignant than implied

[–]Lambdal7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hm, lots of female homeless in the U.S., no?

[–]Online_Identity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very true, just speaking in a general over-arching sense towards feminism.

[–]BokehClasses 0 points1 point  (5 children)

You must be a liberal. That's fine, the red pill is like driving down a one way street. You have passed one block. You still got a few more to pass. And with every block you pass, you can't turn back.

Every single social issue can be traced back to feminism. Sure, some will still exist under patriarchy, but to a much smaller extent.

Patriarchy is the one system that has proved time and again to be successful in progressing civilizations, but yet people thought it would be a great idea to remove it. How disappointing.

And world hunger? Lol. How about we focus on our own people before catering to others. Will you put strangers over your family?

[–]Online_Identity 0 points1 point  (4 children)

You must be (insert any group i see fit)... Nope. Just looking too far forward for small minded people still thinking within their borders. We are one earth.

[–]BokehClasses 0 points1 point  (3 children)

But will you let refugees live in your house? Will you keep your door unlocked? Will you feed strangers at the expense of your family?

Just looking too far forward for small minded people still thinking within their borders

Well, you just admitted to looking too far forward. How about we address the immediate issues we have now, rather than focusing "too far forward" issues.

Would you put strangers over your family? You didn't answer that.

[–]Online_Identity 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I dont have any immediate family, so maybe it takes someone without the normal family ties to think and feel these things for other people.

Thinking too far forward is not a problem... “We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”

[–]BokehClasses 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Do you pay tax? I'm assuming you do.

Would you rather pay 15% tax that's used solely for the benefit of your nation, or would you rather pay 25% tax to also deal with foreign issues? I'm talking about an opt-in system (not forced as it currently is).

The point I have tried to make is that it is not our responsibilty to deal with the problems of other cultures and communities. Those problems are THEIR problem.

This is actually beneficial for them in the long term, because right now if a third world citizen is unhappy with their country they can just immigrate to the west. The citizens that do stay are benefited by western financial/medical aid. This causes a "brain drain" not just in high skilled workers, but also in motivation.

Citizens should be forced to stick with their country (for the most part). Rather than coming to the west or asking for our help, try making your country great instead. It sucks for the short term, but this is the best long term solution.

[–]Online_Identity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right, other peoples problems belong to those people. 👌🏽 But if America is to continue to be a world leader we will always have our fingers in everyone elses pots. No I dont pay taxes I took the Trump route.

[–]gELSK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

// , That depends entirely on how you define "we".

Aboriginal cultures have lots and lots of free time.

[–]greatslyfer[🍰] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

You can say the same thing about art, philosophy, democracy, humans rights.

Not a strong argument against feminism, just saying.

[–]Shaman6624 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes as a general rule, but if a girl wants to hunt you gave her a spear and noone gives a fuck. That has always been the case. Feminism isn't even fighting about real things. Those are just a smokescreen to hide that feminism is a sexual powerplay strategy.

[–]canadianmooserancher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this is another thing. how is it responsible for things... when it was barely nascent at the time?? or non existent in virtually all historical accounts. it's damned hard to make claims the OP makes without addressing the other causes that cause empires and civs to sink like a stone.

[–]Throwawaysteve123456 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. This is a really good post that's on point. History has repeated itself countless times, and it's so obvious what is next. I predict a massive collapse in the next 10-15 years, huge famine, a dark ages for a century or two, and hopefully a rebuilding. I question if idioicracy will have a strong effect if this happened.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 85 points86 points  (37 children)

humanity falls back into the Bronze Age

It wasn't that bad. Contrary to the media image, the barbarians weren't all that barbaric. They get a bad rap because the traditions of law and civil order were largely inherited from classic Greek thought, but the vast majority of social traditions came from them, just spruced up under the color of Christianity.

[–]Sennmeistr 21 points22 points  (28 children)

Indeed, it wasn't that bad as one often hears in the movies or mediocre documentaries. Allow me to add some points.

It was only temporarily, and only restricted to some geographical areas, a time of pillage and devastation, mainly caused by the Huns and their aftereffects. It was not a dark time of superstition, ignorance or brutality. The Romans were technologically advanced but not necessarily less superstitious than their descendants, as for them the world was a mythological place of gods and spirits. Since a lot of knowledge was either lost or destroyed, the term "dark" was introduced to refer to the time right after the decline of Rome, a situation comparable to the collapse of Bronze Age dynasties around 1200 BC.

However, a decline after the fall of the Western Roman Empire was a matter of fact. "Dark" is justified when looking at social and economic factors: illiteracy rose rapidly, but still, some knowledge was bunkered and kept locked in monasteries where it was, luckily, copied over and over again. (Much of ancient Greek and Roman knowledge was also discovered and preserved by Muslim conquerors)

Stone buildings vanished as an indicator of an overall decline of wealth and architectural ambition. Roman infrastructure, for example aqueducts or roads, the latter were famous for being almost indesctructible and extraodinarily straight and accurate, were either still used to some extent, or relinquished. The knowledge of how to make concrete for instance was forgotten.

Also, long-distance trading, as it was known in Roman times, collapsed and was replaced by local markets. The population, once concentrated in town centers, contracted and disbursed largely as a result of the trade collaps. Population growth was largely determined by the ability of local agriculture.

Most distinctively, mining and iron smelting in almost all of northern and western Europe decreased to Bronze Age levels. (But quickly rose some centuries later)

I would also like to add that Europe, as a whole continent, cannot be generalized as civilization and technology thrived elsewhere. Things weren't as bad in the Eastern Roman Empire and to some extent in the "Barbarian" kingdoms of Southern Europe.

[–]BokehClasses 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very interesting to read. It begs the question of what impact the internet will have once this society collapses and the new civilization forms. It should serve as the ultimate knowledge preserver tool, which should be beneficial in preventing the setback of human technological progress.

[–]1GroundhogLiberator 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Can you recommend any quality books or documentaries about the end of the Roman Empire?

Do you have a background in history or is it just an interest?

[–]Sennmeistr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have a background in history or is it just an interest?

I like reading all kinds of articles, books or even Wikipedia articles, just anything I can get. And I take notes, lots of notes. Most of it is just interest in the history of antiquity and the middle ages, the only background is secondary education.

Can you recommend any quality books or documentaries about the end of the Roman Empire?

Most of the books I read or documentaries I watch are not in English. Some dozen books maybe, not specifically about the decline of Rome, but general historical overviews, where the end of the Roman Empire is shortly discussed.

[–]gELSK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Muslim conquerors

Yay, Muslims doing something productive for civilization. Some of them should bring this back.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex -3 points-2 points  (22 children)

Technology thrived elsewhere - mainly in the East, under the rule of the Persians, Arabs and Mongolian conquerors. Due to them, we had the Renaissance, the Church in Europe did its best to suppress all knowledge and burned many Classical works or intentionally kept them hidden from the masses.

[–]Derek1382 1 points1 points [recovered]

the Church in Europe did its best to suppress all knowledge and burned many Classical works or intentionally kept them hidden from the masses.

The Church in Europe safeguarded damn near every piece of classical literature and philosophy we have, painstakingly copying them over the centuries as they believed only the ancients possessed wisdoms. The main academic genre of the middle ages was the commentary (i.e. commenting on some ancient authoritative text). Aristoteles was held to be the master of all knowledge and wisdom. Church schools were the model for and directly spawn universities, which began as places to study religious law. I'd like a few examples of which Classical works the Church is supposed to have burned.

As for keeping stuff "hidden from the masses", the masses were illiterate peasants with neither the time nor the inclination to learn the high concepts that the wealthy could afford to study. Only with the advent of industrialization was productivity raised enough that mass education became feasible.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex -2 points-1 points  (9 children)

The Church in Europe safeguarded damn near every piece of classical literature and philosophy we have, painstakingly copying them over the centuries as they believed only the ancients possessed wisdom. The main academic genre of the middle ages was the commentary (i.e. commenting on some ancient authoritative text). Aristoteles was held to be the master of all knowledge and wisdom. Church schools were the model for and directly spawn universities, which began as places to study religious law. I'd like a few examples of which Classical works the Church is supposed to have burned.

Except it was the Christians who burned the Great libraries of Byzantium and used the scrolls held wherein as fire kindling. Moreover, it was the copying of Greek and Roman texts by Arabic scholars in Cordoba, Alexandria and later in Persia by Jewish and Christian scholars that preserved Classical knowledge, not the Church. There was systemic suppression of information and destruction of scrolls. Individual European rulers put more or less influence on preserving Classical knowledge in secret from the Church.

All the monks did was copy the bible thousands of times for no reason.

And if the Church viewed the Classicists with any reverence, the revelations of Copernicus or Galileo would not have been so Earth shattering for them - for it was known by the Greeks that the Earth was round and the managed to calculate its circumference to the 4th decimal point. Knowledge that was lost and not promoted by the Church. If the church cared about disseminating knowledge it would have educated the illiterate masses of peasants, but it did all it could to keep them down well into the 20th century.

And people started to get literate with the advent of the Printing Press by Gutenberg, when it became much more difficult to suppress the spread of information. The Printing Press and the rediscovery of Greek/Roman manuscripts in Arabic prompted the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution.

[–]Derek1382 1 points1 points [recovered]

And if the Church viewed the Classicists with any reverence, the revelations of Copernicus or Galileo would not have been so Earth shattering for them - for it was known by the Greeks that the Earth was round and the managed to calculate its circumference to the 4th decimal point.

The biggest giveaway of the profoundity of your ignorance is your belief that Galileo and Copernicus introduced the idea of a round Earth (which was, on the contrary, well established at the time), instead of different models of the solar system (heliocentrism vs geocentrism). You literally know less about the topic than someone who has read the related Simple English wikipedia page. Fuck off and get an education.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Oh wow I made one mistake. I am profoundly ignorant /s. If that is the extent of your argument then I suggest you think up a better one.

[–]gELSK 0 points1 point  (2 children)

// , You made more than one mistake

Regardless, your point seems vague, poorly structured, and irrelevant to the topic

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Nah. I made one mistake.

Structure is irrelevant - Reddit is weird in how it structures text. Doesn't use HTML formatting like I'm used to.

It was very relevant - we were talking about Rome and Christianity played a big role in destroying it.

[–]gELSK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was very relevant - we were talking about Rome and Christianity played a big role in destroying it.

You are correct. Kind of spiraled, though.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 2 points3 points  (3 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Library_of_Constantinople

" The library continued in substantial form until the city of Constantinople was conquered by the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453 when the library's considerable surviving contents were destroyed or lost.[2] "

Last time I checked, the Ottoman Empire was not Christian.

This is complete bullshit. And there was no flat Earth conspiracy within the Catholic Church. You do know when the reformation occurred, yes?

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The Crusaders looted, terrorized, and vandalized Constantinople for three days, during which many ancient and medieval Roman and Greek works were either stolen or destroyed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople_(1204)

Nice try there buddy.

And I made an error, it was not the concept of round earth that the church opposed but that of heliocentrism.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the library's considerable surviving contents

many

Hmmm...

heliocentrism

It was a philosophical and political argument, not a scientific one. If Copernicus wasn't such a dick nozzle to the church officials in so many ways, it was an argument that would have never happened. And they didn't even argue it any more after Newton.

[–]AnjaJutta 2 points3 points  (5 children)

The Eastern Roman Empire existed till 1453 and its destruction fueled the Renaissance in Western Europe. The only thing Mongols and Turks brought to Western Europe is yoghurt.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex -1 points0 points  (4 children)

Go read about the protected status engineers, scholars and scientists had under the Mongols.

[–]AnjaJutta 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Were the engineers, scholars and scientists Mongols themselves? No

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Not at first. But that doesn't mean they didn't realize the use of engineers and killing a scientist or engineer was punishable by death.

[–]AnjaJutta 2 points3 points  (1 child)

You are still not providing any hints towards a way Mongols could fuel the renaissance in Western Europe.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Since they were open to science and did not persecute scholars, Mongol occupied lands were a safe haven for any persecuted scientists from Europe. In fact many Jewish and Christian scholars flocked to Mongolian lands.

[–]TheStumblingWolf 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Why is this downvoted? Islam in the 1500s valued science highly. Under one ruler's reign people were paid gold if they could deliver a book of science that he didn't have. The doctors of Europe were very eager to learn from middle eastern doctors. There's a reason why they're called Arabic numbers (even though, in Arabic, I believe they're called Indian numbers).

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Islam in the 1500s valued science

Persians in the 1500's valued science.

Islamic scholarship has nothing to do with scientific scholarship and it was Persians with an ancient, rich culture NOT Muslim barbarians from the desert who preserved Western advances during the brief time of harsh scientific oppression by the Christian Church.

To be fair, Christians stopped throwing gays off of buildings a long time ago.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex -5 points-4 points  (2 children)

Exactly.

In case anyone is curious to expand their horizons and shed the Bluepill that society has taught you about history, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age#Natural_sciences

If we are to truly swallow the redpill, not only with women, but outside of it as well, we need to identify other bluepill memes and eliminate them. One of these memes is Christanity. Christanity is a pox on the Western man and needs to die.

In case anyone is wondering, I am not for Islam. I am for truth. If I could identify with some religious group, I would identify as a Greco-Roman Pagan at worst or a Scandinavian Pagan at best.

[–]chaseemall 4 points5 points  (1 child)

The closest thing you have to Hellenic thought is Christianity. Read some theology. You will clearly see strains of post-aristotelian philosophy (stoicism) as well as of other ideas. Not to mention that most of our traditions are Christianized Germanic and Roman traditions. Christianity is a living tradition. Those traditions are dead. Why? Because they were conquered by Christianity.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Christianity was an abridged version of early Hebrew religions (which are entirely foreign to Hellenic thought) and incorporated elements of Hellenic and Roman thought as well as German paganism (after entering Europe). Christianity did not give humanity anything new, it had to take elements from previous, superior modes of thought to be relevant. Moreover, the reason it became popular was because it promised the weak, the disenfranchised, the crippled (who were in abundance then, as now) that they would be rewarded for being useless in the next life and that everyone who made something of themselves in this life was evil (sound familiar with which modern movements?).

If a parasite kills a human, does that make the parasite superior to the human? That is what Christianity was - a parasite - leading to the collapse of Rome and 1000 years of darkness.

[–]DPestWork 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, just for clarification, only the Western half of the Roman Empire evaporated. The Eastern half remained for many more centuries and remained a cultural epicenter. I don't disagree with the OP and will have to study more about the cultural changes mentioned.

[–]Thrawy124 7 points8 points  (2 children)

I mean, when the Romans withdrew from Britain, they felt guilty for abandoning the people, and so left blue prints etc. They were ignored and rich kings fed off of the poor. All I can say is thank God for the Vikings.

[–]Velebit 7 points8 points  (0 children)

you do realize vikings were more egalitarian to women than christian english? xD

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

The dark ages weren't that bad at all unless you care about things like the complete depopulation of urban areas, the collapse of trade, collapse of any sort of complex industry or manufacturing, the return to subsistence farming of virtually the entire population, the collapse of complex engineering and road maintenance, almost no written records, and a major regression in the beauty and quality of artwork. The idea that the Dark Ages weren't that dark is one pushed by modern leftist historians.

It is true though that most of the barbarians that overran Rome were quasi-Roman themselves. Many had been serving as federated military allies for decades or centuries and wanted a place within the empire, not to destroy it.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 0 points1 point  (2 children)

the return to subsistence farming of virtually the entire population

Let me pick on this one because it speaks to all of them: if you were a Roman citizen, then things definitely sucked. However, given that a huge portion of the population were either farmer slaves, urban slaves or peasants living on the edge, there wasn't a whole lot of change for them when trade fell and they were required to dig for their own food. These people weren't buying trade items in the first place.

You have to fast-forward to the plague before you really start salting the Earth in some parts of Europe.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The entire Empire was Roman citizens when the Empire fell, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. But the quality of life definitely fell even for your poor urban or rural person living harvest to harvest. The urban poor all left their cities, so obviously life sucked for them. If they had some sort of profession now they are unemployed and if they were on the grain dole that is obviously over. They probably left because the food stopped coming, so they probably either starved or if they were lucky became tenant farmers somewhere.

Even for a poor rural farmer, you no longer have access to any manufactured goods coming from the cities. Even very basic things like pottery becomes rare and much simpler. Poor people still buy bowls and plates. Now if you break one it probably costs 10 times more for a shittier product, if it even exists at all.

You don't have access to any food that isn't grown in your immediate vicinity because there's no trade anymore, so if you are a peasant living in England, wine used to be an expensive luxury that you maybe or maybe could not afford (maybe it was a special occasion a couple times a year), and now it simply no longer exists in your universe. Your variety of food would go down. You aren't getting any fruits from Southern France or fish from the Mediterranean anymore. It's going to be bread, local fruits and vegetables, and whatever you can hunt, and if there is a bad harvest there's no Roman governor to request aid from the emperor from a different part of the empire.

If there used to be a bridge across a major river near your home or an aqueduct bringing in water, those have probably fallen down or are no longer serviceable. If you used to be a soldier then one day the pay just stops coming and you have to figure out what to do now. The security situation is obviously worse and now you probably occasionally get pressed into military service. I think life got much worse.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The entire Empire was Roman citizens

Slaves were not citizens, even if they were given magical unicorn writs to say otherwise. There were classes, up until there weren't.

Now if you break one it probably costs 10 times more for a shittier product

You greatly overestimate the movement of basic stuff. The sea of slaves and peasants weren't grading their wooden bowls and spoons.

You don't have access to any food

Food was the last thing that moved on the roads back then. Spices, sure, and some expensive specialty items. All food was local. Rome didn't have suburbs. It had farms that fed the city. Animals were marched there before slaughtered and the roads (and aqueducts) remained in use long after the empire fell.

Wine was favored because it could take long trips, but you have to understand that there were no commercial trucks back then. Physically moving stuff was tedious. Moving 100 gallons of wine from Spain to Rome was a huge deal.

The security situation is obviously worse

One thing a lot of people don't understand is how different security was back then. There were no police. Security was a neighborhood responsibility. The Pretorian guard had a very small and focused mission and didn't give a single fuck about the typical citizen.

[–]2comment 1 points1 points [recovered]

My personal theory is this : if a country's fertility rate per woman goes bellow 2 for a considerable amount of time, it will end in an economical and political crisis.

Only in systems that have debt and use fiat money (it's all loaned into existence, thus every dollar accruing interest somewhere). Without such conditions, in the past, contractions in population occured without major upheaval because it was natural. The modern system, of course, needs exponential growth.

The birthrate needs to be above 2 because of mortality. It used to be 4 for replacement rate, because of childless couple and mortality. Childless couples still exist. Mortality is much lower though.

Immigration exists in the west not to sustain demographic per se, but to give the corporations ever new consumers. Notice in how much of western europe, the immigrants don't have to work but are given EVERYTHING. Housing, appliances, food, etc. Purely a welfare state to corporations right now, propped up by idiot liberals who don't know what it's about. And completely unsustainable.

I suggest looking up Oswald Spengler and Decline of the West. He's from the 1920s and was very heavy into the cyclical theory of history.

[–]monkeysword88 1 points1 points [recovered]

Also consider reading The Fate of Empires.

[–]Perfect-Practice 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Fascinating.

Why can't corporations charge consumers a sustainable amount instead of forcing them into maximum debt?

Would that mean more purchasing power for consumers and more money for the corporations in the long term?

Is this a case of a dollar today is worth two tomorrow? It doesn't look like it's sustainable.

[–]Leonidas_79 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Henry Ford laid the blueprint out for the most profitable business: You have to invest in people so that they will invest in you.

I think we’re headed for another Great Depression or some kind of western revolution.

[–]grimlocksgauntlet 16 points17 points  (3 children)

This is interesting. Especially the comments. But what concerns me more is the attitudes and values—or lack thereof that I am witnessing in the West.

When I was told the middle class was diminishing I thought it was bullshit.

It is.

It’s financial and it’s also a huge problem with every man out for himself because welfare programs are about to be pulled and the squeeze is upon people of the United States who earn lower wages and pay higher prices due to inflation, debasement of the dollar and corporate greed.

You can live the same quality of life in South America and Mexico for a fifth of the cost of the United States with education, medicine and insurance much cheaper.

And there the women have better attitudes. There are way less cucks and beta because of the Latino enculturation.

What can one do?

It will get worse before it gets better.

[–]Leonidas_79 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is it. I love when I go back home to serbia im in heaven because it’s still very much a patriarchal society. You can tell just by walking down the street. Women are feminine and men are masculine as fuck - you can almost feel the testosterone wafting through the air.

North American males are fucking zeros compared to less developed parts of the world.

[–]Actanonverba11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I honestly have my passport just in-case I need to do a fast get-out. First stop is Latin America. It still shocks me that Brazil doesn't have child support laws.

[–]reddttt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hahahahahha better attitudes? They hide it better! Personal experience

[–]AwesomeCool909 127 points128 points  (56 children)

Read Unwin's book, he lists 85 more examples (including Rome 2.0, the Byzantine Empire).

The short hand is feminism leads to hypergamy overdrive, causing the low status men give up (unless they are Chad, but they can't please girls forever either), these men stop caring about society and refuse to upkeep it (or begin fighting fiercer and fiercer to get status, til the blood begins spilling).

I find it funny that polygamy and feminism go hand in hand.

Edit: I think the reason causes weak lazy feminine men is due to these two reasons

  1. Women seek temporary polygamous relationships (chase the Chad) and men are then raised by single mothers and think that is how the average human acts (no exposure).

  2. Men quickly become lazy as there is no point to try anymore (men's entire purpose to man up is to get a mate), jobs were always incredibly difficult and unrewarding...but now they have less need for money then ever and it offered less rewards then ever. Those that kept working became more hostile, fighting the ever increasing standards to attract a girl.

[–]clme 31 points32 points  (45 children)

Your theory seems to imply that we should soon witness a mass conversion of blue pill men into MGTOW/herbivore men...Yet, often on this sub-reddit we hear that blue pill men are so indoctrinated / deluded, that they are beyond salvation (aka swallowing the red pill). Thoughts?

[–]NSFWIssue 50 points51 points  (5 children)

The biggest cuck I've ever known got fired a few weeks ago following a sexual harrassment investigation at his workplace. He literally talks all the time unironically about things like manspreading, mansplaining, how people in power oppress the weak, etc, etc. But being a cuck didn't protect him from an angry feminist.

I think that's the end game, when these men start to realize that they are not, in fact, in line for good boy points. They've just been permanently neutered, unwanted and unneeded.

We're experiencing a culture-wide shit test. This is just selection at work. And all the nice boys will realize their folly in the end.

[–]APSTNDPhy 26 points27 points  (1 child)

I call that femsplaining:

'When an angry, manhating, self proclaimed victim and feminist uses a made up word to describe a factually inaccurate concept to a man.'

[–]Incel9876 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I call that femsplaining: 'When an angry, manhating, self proclaimed victim and feminist uses a made up word to describe a factually inaccurate concept to a man.'

Damn, lol. Logged in and made this comment, to have in my post history, in case I ever want to find this wonderful definition again.

[–]Origami84 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I wouldnt be surprised either to know he actually molested someone. These male feminists types are all untrustworthy sleazebags.

[–]Actanonverba11 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yup. Just look at Weinstein and other Holywood liberals; Conyers and now Al Franken in Congress. When you play the game of Feminism, you win or you die. If you are a male feminist, you just die. Male feminists are the footsolders of Gynocentrism, and they are disposable.

[–]1GroundhogLiberator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same with Louis C.K. - he was the poster child for male feminists. The minute there was more profit in attacking him than supporting him, women jumped ship.

[–]Eydtkuhnen 1 points1 points [recovered]

I'd say that there is no way to turn back, if it's all the case. I don't even think it's the fault of the existance of feminism. Those kind ideologies and philosophies come to life due to natural circumstances, like this:

  1. Men win wars, country becomes more and more prosperous.
  2. Decades, if not centuries of peace.
  3. People start to think: "Why do we still need patriarchal structures? This system can also be controlled by women." And in that sense, they are right. There are no enemies to fight, so there is no need in forming the strongest males and getting them a comfortable life for it.
  4. Feminism happens: Women grow stronger, men grow weaker. Anecdote: My father claimed, that he always wanted a dominant woman, because being a leader was too exhausting to him.
  5. Moral standards shift in general: War, a terrible, but in some instances necessary event in civilization gets demonized. Nobody wants to become a fighter.
  6. Other patriarchal civilization comes and overtake the once peaceful women-lead civilization. Women can't defend their people, flee, die or even turn to the enemy. Men get totally whiped out. The same old patriarchal structure from centuries is back again, only created by some other folks.
  7. Return back to Nr. 1

The quote of Jesus, that the first will always be the last one day, gets a different meaning here.

But it's an overgeneralization, I don't claim it's totally true.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (29 children)

I personally think that fertility is so low only because women are hardcoded to marry up while men are not. An easy solution to this would be to provide a very unfair advantage to men, my guess is that's what they'll do in the east when the west explodes... the west is doomed anyway

[–]Eydtkuhnen 1 points1 points [recovered]

Men had this once. Marriage as an institution was once more balanced. It was once one of the most important decisions of your life due to the fact, that divorcing was not that easy accessable as it is today. So everybody had to make a good decision unless they don't want to fuck up their whole lifes.

But what do I say, their is a in my opinion totally genius video from Karen Straughan about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w__PJ8ymliw

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 17 points18 points  (14 children)

It was once one of the most important decisions of your life due to the fact, that divorcing was not that easy accessable as it is today. So everybody had to make a good decision unless they don't want to fuck up their whole lifes.

You omit the fact that marriages were more often than not arranged by parents to and therefore there was nothing for you to decide upon.

On top pf that remember that mere being married doesn't guarantee ANYTHING for a man that he would not have if he were to remain single. Back then it was about economic/social standing, not about natural m-f dynamics. Just b/c you're married doesn't mean the marriage itself is a reflection of proper m-f dynamic any.

[–]Origami84 15 points16 points  (13 children)

For the single man, it garanteed nothing. For society at large, it ensured that most men would work to support their kids, and that those kids would have a father figure.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp -5 points-4 points  (12 children)

it ensured that most men would work to support their kids,

That makes sense.

and that those kids would have a father figure.

That makes less sense. I get that having any father is better than having no father, but the reality is most fathers are BP and children we're compounding factor in spreading BP.

[–]Origami84 2 points3 points  (11 children)

Being BP in a forced monogamy society is not actually that bad of a deal.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (10 children)

You're going to be sex starved by your wife that will get her dick from a man she feels tingles for. We had "soft forced monogamy" for a thousand years in Europe and women still cheated. It doesn't work b/c it's not based on fulfilling both sexual strategies.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (4 children)

I'm done watching it and wow her conclusion is awesome, thanks for sharing

[–]team-evil 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I wasn't going to watch that link until I saw your reply and my God it is captivating and I think absolutely true. I sure as hell know I personally don't feel the desire to break my back just to support a bunch of kids that aren't mine. Xbox time.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I've been watching this girl talking for like 3 hours now, it's so good

[–]team-evil 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Damn you....I've got shit to do....but now I'm going down the rabbit hole.

[–]EXQUISITE_WIZARD 4 points5 points  (0 children)

she's amazing. Watch her video on feminism and the disposable male next.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

men are biologically superior to women, so we dont need any unfair social advantages for women to be able to marry up. In a meritocracy the average man will be a catch for the average woman. However with feminism, women are given unfair privileges for free by blue pill men, which inflates these womens self percieved value, so they think they deserve better men than they actually are worth.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Fertility is low because women were put on an equal level with men and this means that they had to fuck upwards, meaning that most men don't fit their criteria anymore.

Thats why having 'more educated girls' in third world countries actually hurts rather than helps them.

[–]Velebit 2 points3 points  (2 children)

women have good fertility in Israel but are fully if not more equal and educated than in west

its about culture not law

law says agreements have to be respected yet western culture is gynocentric so western courts throw away pre-marriage agreements

there was a comparative study comparing one small Slavic country and Germany and the number one factor for women deciding to have a child in the Slavic country is having a secure job, while in Germany it was reverse. Cultural priorities are either materialistic or good.

I would bet its the same for all other historically "ambitious" cultures.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 2 points3 points  (1 child)

women have good fertility in Israel but are fully if not more equal and educated than in west its about culture not law

Isreal is gynocentric as fuck too. Feminism is huge there. The reason women have kids in Isreal is because they are in a preptual state of war. And fear is an aphordisiac. I am sure the situation would be the same in the US, if US was in a state of preptual war.

here was a comparative study comparing one small Slavic country and Germany and the number one factor for women deciding to have a child in the Slavic country is having a secure job, while in Germany it was reverse. Cultural priorities are either materialistic or good.

And yet Slavic countries have some of the lowest birth rates in Europe. Slavic fertility decreased the moment the education of their women increased.

[–]Velebit 3 points4 points  (0 children)

oh those fanatical arabs! take me David, make me a lot of warriors :b

maybe that is the reason why egalitarian vikings and Scythians had stable societies

Actually USA has around 1.9 which is more than Iran and similar to Turkey

Ireland is among top 5 countries by women with college degrees and has a 2 kids per woman and also a very small immigrant community which means most are native Irish women making kids

Slavic fertility follows quite generally their GDP growth unless skewed by massive emigration into richer EU countries (Poland for example) of young people especially couples who get married after college.

Yeah but economic situation in most slavic countries is shit xD youth unemployment of 50% and more http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Estimated_mean_age_of_leaving_the_parental_household,_by_sex,_2013.png

[–]PsyMonk- 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I think the East is doomed. Asia is razing their environment to the ground and Europe is literally dismantling as Muslims invaded it... I sometimes think of where I could move away from the West, but Australia's cucked & fuckeeeeeeed. Africa's a battlefield. South America's a criminal mess. Honestly I wanna move to Mars.

[–]Velebit 4 points5 points  (2 children)

how about, mongols win war, embrace islam and patriarchy and start to decline, how about norse embrace christianity and patriarchy, start to decline, how about bulgarians, hungarians and others do the same and also decline

how about lithuanians and scythians win wars and become patriarchal and decline

byzantine empire went through same bs rome did and still expanded, almost retook all west and went for another thousand years

bull shit

[–]Eydtkuhnen 1 points1 points [recovered]

Yes you are absolutely right with this. I didn't want to appoint feminist structure as the only bad thing and patriarchal structures as the messianic answer to it.

As you have mentioned, these cultures exaggerated their patriarchal culture and suffered therefore from other stuff than a matriarchal does.

And don't forget that this gender-stuff isn't the only significant factor in a culture, there is also stuff like economics, ecologics (natural disasters) and other random stuff that just happens.

[–]Velebit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It seems that monogamy and morality are a better indicator than patriarchy. When rules are known and everyone follows them.

[–]1GroundhogLiberator 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hard times create strong men.

Strong men create good times.

Good times create weak men.

Weak men create hard times.

[–]hawkeaglejesus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Other countries may still have a chance, but Sweden is already halfway through step 6.

[–]tkoubek 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you think about it, our current western civilization is on decay and the patriarchal civilization that will come and take the lead would be Islam. Why? Because that mix of religion, ideology makes them stronger than us (ie: no values crisis like we have) and the fact that they are ready to fight for imposing their way of life (same as Judeo-Christian did thousands years ago) makes Islam the civilization that could replace ours.

[–]Planner_Hammish 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Blue pill men are indoctrinated for sure; some are happy to stay that way. Whereas others, like myself, get hurt pretty bad even though we were doing everything we were supposed to do. And then we go looking for answers. Eventually we find likeminded men to discuss these concepts and failures and rebuild our worldview.

[–]biglaughingcock 3 points4 points  (0 children)

porn, pocket pussies, medical marijuana will solve that right

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Which book is this? Can't find it on Google.

[–]senordustball 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I think the book he's talking about is "Sex and Culture" by J. D. Unwin. Can someone confirm?

[–]Velebit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unwin also wrote that equality between women and men is necessary for absolute monogamy.

This is my conclusion also. And this is why literal (not merely legal) equality is necessary. With genetic research this is easier.

[–]deadassfinna 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Since women tend to get treated easier or more fairly than men do yoy reckon sons raised by single mums take on that lazyness and entitlement of the mother ie he also believes he should be treated easier and fairer, thus lowering aggresion, assertiveness etc

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I would wager that he simply would not have the competitive drive nurtured as he would if he had a father, which is why his aggression and assertiveness would be lower as he is older. At the end of the day, these are skills learned as we grow up.

[–]AwesomeCool909 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Men are lazy for they don't have a reason to care. What reason is there to fight to move up now?

Traditionally, men fought to impress women or make it easier for there kids (who used the power to impress mates themselves).

Men worked for society only for two things, because they would die otherwise (as a slave or resource starved) or to impress the girl.

[–]Brazilian_Slaughter 35 points36 points  (4 children)

Europe didn't fall into darkness until the 17th century. The real dark ages were the períod between the fall of Rome and the end of the constant barbarian invasions and raids. 5th-8th century was the worst stretch of it.

Late Antiquity had their own World War in the form of the last Roman-Persian war, starring Eastern Romans, Persians, Avars, Slavs, Gokturks, Khazars, Arabs, etc. Like the first world war, it killed Late Antiquity and paved the way for Islam.

Charlemagne on the West and Eastern Roman victories over Avars and Bulgars stopped the decline.

Feudalism existed because European Christians living during the collapse of the Carolinglian Empire were pressed between Berber pirates and muslim invaders, Avar invaders, Magyar raiders and viking raiders and invaders.

By the millenium, the high middle ages had started and it was generally a pretty good períod for progress and European civilization.

Climate factors a lot into the fall of Rome. It drove the Huns west, which sent a domino of barbarians into Rome to escape. Huns got fought off, but things were still bad. Bad starvation too.

The Nobility at the time was very corrupt and hated paying their taxes. Lots of Emperors died when Emperors tried to reform.

Honestly, the Empire died with Majoran. After him it was just puppets of nobles and gothic magister militums like Stilcho.

Justinian and Belisarius did a hail mary but the Gothic War was honestly a mess. Then came the plague of justinian.

[–]Rabalaz 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Take my upvote for this knowledge dump.

[–]Leonidas_79 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Watching Vikings now I’m like “Aaaaaah the dark ages!!!”

[–]Brazilian_Slaughter 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well Vikings were 9th-11th century so it was more like the Dim Ages then.

Its a pity here in the West we don't talk more about the Berber pirates. Imagine if the Vikings kept raiding Europe from the 600s up to the 19th century. Vikings ain't got shit on them.

[–]reddttt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're interested, read about cossacks.

[–]alucardarian 7 points8 points  (2 children)

This is utter bullshit. Honestly this post reads like someone trying to prove how stupid people are on this sub by baiting responses from this literal shitpost. The rise and fall of great civilizations is always the same. Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men make hard times. It's human nature. Greed and corruption will always arise in any position of power and that's what weakens even the strongest Empires. Religions try to curb this with rewards of eternal life and punishments of eternal damnation, but even then corruption creeps in. "We have to stick together" is the most basic and fundamental idea of civilization. But I'd argue that the concept of civilization has evolved futher than we're able to handle it. We're still bound by millions of years of tribal living of at most a couple hundred or thousand of people and the thought of nations of millions with the same values and loyalty to each other goes against our nature. Why not be selfish and take more than you need? They might be born within the same land as you, but they're not family.

[–]Ketogainsmongoose 1 points1 points [recovered]

I believe Stephen explains the parallels well.

In essence, the citizens of Rome grew tried of being exploited and went their own way.

The collapse of society will be the liberation of the average male.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Molyneux stopped proper fact checking 2 years ago, that's when I stopped listening to him. He's an alt-right youtuber that panders to his viewers b/c he only makes arguments for his thesis. It's how he grows his viewership b/c it's his job.

I strongly caution you from taking Moluneux as credible source. At best he can be called "good at showing one side of the story".

Just read some of this, he has been proven to be outright lying on many occasions, his treatment of callers is in direct contradiction to his own principles.

https://goo.gl/srxnWA

[–]SaintHolland 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Abandoning gender roles is like cutting off the branch we are sitting on. It is turning our back on the very thing that got us here in the first place.

Western history in all its glory must be taught in schools. That is the first step to solving this problem.

[–]GEN_GOTHMOG 61 points62 points  (93 children)

When the sexual market place is deregulated such that women are no longer beholden to social and legal regulations pertinent to their sexuality, society begins its downward spiral into chaos.

Now we have a small number of men with the attraction power servicing the majority of women, whilst the remaining men are left out in the cold.

Back in the 60s most men were guaranteed a wife, and thats because womens sexuality was regulated. Once taboo and rare sexual practices are now commonplace and women have absolute autonomy over their sexual appetites.

Thanks liberalism, you've royally fucked us all.

[–]metallicdrama 4 points5 points  (6 children)

This is over regulation of the sexual marketplace. Complexity = Fraud and loopholes. Patriarchy is a very simple system that doesn't leave room for interpretation. Absolute and clear standards vs arbitrary fuzzy logic.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Just don't get your hopes too high that patriarchy will "solve" woman nature (cheating mostly, which mis most important for most men here).

[–]metallicdrama 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Well really the problem is women themselves. Can't change nature overnight. Arguably there is much more check on that in a patriarchal system than with feminism. Nothing is perfect.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Arguably there is much more check on that in a patriarchal system than with feminism.

Yes, there is. The problem with patriarchy (established by state) is simple: it makes men BP and beta by providing what they usually had to compete for. The patriarchy that was established back in the ancient history was established based on merit, accomplishments of men in general. We carved our "patriarchal world" out of the grasp of nature (and other men), literally. The patriarchy was a consequence of our skill as men.

What "tradcon/patriarchy" supporters on TRP want is state enforced patriarchy/monogamy/marriage with no divorce b/c they don't want to earn their position. As simple as that. It's basically a form of sexual welfare.

This will never work, as evident by the current situation. You can't have patriarchy working as intended when 99% of men simply can't lead themselves, not to mention lead others, which is not only a skill but also a responsibility.

[–]metallicdrama 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yeah I wasn't arguing for that. The main problem in the first place is the state. I definitely don't want sexual Socialism. Through most of history it was culture and religion that shaped the law and maintained social pressures. Just the law without the actual cultural and biological drives is a mess. Most men are trainable. Men have to be developed. It's fixable. Leaders learn those skills. Most are naturally apt for the role but still have to learn it. Laws won't fix that. In a zero law situation men naturally rule.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It's fixable.

On individual level, definitely. On societal one - it's going to be very hard if not impossible. You would face resistance from men and women alike.

In a zero law situation men naturally rule.

Yes.

[–]Rian_Stone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

none of the guys talking about it will be that man. the hyper masculine highly aggressive guy will be.

Meanwhile, the rest of us have to take cold showers to feel any hardship

[–]coco5440 30 points31 points  (80 children)

You see the problem but you've misdiagnosed the cause. Over the last 40 years marriages between low to moderate income men and women have indeed become more unstable. Marriages between educated middle and upper middle class men and women have actually become more stable over this period. The downfall of the hard working blue collar guy was not the 60s counterculture. Rather it was the move away from New Deal policies and labor unions. By voting for the GOP since Nixon in 68 blue collar guys have fucked themselves. The upshot is that today millions of guys are so economically marginalized that they can't support families and so bitter that they can't nurture families. Is it any wonder women don't want to marry these guys.

[–]chaseemall 9 points10 points  (7 children)

I would counter by saying that the existence of the welfare state and, in particular, the rise of Section 8 benefits for single mothers, disencentivized women marrying working class men. Women that can only land working class men could just as easily get the support of the state, and now they don't have to put up with a man while they do so.

[–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (6 children)

You do realize that Section 8 has been contracting for many years.

[–]chaseemall 1 point2 points  (5 children)

You and I are working with slightly different time scales. When I say rise, I mean going from not incentivizing single motherhood, to incentivizing it. Of course, now that all the jobs for working class men in manufacturing were destroyed in the recession, and thus there is even less incentive for women to marry working class men, you don't need the same level of funding to incentivize not marrying working class men.

Anyway, do you get my argument?

[–]coco5440 1 points1 points [recovered]

Blue collar jobs have been disappearing since the early 70s. The recent recession was just the latest blow. Making poor women's lives so miserable that they have to shack up with marginally employed guys seems mean spirited to me. Reducing inequality seems a better path. I'd start by encouraging rather than busting labor unions.

[–]chaseemall 5 points6 points  (3 children)

poor women's lives so miserable

I'm having a hard time telling whether you're an r/incels rapefugee or an open society funded shill.

For charity's sake, I'll treat you as the former.

Boo hoo poor women. It's rough for everyone. But children need fathers. The nuclear family is a better way to do things, and damn fool single mothers are not heroic; they are not victims; they are irresponsible. How could you want any of the below for your children?:

Twenty five million children are growing up without fathers in the home. That’s 40% of the kids in America. As reported by the Center for Children and Families:

➲ 40% of all live births in the US are to single mothers.

➲ 90% of welfare recipients are single mothers.

➲ 70% of gang members, high school dropouts, teen suicides, teen pregnancies and teen substance abusers come from single mother homes.

Statistically, a child in a single-parent household is far more likely to experience violence, commit suicide, continue a cycle of poverty, become drug dependent, commit a crime or perform below his peers in educ

According to the Single Parent Success Foundation, a national nonprofit that encourages educational opportunities for single parents:

➲ 63% of suicides nationwide are individuals from single-parent families.

➲ 75% of children in chemical dependency hospitals are from single-parent families.

➲ More than half of all youths incarcerated in the U.S. lived in one-parent families as a child

Thirty-seven percent of families led by single mothers nationwide live in poverty. Comparatively, only 6.8% of families with married parents live in poverty, according to data from 2009 compiled by the Heritage Foundation. Consider these dire statistics from single parent households:*

➲ 63% of youth suicides (Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of the Census)

➲ 90% of all homeless and runaway children

➲ 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders (Source: Center for Disease Control)

➲ 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)

➲ 71% of all high school dropouts (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)

➲ 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers (Source: Rainbows for All God`s Children.)

➲ 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)

➲ 85% of all youths sitting in prisons (Source: Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Department of Corrections 1992)

Now why is all this happening? Do you think it's because of those marginally employed guys that aren't involved with their kids? 70% of all divorces in this country are requested by women, not men. No it's because women are irresponsible. They would rather be supported by the state than give up their hypergamous impulses; they would rather their children be suicidal, gangbangers, drug addicts or criminals than accept the fact that they are a bottom 80% woman and should accept a bottom 80% man. Nevermind the fact that a two parent household working minimum wage can make in excess of 60,000 a year, giving the household enough to feed and clothe their children and keeping the father in the home to raise them right. It's even better if the man has a good manufacturing job or even a trade. No, it has nothing to do with the labor unions. It has everything to do with women being unwilling or unable to keep the men who have fathered their children and actively kicking them out of their lives.

That the welfare state enables it by paying them for their irresponsibility is just icing on the cake.

[–]coco5440 -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

If I didn't forget to count anyone I've had 57 partners over the years -- so definitely not an incel.

Open society? Not sure what you mean by that but it doesn't sound bad.

[–]chaseemall 0 points1 point  (1 child)

That's the second time you've quibbled over minor details while failing to deal with the thrust of my argument.

Not sure what you mean by that but it doesn't sound bad.

That's what they said about the patriot act.

Look into Soros' Open Society Foundation. They fund a ton of left wing groups, notably Antifa (who caused hundreds of thousands in property damage) and BLM. They fund paid rioters and agent provocateurs. They also fund shills on online forums such as reddit and 4chan.

[–]Jigsus 6 points7 points  (53 children)

That's an intriguing analysis. It's true that an unsustainable economic situation can cause families to fall apart. Would a liberal social system with a strong economy stimulate stronger families?

[–]coco5440 14 points15 points  (52 children)

I believe it would. I lived in Canada for over 20 years and observed a more stable country. Canada is a significantly more liberal country than the United States. Marriage is not venerated in Canada the way it is here. Many Canadian families are started by committed couples who are not officially married. But contrary to what American conservatives would predict Canadian families are much more stable. A significantly greater percentage of Canadian children grow up living with both their biological parents. Its my understanding that this is even more true in Western Europe.

I would argue that strong safety nets keep families together. Here in the United States economic stress leads to the breakup of many families. I see this in almost every domestic violence case that comes across my desk.

Also, in more egalitarian societies there is less pressure on women to traded up and, therefore, less branch swinging.

I'm starting to regret my decision to move to the USA. I thought Canada was boring and I wanted to be were the action was (a two edge sword for sure).

[–]Jigsus 14 points15 points  (28 children)

I'm actually from Quebec but I moved away from Canada because of the low wages and what I considered to be a failing housing market (caused by the policy of importing billionaires from other countries).

Western Europe is pretty much in full on SJW mode right now. I don't want to give credence to the crazies that call it failing but the SJW policies are causing a crisis of sexes. Nobody knows what it means to be a man anymore or a woman. This is causing people to shun family structures. The best and brightest are leading depressed branch swinging lifestyles (men and women).

Meanwhile it's the immigrants from Africa and the Middle East that are propping up the statistics on birthrate and families.

Just yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting an egyptian man in Sweden. He speaks only Arabic. He does do some pottery for his community. He had one official wife and two unofficial ones. 25 children. They all live off benefits as his pottery business is all under the table.

[–]coco5440 -4 points-3 points  (26 children)

I'm not sure where people find these immigrant examples. Its been my experience that immigrants are the hardest working most honest group of people. In Edmonton my circle of friends and coworkers included many immigrants from all over the world. I'd have a hard time findly anything bad to say about any of them (with the possible exception of a Serbian foreman I had to work with once -- he was a bit of a bully -- not to me but to some of the guys he knew wouldn't push back). Here in California Mexican and Central American immigrants labor long hours for low pay under unbelievably harsh conditions (i.e. 14 hours in 110+ degree heat). My son's chemical engineering and pharmacy school class mates included hard working immigrants from all over the world. I'm thinking these abuse stories are about as accurate as Ronald Reagan's African American welfare queen stories.

[–]Jigsus 6 points7 points  (12 children)

I'm not denying that there are hard working immigrants but denying that the bad sides of immigration exist is the other extreme don't you think? There isn't anything false in what I told you.

[–]coco5440 3 points4 points  (11 children)

From what I've seen there is very little down side. California is the destination for a huge percentage of immigrants to the Untied States. California stopped demonizing immigrants 30 years ago (goodby Pete Wilson and prop 187). With its ambitious young labor force California is America's economic engine. California sends far more tax money to Washington than it receives back -- we're funding Red State welfare. The California state government is also running a multi-billion dollar surplus.

Last year I was at a St. Patrick's Day parade on Main Street in Ventura California. A very American scene. High school marching bands and floats sponsored by local merchants. Families wearing green t-shirts lining the sidewalk. But at least 60 or 70% of the people had brown skin. I'm totally cool with this.

[–]AllHailEuropa 8 points9 points  (5 children)

California will be third world within a few generations. The average IQs and time preferences of those people are not fit to maintain western standards. Look at Mexico to see where California is heading. As far as economics, California has unfunded liabilities in the trillions of dollars that will never be paid off. California is funding red state welfare that goes to blacks who make up upwards of 40% of some red state populations. You do know that Oregon takes in the more federal money than any red state, right? You do know the only reason California is blue is because of the non white population, right? Who do you think is paying those taxes, by the way? White people. Hispanics and blacks have a net negative tax contribution at the federal level, and probably state level, too. And guess what? Whites are a declining minority in California and many will be leaving over the next few decades.

Have fun being a hated minority.

Notice how all of the countries you list as more egalitarian and as doing better than the US are MORE white than the US? Yeah... People like you never want to move to Mexico. Or Honduras. Just Canada and Western Europe.

[–]coco5440 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Conservatives are always predicting California's demise. But we're still doing fine thank you very much.

Hated minority? Why would you think California's black and brown people are hateful? Also, you seem to assume I'm white.

[–]Jigsus 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Because they excel at assimilating immigrants. Europe doesn't seem to be able to do that.

[–]coco5440 1 point2 points  (3 children)

The people who come to America want to be Americans. If they are welcomed they will be Americans in short order.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

When did you leave Canada? Because our govt has decided low skilled migration is the future, and the "hard working immigrant" trope is currently spiraling the drain. A lot has changed in the last few years.

Also, the fact you find it noble for these people to be working such low wages is disgusting. You're effectively applauding corporations circumventing the free market and undermining local citizens attempt to establish their worth.

I used to work the fields. It used to pay an extremely fair wage. It was great in high school, and I was able to walk away with a good chunk of cash during summer/fall months. When they flipped it to piece work, the farm cried a river about how "nobody wanted to work for them", but I still gave it a go. Within 3 years I was working beside low skilled migrants.

And yes, there are a shitload of "welfare queens" of various degrees. Of course you won't hear about it, because nobody openly admits to this shit. If you guys think the IRS is bad, you won't believe the cluster fuck you have to deal with in the form of the CRA.

[–]The_DogeWhisperer 2 points3 points  (4 children)

If immigrants are all working so hard why do they need such a disproportionate amount of government assistance?

[–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (3 children)

They don't. Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other public benefits. Most of these programs require proof of legal immigration status and under the 1996 welfare law, even legal immigrants cannot receive these benefits until they have been in the United States for more than five years.

[–]The_DogeWhisperer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not talking about illegal immigrants.

[–]jim234234red 1 points1 points [recovered]

Sorry but you're very wrong:

Center for Immigration Studies.

The tldr: once an immigrant has a child here, due to anchor baby laws, the gravy train opens up.

Have you ever wondered why you go to a Hispanic neighborhood during the day, and every woman under 25 is pushing a stroller?

[–]coco5440 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Immigrants are California's lifeblood.

[–]coco5440 4 points5 points  (6 children)

And if you want to see a fucked up housing markets check out any popular American city.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 5 points6 points  (3 children)

You haven't seen Toronto, or Vancouver. I dunno what kind of public defender you are, probably in bumfuck Manitoba or something. Housing in Toronto is ridiculous, $400-500k for a bachelor. Vancouver is even worse. In fact, the government of BC had to inact a restriction on the amount of housing that could be bought by foreign nationals, because they were raising the housing prices so much over there.

Stop propagating myths about Canada.

[–]coco5440 1 point2 points  (2 children)

My parents rent a nice water view apartment in Vancouver's west end for $1,500 a month. A similar apartment in San Francisco would cost at least four or five times as much.

I'm a public defender in California. Presently in a rural part of northern California (Mayberry on meth). Previously I worked in a high crime Central Valley county.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Depending on location in Toronto, you can easily reach $4k, so toronto is not so different.

[–]coco5440 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Back to families. I find it interesting that almost all my 40 and 50 something Canadian friends are still with the same person they've been with since the 80s. Contrast this with my American friends and coworkers most of who have been divorced at least once.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I am Canadian. Everyone I know who was married in the last 10 - 15 years is divorced, including myself. I think you have some fairly rose coloured glasses you're wearing about this country. It really, really is not all that it cracked up to be.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I dunno where you get that Canadian marriages are more stable. The divorce rates in Canada are similar to that of the United States (around 60-70%), marriage rates are falling and children aren't being had by whites. Moreover, if you think Canadian women are less likely to branch swing, you have not lived in Toronto or the GTA. Arguably, women here branch swing here more than anywhere else in the world.

[–]coco5440 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Actually according to Statistics Canada the Canadian divorce rate is 38%. Also, why would anyone care what color the children are?

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The divorce rate depends on the province. Quebec - 60.1%, Ontario - 50.1%, NFL - 17%.

EDIT: This source shows US divorce rates to be 53% and Canada as not being far behind at 48%. The statistics you mention is for first time divorce: http://www.separation.ca/wp-content/uploads/FELDSTEIN-FAMILY-LAW-Divorce-Fact-Sheet-2016.pdf

EDIT 2: Statscan no longer tracks divorce rates, so your numbers are off: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/statistics-canada-to-stop-tracking-marriage-and-divorce-rates/article4192704/

Also, why would anyone care what color the children are?

Are you seriously asking that question? Because one wants to preserve their cultural and ethnic heritage. To seperate into in-groups and out-groups is a natural human tendency. Of course, in the last few decades, liberals have tried to pretend there is no natural tendency to seperate into groups and that this is somehow bad.

Why would you not care about what color the children are? You seriously think that race is only skin deep? That wouldn't even make sense from a genetic perspective (not trying to implying that one race is better or worse - I am not a judge nor jury.) What it does imply is that race is a complex trait, that affects everything from skin color, to disease susceptibility, to IQ predisposition.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (15 children)

I think you'd find that the most egalitarian societies tend to be the most ethnically homogeneous. If you compare whites in Canada and America, you'll find that the statistics are very similar. These trends you've pointed out are largely due to differences in demographics

[–]SammyD1st 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Canada's total fertility rate is significantly below that of the US.

[–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (2 children)

But Canada admits more immigrants so it's all good.

[–]SammyD1st 1 point2 points  (1 child)

stimulate stronger families

So, contra what you just said... Canada doesn't in fact stimulate stronger families then?

[–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to the Canadian Census: In 2016, 7 in 10 children aged 0 to 14 (69.7%) were living with both of their biological or adoptive parents and without stepsiblings or half‑siblings. Seems pretty good to me.

[–]Deep_freeze202 4 points5 points  (14 children)

This is completely off base, economics are a small part of the equation the main factor is unbound hypergamy and a liberalized society that allows both sexes to act out on their baser instincts with virtually no consequences. Your whole comment is nothing but a pathetic attempt to shift blame onto Republicans, if what you said was remotely accurate women in relationships with high earning men would rarely ever cheat and we all know that isn't the case.

The core of the problem is women's nature being unrestricted and a feminized society.

[–]chaseemall 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I think economics does have a part to play here, but not quite as this guy says. Women are financially incentivized by the welfare state to be single mothers, and are not counter-incentivized to settle down into a nuclear family. Combine this with the cultural influences in Hollywood, the academic feminists, and the advent of birth control, and you have a recipe for disaster. Of course it hits working class families the hardest, but let's be honest, what social ill doesn't?

[–]Deep_freeze202 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not dismissing the economic factors involved simply pointing out that it isn't the major cause. The welfare state, destruction of the nuclear family, Hollywood, feminism and birth control all fall into the liberal side of things. This guy is trying to flip it around and blame Republicans which is simply ludicrous, obviously a leftist blue pill cuck who refuses to accept reality and acknowledge that the left holds virtually all responsibility for the degeneracy of society, the foundation of the right is maintaining traditional values and preserving the family unit. Basically the guy is a fucking idiot.

[–]coco5440 -1 points0 points  (11 children)

Its a verifiable fact that marriages between educated middle and upper middle class people are the most stable (the rich as they say are different). In middle class marriages the family unit depends upon the earning capacity of both partners. This is particularly true if the family lives in an area where the cost of living is very high. Both parties take a hit if these relationships breakup. Thus hypergamy is controlled economically. For more detail see the book "Marriage Markets: How Inequality is Remaking the American Family " by Cahn Naomi and June Carbone.

Marriage has always been about economics.

[–]Deep_freeze202 6 points7 points  (2 children)

The marriage may be more stable but only because the wealthier the mate the less likely it is that a woman will be able to find a better deal per hypergamy. That has nothing to do with whether the woman is faithful or if the relationship is healthy, there are millions of miserable married cucks in sexless marriages whose wives would divorce rape them faster than you can blink if the opportunity for a wealthier more attractive partner presented itself.

Marriages were more stable in the past not due to economics but because social structures almost ensured that women couldn't act on their hypergamous nature. This is also why women were far more selective in partners before the liberalization of society, they had to find the best mate they could because once married they were stuck and any promiscuity or bad behavior would make it near impossible for them to find a quality mate.

[–]coco5440 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I don't doubt that for a minute. However, to me it doesn't seem to matter if hypergamy is controlled by economics or controlled by social sanction. A woman who stays in a marriage because she would be shunned if she left is not likely to be any more enthusiastic in the bedroom.

[–]Deep_freeze202 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think there's much that can be done to make a woman more enthusiastic in the sack from a societal standpoint outside of women who haven't had the opportunity to be promiscuous may be less inclined to seek out something they haven't ever had. That seems to me to be more a matter of selecting the right woman and holding a proper masculine frame. IMO it doesn't matter if economic reasons keep the woman around if it doesn't keep her faithful, the only things that can accomplish that are if she has genuine attraction and/or societal structures are in place to make infidelity as unattractive an option as possible.

[–]Shaman6624 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Economics? Those marriages are the most stable because those layers of civilization are the last stronghold of traditional values. It's social ostracism that still holds total polygamy in check there.

[–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Regardless of the reason 78% of marriages where the woman has at least a four year degree last (as opposed to only 40% for high school or less, and 49% for some college). The take away here is that, if you're inclined to get married, you should marry an educated woman.

[–]Shaman6624 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yes I agree. A four year degree takes effort and mental discipline. Both of whom are a sign that she isn't a total airhead.

[–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly! I made the mistake of marrying a woman who was "working" on her degree. Lesson learned the hard way.

My ex is incredibly smart but never wants to do the hard work or make the sacrifices it takes to get ahead. She's now hooked up with the bluest guy I've ever encountered who's spending money on her at an incredible rate. I almost feel sorry for him -- he's in way over his head.

[–]jim234234red 1 points1 points [recovered]

I've seen this claim being made all over the place, but when I looked into it things are a littlest less clear:

What they are showing is that wealthy, more educated marriages areore stable. They're omitting a few key points:

  1. Educated people are getting married at later ages - the last 20 years of data isn't including many women who only got at 30 instead of 20.

  2. They consider stable as marriages that last up to about 10 years.

So they're purposefully ignoring the fact that many women are buying into the whole eat, pray, love shit once the kids are in school and after they've been nstay-at-home mom's for a decade. This is the absolute worst time for a guy to get divorced as he now is basically on the hook for lifetime alimony and child support since the wife stopped working for years.

[–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Educated women generally don't stay home for more than a few months after childbirth. When she's been working making decent money there is no alimony after split. 50/50 custody splits are common when these marriages fail so little or no child support.

[–]jim234234red 1 points1 points [recovered]

Are you just making this up based on anecdotes or theoretical ideas?

Because this is not what the statistics show. Alimony is still paid and several states have lifetime alimony after 10 years. About 25% of marriages have women breadwinners, so even if it was based fairly, we'd still have 75% alimony paid by men.

In reality, it's over 90%.

But alimony is a red herring argument. You're right, that it is on the decline in most states.

The problem is that child support has just been used to substitute it. It also is paid over 90% by men. And it goes to whichever spouse gets primary custody. Guess which gender, by default, gets primary custody in all 50 states?

[–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Get joint custody with your actual time approaching 50% and you won't pay much in child support (the formula courts use takes into account the time the children spend with each parent). I pay only $300 per month despite the fact I make 90K.

At least in California alimony is petty much a thing of the past for most divorcing couples. My ex didn't even ask for alimony because she knew she wouldn't get any.

[–]rigbed 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I doubt it’s the GOP. I think it’s that every administration since Nixon has not ended feminism and feminism is hypergamous.

[–]coco5440 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Women are hypergamous -- we all know that -- the question becomes how to deal with that? You can try to fight a loosing rearguard action and try to put feminism back in the bottle or you can adapt to new realities. The more unequal a society becomes the more incentive women have to unbridle their hypergamous nature. By pursuing policies that ameliorate inequality we limit the benefits to women of branch swinging and give ordinary guys a fighting chance.

[–]blindface 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Thanks liberalism, you've royally fucked us all.

And what is the alternative, exactly? Tyranny? Forcing women to stay at home, to stay with potentially abusive men?

No, I'd rather let society play out as intended. If it is to fall, so be it. How arrogant must we be to think that it matters if our society remains on top.

What does it matter if another society takes over? The natural order is competition - fighting to be on top is a struggle for every cell, for every species, for every group, for every society. There is no Utopia, and nothing stays on top forever.

Liberal or conservative - either path will eventually lead to the fall. All the matters is that humanity learns something, and tries to do a little better the next time.

[–]GEN_GOTHMOG 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It's happened before and we didn't learn from it. That's the frustrating part of all this.

[–]blindface 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We have pretty toys so we think we're smarter than our ancestors.

[–]Guthix4Days 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is sad but true.

The standards are being raised constantly. Extreme effort will soon be required to land a prospect-friendly partner while 80% of the others will get nothing.

[–]Kingkongsong 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dont blame liberalism. Blame feminism

[–]kosta123 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Would suggest you take a gander at The Lessons of History by Will Durant.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

thank you very much, sounds very interesting, will order soon
Could you please write down some other books, even not related to this subject, that you find worth reading ?

[–]Nicolay77[🍰] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well, the first big collapse of civilizations we know of was about in 1177 BC, when the sea peoples invaded Egypt and the other great Bronze civilizations, probably with the two innovations of cheap iron (when compared to the expensive bronze), and horses (against just infantry).

That series of invasions had little to do with feminism as far as we know.

Not to mention that current Islam was shaped by the siege of Baghdad by the Mongols.

[–]asapkokeman 3 points4 points  (1 child)

if you honestly think that feminism was one of the major causes of the collapse of the roman empire, you're an absolute fucking moron. It's troubling that this is so upvoted.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

did you even read the post ?

[–]Derek1382 1 points1 points [recovered]

That this piece of masturbatory garbage was so highly upvoted indicts, in order, the American education system for how poorly it spits out its students, and this sub as a circlejerk that will accept anything that corroborates its views no matter how stupid.

I mean:

Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work.

Bullshit.

they know and appreciate democracy

The 1st century BC is the death of Roman democracy, which had been on the decline for a while. Appreciate it my ass.

human rights, animal rights

The Romans famously only recognized citizens rights. 'Animal rights' are a total invention, animals were property and could be done with as one pleased.

Children are growing up without fathers, Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies.

The image of the average Roman woman, ie a peasant farmer, having the money to get a nanny is hysterical.

~3-4 century AD: A moral and demographic collapse takes place, Roman population declines due to below-replacement birth-rate.

That might have had more to do with several plagues, civil wars and famines, the disruption of commerce and the loss of stability than feminism.

humanity falls back into the Bronze Age (think: eating squirrel meat and living in a cave)

This is fucking retarded.

12 centuries of religious zilotry (The Great Inquisition, Crusades) and intellectual darkness follow: science, commerce, philosophy, human rights become unknown concepts until they are rediscovered again during the Age of Enlightenment in 17th century AD

Ah, right: there were no medieval philosophers, artists, poets, or scientists. Scholasticism never existed. The Renaissance was in the 17th century, or maybe even later.

tomek77's grasp of chronology is terrible, let alone history. He understands basically nothing about the time period he's covering, even the stereotypes he believes in are wrong. If you read his comment and thought anything but "this sounds like bullshit", you need to re-take Ancient History 101 posthaste.

[–]chaseemall 6 points7 points  (10 children)

He's got a ton of details wrong, but the basic idea is correct I think.

Is "Feminism chronologically preempts societal decline," a sound claim? Yes.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 5 points6 points  (9 children)

I think if you're basing the correctness of a theory on whether it "sounds right" you're making an undeducated guess.

[–]chaseemall 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Well, take it as a starting point for further inquiry, then.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (7 children)

I did enquire.

I read about why Roman Empire declined, why it fell, I read about what was the status of women in RE and how it changed, I read about their social structure, how was their economy organized, why did it work and why it stopped, I read about why and how did they managed to hold the barbarians in check and why they couldn't later, I read about the influence of Christianity, I read about how was their political system organized and how it worked in practice.

What did you read? 500 word theory by an uniformed dude that yanked your emotions in the way you like to be yanked?

You have 2 choices regarding TRP: dig for your own knowledge, factcheck and test OR just accept anything that "sounds about right b/c it denouces what I dont like". It basically boils down to either "working to be RP yourself" or "replacing BP fantasy with a RP one".

[–]chaseemall 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I get this is supposed to be the hurtbox, but hold your horses.

I was seeing a lot of people getting mad about specific details while failing to acknowledge the overarching point of OP, which is that feminism causes societal decline. The thing which is important is not specific chronology, or the hyperbolic descriptions of the dark ages. The thing which is important is whether feminism caused the whole damn thing to fall apart, and whether it's going to cause OUR society to fall apart. That's what the other commenter was failing to deal with.

Focusing on the inconsistency in details while ignoring the thrust of the argument is a shitlib deflection tactic; I'm not saying the other guy was a shitlib. I'm not saying you're a shitlib. But there are definitely some shitlibs in these comments. The basic question at hand was not addressed in the comment I was replying to and I was trying to refocus the discussion.

You've inquired. Cool. But you still failed to address the basic question at hand here. It's not whether OP got the details right, it's whether the increasing liberalization of social mores with regards to the role of women is a sign of degeneration, and whether it's going to kill us all.

You have 2 choices regarding TRP: dig for your own knowledge, factcheck and test OR just accept anything that "sounds about right b/c it denouces what I dont like". It basically boils down to either "working to be RP yourself" or "replacing BP fantasy with a RP one".

Fuck off. I wasn't trying to make the point that it was OK to be intellectually unrigorous. I was trying to make the point that the concern OP brought up was a valid one. If you want to argue for checking things yourself, fine, but drop the superior tough guy bit. You don't know what I have or haven't done, how I have or haven't progressed, or anything else. All you saw was some throwaway reply that I tossed out as an acknowledgement of a criticism you made, and you decided you needed to play drill sergeant.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The thing which is important is whether feminism caused the whole damn thing to fall apart, and whether it's going to cause OUR society to fall apart.

The premise of the the 3 people from the OP (OP, tomek77 and Heartiste) is simple: the Roman Empire fell b/c of feminism (or generally emancipation of women), therefore modern Western civilization will fall too.

I'll give you an analogy: say we have a company, the company CEO changes from a man to a woman. The company fails. Is it the fault of the female CEO? The answer is in details, b/c you if you blame the CEO only, while ignoring product development, marketing, sales, customer support, market forces, competition and outside forces (like government regulation, market crashes, disruptive innovation etc), you're an ignorant and should not be speaking about how to do business.

The gist is, the details of the article ARE important, b/c they contradict the premise of the OP. There's an old Soviet joke: "Is it true that they give away free cars on the Red Square. Definitely YES! Not cars but bikes, not on the Red Square but in Vladivostok, and not give away but steal."

the thrust of the argument

and whether it's going to kill us all.

The thrust of the argument is simplistic, as is the argumentation of the OPs. Rome did fell, Western civilisation will not b/c we are keeping our economies afloat (they didn't), we are not holding half of the world under military occupation that requires vast amount of resources (they were), we do not have widespread corruption (they did) and finally, we are able to see, understand and react to above threats extremely fast (they were not).

Western civilization is not in decline b/c of feminism, in fact it's not in a decline at all. Morality, tradition, conservatism and nationalism (and similar things) are declining b/c of general liberal/SJW ideologies (of which feminism is a part). The actual civlization, as in the ability not to descent back into "modern Dark Ages" (like for example Libya or Syria in recent years), is not in any threat whatsoever. The Western (very widely understood) culture OTOH is in danger.

the basic question at hand here. It's not whether OP got the details right, it's whether the increasing liberalization of social mores with regards to the role of women is a sign of degeneration

I was trying to make the point that the concern OP brought up was a valid one.

Then the OP should have posted this instead posting almost entire article about the fall of Roman Empire and feminism. It would be clearly understood as what his intention is. Posting one thing, then discussing another is goalpost moving and therefore borderline manipulation.

Ignoring the "facts" of the OP's article in favour of discussing what you wanted to discuss is validating the OP's premise, which is clearly not factually correct and not relevant AT ALL to the current, modern situation.

[–]MonsieurAlu 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Do you have any links on that stuff still in your Browser history? I find this post very fishy and am interested in What you read

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 1 point2 points  (2 children)

http://www.ushistory.org/civ/6f.asp

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/8-reasons-why-rome-fell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-was-the-fall-of-rome-112688

http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roman-empire/causes-for-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire.htm

https://www.ancient.eu/article/835/fall-of-the-roman-empire/

https://www.rome.info/history/empire/fall/

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/ancient-history/4-reasons-rome-fell-ever-fall.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_ancient_Rome

http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/socialclass.html

https://www.unrv.com/economy.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy

http://www.crystalinks.com/romeconomy.html

http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub369/item2051.html

https://www.ivoryresearch.com/writers/lavinia-miller/

http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-018.html

https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HIST101-6.4.2-ChristianityAndTheRomanEmpire-FINAL1.pdf

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Christianity-destroy-change-Roman-Empire-and-particularly-the-Romans

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_Rome

https://www.ancient.eu/article/659/the-role-of-women-in-the-roman-world/

http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/women.html

http://www.historyextra.com/article/bbc-history-magazine/7-things-you-probably-didn%E2%80%99t-know-about-roman-women

http://spartacus-educational.com/ROMwomen.htm

http://travelswithnancy.com/women-ancient-rome/law-&-identity.htm

[–]Rian_Stone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol, you don't know the hornets nest you stirred up. This guy has been fighting the illuminati for years

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 1 point2 points  (19 children)

That this piece of masturbatory garbage was so highly upvoted indicts, in order, the American education system for how poorly it spits out its students, and this sub as a circlejerk that will accept anything that corroborates its views no matter how stupid.

It's what people want to hear, regardless if it's the truth.

I think the origin of this "Rome -feminism" bs looked like that exactly: tomek77 wrote what he wanted to write, Heartiste read what he wanted to read, as did TRP.

Arguing with historical facts is pointless at this moment b/c OP is not a factual representation of what happened, it's an appeal to emotions on top of pandering to the target readers.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (18 children)

Actually, feminism did exist under the auspices of the Roman Empire. It did not affect peasant women - just like nowadays it does not affect working class/poor women. Feminism was used by aristocratic ladies and the daughters of rich merchants to wield immense power. This is very similar to the modern situation where feminism is used primarily by upper middle class/rich women to advance their station and was invented due to their boredom. Feminism was A HUGE factor, next to Christianity which led to the fall of Rome.

Moreover, nobody said if America falls, humanity will enter a new Dark Age. That will not happen due to the internet, widespread dissemination of knowledge and the relative level advancement of most places in the world. However, nobody can say America can't collapse in a similar manner to the Soviet Union.

In 1985, the US government predicted that the Soviet Union would pass the US economically by 1997. However, the Soviet Union collapsed by 1991. It went from one of the most technologically, economically and militarily developed countries in the world to a reduced QOL and skyrocketing corruption and crime overnight (literally). It's economy was entirely dismantled by 1990. It's progenitors - Russia and the post-Soviet States- did not enter a bronze age or a dark age, but had to spend a decade wrestling with high crime, civil war and a total collapse of economy and infrastructure. This is quite possible if America collapses. Do not forget, nobody predicted the Soviet collapse, not even the Soviet government - they had already drawn up plans for a new five year plan that was supposed to start in 1990 and entirely automate the Central Planning apparatus with computer systems.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (17 children)

Feminism was used by aristocratic ladies and the daughters of rich merchants to wield immense power.

Statistically, how many of the women did wield that kind of power compared to men? 1%? 5? 30%? Give a number and a source.

Feminism was A HUGE factor

Great, let's go into details. What did the feminism do exactly? Give meaningful examples, supported by sources.

It went from one of the most technologically, economically and militarily developed countries in the world

You're talking major fantasy here. The only technology that was advanced and comparable in Soviet Union was military one. Economically it was always struggling, even with basic stuff like grain, electricity, car batteries etc.

nobody predicted the Soviet collapse, not even the Soviet government

Another fantasy. Soviet upper echelons knew that it's going down, their only problem was how to keep power while reforming the country, which is what Gorbatchev attempted. Similar situation is now in North Korea.

This is quite possible if America collapses.

And if it doesn't?

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (16 children)

Statistically, how many of the women did wield that kind of power compared to men? 1%? 5? 30%? Give a number and a source.

There is no statistics on the matter, but according to Edward Gibbons in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, women began to control Rome through influence over weak husbands in the Senate and later by controlling the emperor himself. Case and point, the absolute control Empress Theodora had over Justinian and the shrewish, lustful and vulgar behavior she exhibited in court, taking many lovers and spending vast sums of money on her own vanity. In fact, she was a 'dancer' (ie prostitute) and became Justinian's oneitis because he put pussy on a pedestal. She is only the best known example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodora_(6th_century)

Great, let's go into details. What did the feminism do exactly? Give meaningful examples, supported by sources.

Feminism caused corruption within the Senate and later amongst the emperor himself, it caused the fall of the Republic and the irreversible collapse of the WRE. Sometimes the women caused rebellions.

I will use four examples to illustrate a broader point.

If we look at the Early Empire we see that Boudica raised a rebellion against the Empire in England and this caused problems for the Romans for many years, but ultimately the might of Rome prevailed.

Next, part of the blame for the collapse of the Late Republic can be attributed to Cleopatra's influence over both Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. Cleopatra used her female wiles to get Julius Ceasar to fall in love with her and claimed her kid was Caesars (though his true parentage remains a mystery), Caesareon who she used claim the 'throne' of Rome. She used Mark Antony to fight Octavian in a bid to rule Rome and establish the Empire.

Nero's mother, Agrippina the Younger had a huge influence over her beta son, Emperor Nero who is said to have been very petty, fearful for his power and used public funds to build himself a palace at her behest. There is also legends that she wanted him assassinated but failed when he assassinated her instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippina_the_Younger

And Empress Theodora (link above) who pushed Justinian and Belisarius to try to retake the WRE. Justinian being the doting husband that he was agreed with his wife and sent Belisarius to reconquer lost lands. He of course did, but it over-stretched the reach of the ERE making him irreversibly lose the WRE to the Goths, instead of doing a slow conquest (as Belisarius) suggested and solidifying Roman rule.

You're talking major fantasy here. The only technology that was advanced and comparable in Soviet Union was military one. Economically it was always struggling, even with basic stuff like grain, electricity, car batteries etc.

Are you serious? The ignorance is palpable. The only time that the Soviet Union had problems with grain is when Stalin started his collectivization program in the 1930's. But lets not forget that there was the Midwestern Dustbowl in America at that time as well and drought. These factors together caused famine throughout the Soviet Union. After World War 2, there were no more problems with food in the Soviet Union.

Every city had electricity. Hell the Soviets pioneered and built the first atomic reactors, sent the first men into space, built the first television set. Moreover, before world war 2 they relied on coal to provide electricity and were one of the first countries in the world to provide widespread electricity. I suggest you go read a list of inventions of the Soviets. You'd be surprised.

http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1921-2/electrification-campaign/communism-is-soviet-power-electrification-of-the-whole-country/

Another fantasy. Soviet upper echelons knew that it's going down, their only problem was how to keep power while reforming the country, which is what Gorbatchev attempted. Similar situation is now in North Korea.

Gorbachev was an American shill. He was going to continue development according to the five year model until he visited his consul in Ottawa who behind closed door convinced him to abandon the Soviet project. I don't have time to anwer any more, if you have questions ask.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (14 children)

Rome:

You have singular examples, 2 out of 3 of them have nothing to do with "feminism in Roman Empire". I was talking about meaningful in numbers and confirmed data about feminism in Roman Empire among the entire ruling class.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_trade_of_the_Soviet_Union

The Soviet Union earned hard currency by exporting fuels and other primary products to the industrialized West and then used this currency to buy sophisticated manufactures and agricultural products, primarily grain.

Much of the income earned from fuel exports to Western Europe was used to pay off debts with the United States, Canada, and Australia, from which the Soviet Union had imported large quantities of grain.[1]

With the exception of grain, phosphates used in fertilizer production, and high-technology equipment, Soviet dependence on Western imports historically has been minimal.

to the United States and received agricultural goods—mostly grain—and industrial equipment in return. The value of exports to the Soviet Union in 1987 amounted to US$1.5 billion, three-quarters of which consisted of agricultural products and one-quarter industrial equipment.

In 1985 and 1986, trade was the lowest since 1973. The Soviet Union had turned to Canada and Western Europe for one-third of its grain supplies,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

https://books.google.pl/books?id=VVFuYN8TS5AC&pg=PA158&lpg=PA158&dq=soviet+brownouts&source=bl&ots=x5ZtuZaikg&sig=0YyRMgREk8CQGTX9rASbx8PsoFI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY0o-G4PDXAhULMJoKHeEuAMkQ6AEINjAD#v=onepage&q=soviet%20brownouts&f=false

I'm going to skim over the difference in the electronics between Soviets and US b/c it's pretty much obvious to anyone.

Gorbachev was an American shill.

Why did the non-shills didn't got rid of him then? Entire KGB was and rest of high ranking Party members were powerless?

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (12 children)

I gave you examples of women controlling power in Rome through the men. If that isn't feminism, I don't know what is.

From the link you gave me, it seems that the Soviet Union did not import much from the West beyond $1.6 Billiion worth of grain. That's nothing - a drop in the pond compared to the total output capacity of the entire Soviet union. I was unable to find figures for the total agricultural output of the Soviet Union in use, but the link below shows that the economic output of the Soviet Union was $2.2 trillion USD for 1985 (same period you listed). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

Obvious to you but not to me. What electronics specifically were better (or did not exist in the Soviet Union) in America and give sources? You can choose to think American electronics were superior at that time (they were not), but if the Soviets did not import any electronics from the West meant they were able to produce them themselves at home.

I raise you the Buran shuttle program that was entirely unmanned and was something NASA could not build at the time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)

They couldn't get rid of him because he placed his own cronies into all of the significant Party positions.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (8 children)

I gave you examples of women controlling power in Rome

You gave 3 examples. That's not significant enough for a trend.

That's nothing

Much of the income earned from fuel exports to Western Europe was used to pay off debts with the United States, Canada, and Australia, from which the Soviet Union had imported large quantities of grain.[1] With the exception of grain, phosphates used in fertilizer production, and high-technology In 1985 and 1986, trade was the lowest since 1973. The Soviet Union had turned to Canada and Western Europe for one-third of its grain supplies,

Soviet Union's problems with grain are widely known. They always had problems with meeting their needs, let alone their projected plans.

What electronics specifically were better

Specifically ALL of them.

but if the Soviets did not import any electronics from the West meant they were able to produce them themselves at home.

Yes, but they were of lesser quality and less sophisticated than Western counterparts.

I raise you the Buran shuttle program that was entirely unmanned and was something NASA could not build at the time.

You're raising me with nothing here. Buran's ability to fly and land on autopilot was not really important feature as it was designed to fly manned not unmanned. Your lack of knowledge is obvious, as you're mentioning an outlier here, not major and big advantages Soviets had - better engines (to this day), heavy lift capability, extensive experience gathered during Mir construction, unorthodox approach to spaceship construction, extreme reliability of both Soyuz rocket and spacecraft.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (7 children)

If that is not enough, you can read about the widespread influence women had over the Senate and Emperors in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon

Specifically ALL of them

Sources?

Yes, but they were of lesser quality and less sophisticated than Western counterparts.

Sources?

You're raising me with nothing here. Buran's ability to fly and land on autopilot was not really important feature as it was designed to fly manned not unmanned

That's not what the Wikipedia article I linked says. It makes no mention that Buran was Not supposed to fly on autopilot. All it says is that Buran lifted off automatically, flew on autopilot and landed automatically on its own. It also says it was the first unmanned spacecraft to fly and land in fully automatic mode.

Buran was lifted into space, on an unmanned mission, by the specially designed Energia rocket. The automated launch sequence performed as specified, and the Energia rocket lifted the vehicle into a temporary orbit before the orbiter separated as programmed

After making an automated approach to Site 251 (known as Yubileyniy Airfield),[3] Buran touched down under its own control at 06:24:42 UTC and came to a stop at 06:25:24,[6]

It was the first space shuttle to perform an unmanned flight, including landing in fully automatic mode

The success of Buran and Lunakhod and Soviet consumer computers tell me they weren't too far behind America in computers in the 1980s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)

And I never make mentions of the things you listed (reliable engines, heavy lift capability, etc) because it is not relevant to the discussion. We are talking about electronics.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

The success of Buran and Lunakhod and Soviet consumer computers tell me they weren't too far behind America in computers in the 1980s.

The Space Shuttle's '1980s' computers were 1970s technology, and based on the computer used in Skylab.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Sources?

Common knowledge for someone in living in Soviet block.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I raise you the Buran shuttle program that was entirely unmanned and was something NASA could not build at the time.

Um, nonsense. Buran was unmanned because they couldn't get the life support system to work. And, despite having stolen a lot of data from the Space Shuttle program, they still melted the airframe during re-entry because the heat shield didn't wok properly.

The only thing the shuttle pilots absolutely had to do during the landing was press the button to lower the undercarriage. That could easily have been connected to the flight computer, but NASA didn't want to do that because the undercarriage couldn't be raised once it was lowered, so a computer bug could have killed the crew.

The only electronics the Soviets had that were comparable to those in the West were the ones they copied from the West.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Again, Sources?

Also, from the Wikipedia page I linked, Buran's re-entry was successful to such an extent and the landing was so smooth that only 8 heat panels were lost. There was no evidence in the article of the airframe melting.

Furthermore, Mir was developed mostly from Soviet tech and Lunakhod was entirely of Soviet make. So Soviet electronics do not seem to be as bad as they are made out. They just got a later start on cybernetics than America because they had to deal with a fuck ton of post World war 2 rebuilding.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, Sources?

All of this is common knowledge to anyone who knows much about the space shuttle and Buran. The melted airframe story was told to me directly by someone from NASA, though the Cold War was still on at the time, so it's possible their information wasn't actually correct.

[–]LambdaMale 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. Seldom read such dreadfully wrong drivel about history and it is a disgrace how unreflected people here lap it up.

[–]Velebit 8 points9 points  (11 children)

I have thoroughly studied this subject and it's wrong.

1.) It only takes account the fact that legendary Rome (the Rome before reliably recorded history) had strict and total patriarchy and changed that and that exactly during the change they skyrocketed into a big power

2.) It ignores the fact that once the Empire became Christian and retook old rites that changed nothing.

3.) It ignores the fact that Eastern Empire didn't crumble but instead reconquered half of western Empire and held it for hundreds of years until Islam rose.

4.) It ignores the contrary examples like feminist Sparta defeating patriarchal Athens, egalitarian Norse destroying patriarchal Christians in England and Ireland, egalitarian pagan Lithuanians defeating patriarchal crusader Teutonic order and conquering half of Russia and Islamic White Horde...

5.) It does not try to apply the same logic on Mongol empire which went into totally different direction. Relatively egalitarian Mongols conquered much more patriarchal cultures and started crumbling once they embraced Islam.

It ignores a lot of other things like why Africa and Southeast Asia (generally the most patriarchal places) have never been anything historically impressive.

For Norse, Mongols and Lithuanians the decline started shortly after they embraced a more patriarchal religion, same with Hungarians and Bulgarians.

Scythians are another example, they were in their early days famed for their female warriors but when they absorbed a lot of judeo-christian territory at midpoint, and at later stages they became more patriarchal, and became weak and declined.

Historical evidence just does not support the connection between how little rights women have and success, it seems rather reverse. The freer the women are to choose the more the men have to work to get anywhere. If everyone is guaranteed a woman who cant leave his ass no matter what, arranged by your daddy and her daddy who cant wait to get rid of her, dont you think your incentive and ambition is a bit, at least a tiny bit smaller? ITS A LOT SMALLER!

also if ur a narcissist you are barred from talking about what motivates normal people

What you can take as a historical lesson is that great structures start to crumble once they abandon the pattern that made them great

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (10 children)

again, I never said that patriarchy is related to success wealth and well-being

[–]mcpaulus 1 point2 points  (9 children)

No, but you claimed feminism was related to downfall, which he says isnt true

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (8 children)

this is just retarded, as if I said every nation failing is because of women... please read and process the original post before commenting

[–]mcpaulus 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Oh I have read your post. It makes me sad that it could get that many upvotes, seeing as it has soo muvh bullshit in it.

First if all you are confusing feminism with softness. And Rome didn't even fall because of softness.

Second of all, birthrates dropping are rarely in history affected by "feminism".

95% of the romans was the unwashed masses, the uneducated plebs and provincial farmers. These people were hardly feminine nor did the women get any substanial rights as the republic and empire grew...the main problem was that the rich and the elite fucked them over and over again

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children)

so there was a fertility rate bellow 2
and now you're telling me that if plebs weren't fucking it's because they were poor ? lol from my point of view, in every society it's the poor who fuck the most

[–]Velebit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

he is telling you that culture of the normal ppl is less relevant than elite culture, and he is right

elite Romans were from several tribes that were in their tribal areas, as they conquered territories those tribes went all over empire and interbred with occupied peoples, another change in their elites was that they stopped being ascetic and agricultural and warriors and became businessmen and passive owners... this is how the imperial model became feudal model, another change is that elites became christian and accepted christian ethics of victimhood and abandoned old pagan ethics of honor

basically roman elite stopped being recognizable or even roman

the reason why plebs fertility dropped was statism, for example the reason why Arabs conquered soo much so fast was because those Roman lands inherited big taxes and overregulation and the populace welcomed foreign libertarian rule.

[–]mcpaulus 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Can you show me historical data of when and where the fertility rate went below (bellow is something completely different btw, its a kind of a deep roaring shout) 2.

And do you mean that the plebs weren't poor?

Maybe the fertility rate of the nobles was below 2. That seems more probable. And I can assure you the fertility rates wasn't below 2 in general.

There was a widespread famine, major climate changes and devastating plagues during the fall of the western roman empire. Due to these unfortunate circumstances, a lot of the barbarian germanic tribes saw the empire as weak and attacked its borders. Meanwhile a great horde of huns lead by Attila came riding in from the east wreacing havoc and causing a mass migration of desperate people.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a "bachelor tax", to no avail.

It's called "lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus" and was passed in the hope of raising the birth-rate by penalizing the unmarried and the childless... guess it's was just for fun and has nothing to do with fertility rates dropping !

what I meant about the plebs is that what kept them from keeping a replacement rate was not rich people fucking them but rather because of the end of patriarchy, I'd recommend you watch the video linked on the original post, at least the conclusion, it explains why marriages drop in feminist societies

[–]mcpaulus 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I'm well aware of the bachelor tax, which was introduced by the famously traditional and patriarchal Augustus, the same man who sent two of his own daughters into exile for being promiscious, while simultanious banging every noblewoman within 2 kilometers of his palace.

This law was mostly meant for the upper and middle class. By the formation of the empire, the plebs or the romans if you'd like to call them that, was nothing more than an unruly mass of rabble on welfare that demanded games or they fucked shit up. More a nuisance to the empire than a resource. What kept the empire going was mostly the provinces.

My personal theory is this : if a country's fertility rate per woman goes below 2 for a considerable amount of time, it will end in an economical and political crisis. If that country uses immigration to sustain demography, it will end in a civil war.

I don't generally dispute your theory, because its pretty fucking self-explanatory, I just dispute the fact that you claim feminism and immigration was the reason of Rome's downfall. Which is absolutely untrue.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Oh alright then

What I believe is that feminism is the root cause of it, by itself it's pretty much a good thing, but after some generations it triggers a chain of events that end up badly

I really recommend you watch the video I linked on the original post, it explains how end of patriarchy triggers chains of events that eventually leads to fertility and mariage drop, unemployment rate in youth as well as government debt skyrocketting until everything blows up

Still, this is only theory, nothing is sure about it... but we really can't go against the fact that we have huge society issues ( that surprisingly match up roman empire's ones ) and I'd be surprised it doesn't blow up hugely any time soon

Edit: to sum it up, there is a great quote from a french guy named Bossuet ; "Dieu se rit des hommes qui déplorent les effets dont ils chérissent les causes." which translates to "God laughs about men who deplore the effects whose causes they cherish."

[–]3chazthundergut 21 points22 points  (4 children)

CORRECTION: Based on past history, it seems that all civilizations that achieve global hegemony cease to exist in just a few centuries.

[–]Rabalaz 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I like where you're going with this but let me take it a bit further.

CORRECTION: Based on past history, it seems that all civilizations cease to exist in just a few centuries.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Rome lasted 2000 years. The Roman Republic lasted 500, and the Roman Empire (including the ERE) lasted 1500.

[–]gardenofbacchus 18 points19 points  (11 children)

You guys get so close to the Truth and then for whatever reason, when it's staring at you in the face, refuse it and divert around it.

Feminism is a WEAPON. It is weaponised, it has been created. Women didn't come up with this. This isn't an organic movement. This is a psychological weapon designed to do EXACTLY what it's done and is continuing to do to society - which is subvert the nuclear family, completely degenerate society and flip gender roles on their head, eliminating normal and healthy male female relationships.

Women are the medium by which this degeneracy and subversion is being pushed. The female mind is the perfect target of corruption because it's malleable and intrinsically NEEDS leadership and authority to follow. If man, her husband/partner/men in her life are no longer the authority, guess who becomes God? And when the female mind becomes so degenerate and brainwashed, what happens to society? It devolves into literal slavery, with brainwashed men forfeiting traditional masculinity out of necessity to attract a mate who in turn has been brainwashed into forfeiting natural femininity.

It's time to wake up and understand what is going on, and stop beating around the bush. Whether you like it or not what is happening to this society is an intentional inversion of God aimed at rendering you a miserable, lost, apathetic slave who replaces God with Man.

It's time to ask "why does this subreddit exist?", it's time to stop being intellectually lazy and stubborn and to actually understand WHY we are where we are instead of using faux atheistic evolutionary crutches like "this is just how human beings are, women are animals, we are all apes slaves to our impulses "

Until you truly crave understanding and truth as to what is happening to the world, this sub will leave you miserable, lost and angry.

[–]Scott_Jordan 1 points1 points [recovered]

Feminism is a WEAPON. It is weaponised, it has been created. Women didn't come up with this. This isn't an organic movement. This is a psychological weapon designed to do EXACTLY what it's done and is continuing to do to society - which is subvert the nuclear family, completely degenerate society and flip gender roles on their head, eliminating normal and healthy male female relationships.

OK, I get your point. But whose weapon is this? Who has designed and created it?

Any pointers?

[–]chaseemall 1 points1 points [recovered]

The kosher answer is Marxists. The less kosher answer is obvious.

[–]Scott_Jordan 1 points1 points [recovered]

It is my understanding that the KGB set in motion this long range process of imploding American society from the inside. Perhaps this is what you allude to?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Ok, I'm listening. What do you suggest as the next move then?

[–]PsyMonk- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We found the next move.... We're doing it. Subtract & retreat. Take the money with you.

[–]Bluqin 1 points1 points [recovered]

The saddest thing is that even the "woke" parts of the internet get caught up in attacking the actors.

I gave up hope when the Coup of Trump's presidency happened in a matter of months and nobody realized anything changed.

God help the masses.

[–]chaseemall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What specifically are you referring to?

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah. It obviously happened organically... as it did in many other societies throughout history. GTFO with this conspiracy bullshit.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I like your observations of the circular historical cycles of western civilization. But this analysis doesn't take into account Asia and the Islamic caliphates. Although feminism affects all political system in today's global climate, so the collapse will be eccompassing all of humanity.

[–]tailingloop 13 points14 points  (4 children)

Why not post any sources for further reading? Sounds like you're pulling the conclusions out of your own ass.

[–]Rabalaz 3 points4 points  (1 child)

or even better, repost this onto RslashAskHistorians and and ask how many holes this premise has.

[–]1Your_Coke_Dealer 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Simple explanation:

Feminism 'empowers' women to be pickier in men, or not want them at all. That lowers their reproductive rate, leads to population decline, and thus weakens the manpower a civilization needs to continue

[–]coco5440 -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

You may not have noticed but there are 7.6 billion of us. A lower reproduction rate is a good thing.

[–]1Your_Coke_Dealer 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Not if it's in your country when other populations keep growing. There's no feminism in the Middle East, Africa, or most of Asia. This is why you have mass migration into western countries: a Middle Eastern family will have 5-8 kids, while a typical family in, say, New York, will have maybe two kids or worse yet just have pets

[–]coco5440 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Migration is good. Someone's got to do the hard and/or shit jobs -- lazy white Americans sure as hell don't want to do them.

[–]Leonidas_79 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did you not read the post above, you bellend?

[–]Rosace_89 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Some of you may be interested in a socio-political essay by Sir John Glubb - The Fate of Empires

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

couldn't find it on amazon but here is a link for full text https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-2F_iHS6BLtGJb2ad/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb_djvu.txt

[–]BokehClasses 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good post OP. But centuries? Lol. More like a few decades.

Economic collapse is coming real soon. The welfare state is out of control, free healthcare (not USA) is out of control, immigration is out of control, racial tensions are at a all time high, no average person can buy a fucking house, monogamy is dead, terrorist attacks are at an all time high (from both our own citizens and "peaceful" foreigners), faith in the economy is at a all time low (not so much the USA) as seen by the rise in crypto... and the list goes on.

I expect a collapse in the next 2-3 years. But this won't be enough to kill society. It will be the decades after which finish it off.

And that's not mentioning the possibility of an attack on the electrical grid. A friend who works as an engineer in a power plant tells me that they are extremely negligent with counter terrorist exercises. If a terrorist EMP went off, it would just take 2-3 days without power for a highly populated city to become a a war zone. There will be no rapid police response, no internet, no lights, no surveillance. A criminal's paradise.

We are so divided that we just can't work together as a collective anymore (no, I'm not talking about communism). People actually think individualism is what we should strive for. Fucking lol. Give me one example of a great individualistic society? You can't. Individualism just benefits the selfish, and the human race can't progress that way. All great societies have been patriarchies with collectivism. The collectivism usually came from homogeneity of culture/race or a religion.

HOWEVER, I'm not against individualism in the current time because this society is too far gone to ever go back to collectivism. Collectivism requires the collective, it will not work when the majority are selfish (like we have today).

As the MGTOW say, let's enjoy the decline :)

[–]Lambdal7 2 points3 points  (9 children)

This theory beats itself. Consider these two forms of civilizations.

  1. One, where women aren't really considered human, but sub-human and are there to cook, birth babies, but aren't really allowed to gain education, get raped frequently and just have to suck it up.
  2. One, where women can gain an education, start business, lead countries, invent x-ray diagnostic, speak up when they are raped, where they are considered equal.

Which one is a civilization? The first one, where half of the population is considered and treated as sub-human and doesn't really have human rights? You can look at arabic countries. Do you consider Saudi-Arabia, Iran etc. progressive countries? Pretty sure not.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (8 children)

no one on this thread said that we should enslave women
I personally believe that feminist societies fail because women are hardcoded to marry up while men are not. I don't personally think that rolling back to patriarchy would be a great thing, however I think that we have to give a very unfair advantage to men in order to maximize women's range of men that are above her, thus attractive.

My guess would be to leave it as it is but :

  • make a tax only for women, like 35% of all revenues, slowly going down until her menopause or her 3rd baby. In return, married couples would be gifted like 1000$ per month for 1 year whenever they have a baby.
  • For girls : replace some hours of standard education in school by cooking classes etc... For men : train them to be more active by adding 2 hours of sport every day + extra scholar activities of their choice.

That's just my idea of it, there are probably better ideas out there

[–]Lambdal7 0 points1 point  (7 children)

I don't see the causality between lower birth rates and fall of society though, or what is the causality you are proposing for the cyclic fall of society?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

this is kind of the summary but I'd recommend watching the whole video :
https://youtu.be/w__PJ8ymliw?t=30m46s

[–]Lambdal7 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Hm, the video seems like it's basing their whole premise of made up facts that less males are less and less interested in being part of the workforce and paying, because of the whole feminism trend.

However, men's and women's unemployment rates are almost indistinguishable as they have ever been and have been even increasing recently. http://bber.unm.edu/blog/?p=271

So, it seems like this whole narrative is fake news, since it's based on assumptions that do not exist, is it not?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Yeah you should watch the whole video

[–]Lambdal7 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Can you put it in a few key facts, that are supposed to cause this, otherwise it's only a loose concatenation of facts that don't have to do much with each other.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

TL;DR : there aren't just a few "key facts", end of patriarchy triggered a SHIT LOAD of events. Patriarchy worked for animals and men for millions of years. We have only abolished it for less than a century and here are already some direct consequences :

  • Men who are married and have children are more motivated to labor at full capacity. Historically, within marriage, when a child is born, a man will often scale up his participation in paid work. And it's been shown that divorced men who have no access to their children are the most likely to default on child support.

  • In order for society to function, you need two things: Strong backs to perform the necessary labor to keep everything going and people whose job it is to replace the strong backs as the old ones wear out. Patriarchy worked very well for society overall, because it provided women with the surplus labor they required in order to raise their children in the best possible circumstances AT NO COST to anyone but husbands and fathers.

  • Single motherhood is a growing norm, with about half of all babies born to unmarried women, and at least 20% of children currently living in single mother households.

  • Even now that we have safe, easy indoor jobs that pay decently, women still seem to require the surplus labor that used to be provided by husbands and fathers--in the form of maternity benefits if nothing else. They get that surplus labor now from the state. Men contribute a disproportionate amount of tax revenue to government coffers, and women pull a disproportionate share of the benefits. Women also get that surplus labor in the form of forcible extractions through alimony and child support from divorced fathers, or from single men who often did not consent to become fathers.

  • The (UK) government has also been rather blase about the idea of fathers having access to their children. The more they earn, the more is taken in child support. So not only are they not motivated to be more productive through a sense of ownership of their children, THEY ARE INCENTIVIZED TO BE EVEN LESS PRODUCTIVE than they might have been, because any surplus they generate will be seized anyway.

  • And because this surplus of labor is not willingly handed directly from men to women--that is, because it has to be extracted in one way or another from men--that means a growing bureaucratic machine taking it from men and handing it to women, eating a share of it as it performs this service.

  • Men pay into the system in taxes and direct payments, and women withdraw from it in the form of alimony, child support, tax benefits, subsidized health care, day care and housing, government sponsored after school programs, income top-ups, welfare and food stamps. Not every woman with children is a drain on the system, but women as a group very much are. Not every man pays more into the system than he takes out, but men as a group very much do.

  • But let's look at some of the other costs of single motherhood--especially when fathers are completely absent--through the statistical disadvantages to their children These children face a 2 to 10 times greater risk of: substance abuse, truancy, health problems, being abused, behavioral problems and personality, disorders, criminal behavior, gang activity, suicide and running away, dropping out at all levels of education, incarceration as youths and adults, sexually, transmitted diseases, having children outside of relationships, becoming teenage parents So we basically have a lot of direct and indirect costs attributable to the breakdown of marriage as the base unit of society, all of which will increase as those last two pesky items--single and teen parenthood--beget more and more single mothers generationally.

  • When a man defaults on child support, we incarcerate him, to the tune of about $60,000 per year. This not only directly costs us, but we've also removed his earning and taxpaying capacity while he's incarcerated and further, have handicapped his ability to return to a productive role once he's released with a criminal record. We are essentially paying for him to become less productive and more of a burden.

  • When a family breaks up, you suddenly need two households and almost twice the money to support the same number of people--all of that money flows upward toward corporate coffers, rather than staying in people's savings accounts and helping them build futures. And since women control 80% of consumer spending in the west, the more money you put in women's sole control, the more of it gets spent on consumer goods and bonuses for CEOs.

  • Once a family breaks up, then both parents usually need to work at full capacity to provide a quality of life for all of them that will still be less comfortable than it would be were they still together. And the really awesome thing is, the more people you have who MUST work at paid endeavors at full capacity, the more competition there will be for existing jobs, and the more power corporations have to negotiate compensation downward.

  • At the same time, our demand for the things corporations produce--jobs and merchandise--only ballooned as the nuclear family disintegrated and all those single-dwelling families turned into multiple-dwelling families with twice the consumption rate. The more family is eroded, the more us plebes need both jobs and goods, and the more power those corporations have to up the cost of living through inflating prices (and executive salaries), while lowering wages at the same time.

  • Remember all those kids from all those single mother homes? You know, the ones who face all those increased risks of a host of social maladies that will lead them to become burdens on, rather than productive members of, society? Well, here's how that goes. 20% of men under 25 in the UK are considered essentially unemployable.

  • We have 70% of all divorces initiated by women, and the leading cause given is "dissatisfaction." Not abuse. Not adultery. Not even irreconcilable differences. Just, "I'm not 100% content."

  • Despite women having 100% power of decision over reproduction (no matter what the man does or doesn't do), very few feminists believe those women should be held 100% financially responsible for those decisions. Not only should abortions be free, but child support automatic. Despite having no say in any of these decisions, men are still held partly responsible, and we ALL are as well, through the increased social spending required to make all reproductive choices on the part of women as burden-free as possible.

  • Men are now the minority of high school graduates, and the majority of drop-outs at all levels. They are the minority of university students. There are more women than men alive today with high school diplomas and bachelor's degrees. Women under 30 in US cities now earn an average of 8% more than their male peers. We have prioritized women's opportunities for career success, at the expense of the success of men, and at great cost to all of us in all the spending it requires.

  • On average, we get a LOT more out of a male doctor for our half million investment, and because that female doctor took one of a finite number of spots, another qualified candidate was bumped so she could be trained. By prioritizing women in education at all levels, we have handicapped men's ability to be as productive as the system needs them to be to maintain itself.

  • By encouraging single motherhood and allowing women to banish fathers from their children's lives, we're creating half a generation of boys who risk becoming unemployable and expensive burdens on the system as adults, and half a generation of girls who are more likely to perpetuate and exacerbate the problem by becoming single mothers themselves.

  • By turning marriage into a risk for men that a compulsive gambler wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole if he had two brain cells to rub together, we've motivated men to be less productive than they otherwise would or could be. And by inserting a ravenous middle-man into the contract between men and women for men's surplus labor, we've only managed to increase the size of government, its mountains of expensive red tape, and the deficits it routinely operates on.

  • The weaker fatherhood becomes as a concept, the weaker society becomes. Demoralized men in Japan have started a trend called "grass-eating", where 60% of men under 30 have no interest in marriage, children or getting a job that more than pays the bills.

  • We've removed all the motivation men have to be economic generators by removing all the benefit to them of marriage and children, so more and more are refusing to do the 50 hour a week thing and are opting for part time jobs, beer and x-box instead. Others are simply so damaged and handicapped by the system we've created that they are incapable of being productive at all. So we actually have LESS productivity on the ground. Men paying a greater share of the taxes is what's been funding all of this. But because of our decision to prioritize women's educations over men's, this generation of men are now more likely to drop out at all levels of education, less likely to attend post-secondary, and already earn 8% less than women do under 30. We are actually handicapping the earning power of the people who fund the system women need, and prioritizing training and education for the people who are least likely to exploit it to its full economic potential.

  • Eventually there won't be enough surplus productivity on the ground to hold up the increasingly bloated system women require, and it will fall.

^ this whole text is mostly copy pasted from http://owningyourshit.blogspot.be/2012/03/transcript-of-fempocalypse.html

[–]Lambdal7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first points are about it costing the system more if parents divorce.

However, mothers who are miserable because they are stuck in a miserable marriage, so that their only contribution to society is raising children is not better than a happy, working single mother contributing a lot to society, except not raising her child as good as a miserable mother in a failed marriage.

The second points are mostly about extra money the man has to work for. (alimoni) However, that money would have gone to the child anyway, not to the mother, so it's not really extra money.

When a man defaults on child support, we incarcerate him, to the tune of about $60,000 per year. This not only directly costs us, but we've also removed his earning and taxpaying capacity while he's incarcerated and further, have handicapped his ability to return to a productive role once he's released with a criminal record. We are essentially paying for him to become less productive and more of a burden.

With he $60,000 going to the child, not the mother mostly.

Once a family breaks up, then both parents usually need to work at full capacity to provide a quality of life for all of them that will still be less comfortable than it would be were they still together. And the really awesome thing is, the more people you have who MUST work at paid endeavors at full capacity, the more competition there will be for existing jobs, and the more power corporations have to negotiate compensation downward.

That is an argument.

We have 70% of all divorces initiated by women, and the leading cause given is "dissatisfaction." Not abuse. Not adultery. Not even irreconcilable differences. Just, "I'm not 100% content."

This is a strawman, it's not I'm not 100% content, it's I'm not even 40% content.

Despite women having 100% power of decision over reproduction (no matter what the man does or doesn't do), very few feminists believe those women should be held 100% financially responsible for those decisions. Not only should abortions be free, but child support automatic. Despite having no say in any of these decisions, men are still held partly responsible, and we ALL are as well, through the increased social spending required to make all reproductive choices on the part of women as burden-free as possible.

That's an argument and a result of too much feminism and the neglect of men's rights.

Men are now the minority of high school graduates, and the majority of drop-outs at all levels. They are the minority of university students. There are more women than men alive today with high school diplomas and bachelor's degrees. Women under 30 in US cities now earn an average of 8% more than their male peers. We have prioritized women's opportunities for career success, at the expense of the success of men, and at great cost to all of us in all the spending it requires.

That's an argument and a result of too much feminism and the neglect of men's rights.

On average, we get a LOT more out of a male doctor for our half million investment, and because that female doctor took one of a finite number of spots, another qualified candidate was bumped so she could be trained. By prioritizing women in education at all levels, we have handicapped men's ability to be as productive as the system needs them to be to maintain itself.

That's because she takes maternal leave no, wasn't that desired by the author beforhand. Now you have a single doctor who takes out time to raise her child and make lots of money afterwards. She sure will contribute a multiple of a non educated miserable married mother.

By encouraging single motherhood and allowing women to banish fathers from their children's lives, we're creating half a generation of boys who risk becoming unemployable and expensive burdens on the system as adults, and half a generation of girls who are more likely to perpetuate and exacerbate the problem by becoming single mothers themselves.

Exaggerated, you don't become unemployable because you can't see you abusive father. Better if you don't. Father's who are good aren't banished.

By turning marriage into a risk for men that a compulsive gambler wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole if he had two brain cells to rub together, we've motivated men to be less productive than they otherwise would or could be. And by inserting a ravenous middle-man into the contract between men and women for men's surplus labor, we've only managed to increase the size of government, its mountains of expensive red tape, and the deficits it routinely operates on.

Prenups.

The weaker fatherhood becomes as a concept, the weaker society becomes. Demoralized men in Japan have started a trend called "grass-eating", where 60% of men under 30 have no interest in marriage, children or getting a job that more than pays the bills.

We've removed all the motivation men have to be economic generators by removing all the benefit to them of marriage and children, so more and more are refusing to do the 50 hour a week thing and are opting for part time jobs, beer and x-box instead.

Others are simply so damaged and handicapped by the system we've created that they are incapable of being productive at all. So we actually have LESS productivity on the ground. Men paying a greater share of the taxes is what's been funding all of this. But because of our decision to prioritize women's educations over men's, this generation of men are now more likely to drop out at all levels of education, less likely to attend post-secondary, and already earn 8% less than women do under 30. We are actually handicapping the earning power of the people who fund the system women need, and prioritizing training and education for the people who are least likely to exploit it to its full economic potential.

Still the same argument that women contribute less to society, because they take out time to raise a child. That's a circular argument.

Eventually there won't be enough surplus productivity on the ground to hold up the increasingly bloated system women require, and it will fall.

The first two larger arguments about single miserable mothers raising a "good" child are contributinf more to society than a happy working mother and the extra money taken out of the exonomy are very weak.

Furthermore, the author compares single mother children with current happy marriages children, of course the latter will be more productive. However, put those single mother back into their failed marriage and the children won't be thay productive.

The arguments towards the end are good, however, they can't start a downfall of a civilization. However, they need to be fixed by a men's rights movement to make the economy stronger.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Wow great post, very though provoking. As cliched as it sounds, history definitely does repeat

[–]phoneticau 1 point2 points  (1 child)

100% hit the nail on the head, the west will be the next fall like the roman empire was

[–]Leonidas_79 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In a weird way I hope I’ll be alive to see it.

[–]canadianmooserancher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

each time i hear about feminism destroying civilization i always notice no one extra talks about corruption, macro economics or virtually anything else that actually plays a role in it.

next thing i'm gonna read is eomthing about the Spanish empire falling because of red pill theory, when it was their over inflation of the silver dollar and autocracies don't allow for meritocracy. you're going to end up with a dozen shitty leaders who will sink it, whether together or in one shot of failure EI: alexander the great? or the fucking shame of this father?

so before looking deeply into NOTHING. remember most civ's die when meritocracy is eliminated. dumb dumbs stay in levers of power, this is ongoing from thousands of years until now.

i don't see this feminism thing holding the candle to other items.

EDIT: the word i'm looking for is erroneous. remind me again how many self proclaimed emperors there were? that by the end they were basically fighting generals with super loyal armies who were self proclaimed Caesars. i seldom find myself wondering what feminists think of the roman empire, because it is largely irrelevant. sorry i just don't feel OP post is making any sense, even if he was on the feminist side of things and was trying to make a point... the time period really didn't have much space for OP random factoids leading to this random conclusion

[–]icedupsmackhead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good post, I find the topic very interesting. The dark ages are called as such for a reason. And then the enlightenment rolled around again, and the cycle starts over. I truly believe we are (the west at least) in the period of cultural and moral decline that will directly precede total cultural collapse. Happy days.

[–]_Aaronstotle 4 points5 points  (5 children)

Rome fell cause it had a slave economy and was too big for its own good

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Multiple factors contributed to Rome's decline, not just their "slave economy."

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Whites enslaving whites, or Arabs and blacks enslaving blacks, or every racial group enslaving their own people since the dawn of agriculture waaay before Christipher Columbus' dad dumped his load into CC's mom. No one ever talks about that.

[–]Leonidas_79 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Blacks enslaving blacks is basically the reason that Africa is so fucked right now. Their societies completely collapsed once they started selling their prisoners of war to the Europeans.

It’s crazy how the nearest example is less than 300 years old and here western society stands, blissfully unaware of the lessons we could learn from it.

[–]mcpaulus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all, people are talking are talking about it, second of all, why should it be talked about in this context?

[–]Rabalaz 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Shhh. Don't burst their bubble.

[–]coco5440 12 points13 points  (62 children)

The counter to this argument is that the most egalitarian countries are doing the best. The worlds most prosperous countries include all of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. All of which are more egalitarian than the USA. Citizens in these countries live better than we do. On the other hand most of the world's poorest countries still cling to traditional patriarchal values.

The problem isn't women having autonomy. The problem is that in the United States many people (male and female) exercise their autonomy poorly.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat 38 points39 points  (24 children)

But the counter to that argument is that they became egalitarian after they had prospered...

Which means that egalitarianism is not the reason for prosperity.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 9 points10 points  (19 children)

You can look at Middle East if you want examples of how incredibly primitive is to predict how a culture, civilization or a country will fare based on whether they are a patriarchy or not. They have strong patriarchy for over a thousand of years now and they managed to stop living in sandstone huts ONLY b/c they have shitload of oil. Not to mention they went through massive up/down movements along the way, from being irrelevant to being first empire on the planet at one point. None of which had ANYTHING to do with women being equal or not.

[–]Deep_freeze202 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Youre failing to take into account that the middle East has been ruled by an oppressive totalitarian religious ideology for centuries, that has far more relevance than a patriarchal social structure.

[–]Brazilian_Slaughter 11 points12 points  (5 children)

The Middle East suffers a bad case of Islam

[–]Zachar1a 1 points1 points [recovered]

But the Golden Age of Islam is what preserved the Greek and Roman knowledge during the Dark Ages in Europe.

[–]Brazilian_Slaughter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

All that Greco-Roman knowledge still existed - in the Eastern Roman Empire. You know, the part that survived an extra milenium.

The Rashidun Caliphate was a bunch of bedouins. What they did was assimilate knowledge and skilled personnel from the conquered romans and persians, also India later on. They kept but didn't innovate much.

When the East fell to Turks, lots of greeks going to the West helped the Renaissance.

[–]AllHailEuropa -1 points0 points  (2 children)

No, it wasn't. Catholic monasteries did that.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Man you need to read up on Islam's Golden Age. They were a good century or two ahead of Europe with regards to science, and are directly responsible for preserving all of Aristotle's (and other ancient philosophers) work.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No. Catholic monasteries were very anti-science. Read about the Libraries built under the Emirate of Cordoba and the value that the Umayaad Caliphate gave to knowledge. Look what the church did to the likes of Copernicus or Galileo for daring to question the prevailing wisdom of the day - and that was in the Late Middle ages. It was way worse in the Early middle ages.

Moreover, many European scholars had to escape persecution by the church and the inquisition by running to Mongol occupied lands, which where known for their tolerance toward all religions, creeds and especially scientists and scholars.

[–]Derek1382 1 points1 points [recovered]

You can look at Middle East if you want examples of how incredibly primitive is to predict how a culture, civilization or a country will fare based on whether they are a patriarchy or not. They have strong patriarchy for over a thousand of years now and they managed to stop living in sandstone huts ONLY b/c they have shitload of oil.

lol wut

The Middle East was a cradle of civilization and massively advanced region well before oil. They moved outside "sandstone huts" before Europeans did. Its states and Empires dictated the flow of history, from the earliest days of sumer to the awesome power of the Ottoman Empire. They fell into relative backwardness in the 20th century, but imagining them as living in "sandstone huts" is hilariously ignorant.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (8 children)

The Middle East was a cradle of civilization and massively advanced region well before oil.

Which is why when we came to the Middle East in the late 18th century every nation there was as modern as major European countries, right?

The only country that mattered there was the Ottoman Empire, who was defeated even tho it had help from Germany.

Most of the Middle East got removed as a player by Mongol invasion in 14th century and they never recovered from that. Turks (the Ottoman Empire) took over what was left and held it till the end of WW1. Not Palestinians, not Iraqis, Iranis, Egyptians, Libyans, Saudi Arabians. They were all held together for 6 centuries (14-20) by the Turks, which was the only local country that resembled modern power.

"sandstone huts"

Overblown metaphor to show the industrial contrast between Europe and middle East in early 20th century.

[–]Derek1382 1 points1 points [recovered]

The only country that mattered there was the Ottoman Empire

The only country there was the Ottoman Empire. It controlled all that we consider to be "Middle East" nowadays.

Most of the Middle East got removed as a player by Mongol invasion in 14th century and they never recovered from that. Turks (the Ottoman Empire) took over what was left and held it till the end of WW1. Not Palestinians, not Iraqis, Iranis, Egyptians, Libyans, Saudi Arabians. They were all held together for 6 centuries (14-20) by the Turks, which was the only local country that resembled modern power.

A lot of confusion here:

  • Palestianian, Iraqi and Saudi are all modern identities that didn't exist in the time period in question.

  • Iran was its own kingdom and was never conquered by the Ottomans.

  • The Ottoman Empire didn't "resemble" modern power, it was a major power for most of its history, which included the conquest of much of Europe. It wasn't the kind of survivor state barely hanging onto relevance that you seem to think.

Overblown metaphor to show the industrial contrast between Europe and middle East in early 20th century.

And in the early 19th century their GDP per capita was comparable to France, and they were well on their way to independent industrialization by 1850. Individual snapshots don't mean much, they certainly don't paint the picture of a region that stayed backward until oil.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (6 children)

they certainly don't paint the picture of a region that stayed backward until oil.

Of course they were behind in development. Without oil-money they would be 3rd world, probably to this day.

[–]Derek1382 1 points1 points [recovered]

Didn't know Turkey, Lebanon and Israel lived off of oil money.

The fact that you said so much wrong shit yet you gloss over it and try to restate your original point indicates you're too invested in your argument to admit you were wrong. No point in continuing this discussion further.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (4 children)

you gloss over it and try to restate your original point

For simplification and time management on my part, not as avoiding criticism, I'm talking with multiple people at the moment among other things.

In short, there's no way that early 20th century Middle East was as developed as Europe was. It had it's bright spots throughout history, that was not one of them.

[–]Derek1382 1 points1 points [recovered]

In short, there's no way that early 20th century Middle East was as developed as Europe was

Sure it wasn't, that doesn't mean it never got anything done under the Ottomans because of their ideology or whatever. "Early 20th century" is simply a cherry picked moment of total European global dominance, even China at that point was pathetic yet you certianly can't say they had a crap civilization before.

[–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Compared to contemporary societies most of Western Europe has been comparatively egalitarian for hundreds of years.

[–]coco5440 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It makes sense that a society that takes advantage of the talents of all its citizens will out compete a society that figuratively shackles 50% of its citizens.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is completely wrong, even taking into account the "comparatively".

You know women were only awarded the vote relatively recently, right? 1928 in the UK for voting equality with men.

And there used to be restrictions on women owning property and goods..in some cases when a woman's husband died, she was then unable to look after her own goods, custody of the goods was awarded to her brother (or uncle or father) who then stole them from her or sold them or whatever..

Women had very little freedom until relatively recently, even in the west.

Also, until the divorce laws were changed, a rich man could divorce his wife and kick her out without a cent...there was no "maintenance" or "alimony" back then, That's why "diamonds are a girl's best friend" - the idea was you took your personal jewellery when you went, and then sold the gems to buy food, shelter etc.

Women were restricted educationally, vocationally, maritally, legally, financially... they were not the legal equals of men.

Please note I am not saying this is right; just pointing out that this is how it was.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Citizens in these countries live better than we do

Canadian here. Are we living better than Americans? In what way? In exorbitant taxes for anyone making more than $100-150k? Declining demographics (within the next 30 years most of the population is going to be elderly with not enough middle aged adults or children to fund the healthcare system) that won't be able to fund the healthcare system for my generation. The Provincial government barely has enough money to finance the police force and 3 new metro stations take a decade to build (contrast that with a whole new line built in China in two years). The housing market is atrocious in major cities like Toronto or Vancouver. Young people cannot find jobs because of all of the pensioners refusing to leave because their retirement money is not enough to live and long lines for social housing. The liberal government is enacting retarded policies and sending us further and further into debt by bringing in thousands of Syrian refugees, housing them in hotels and causing social benefits to be cut - all while we pay for it with our taxes. Whites are openly discriminated against, with professors going so far as to penalize you if you are 'a young, white male' (directly from a stats professors mouth).

So fuck off with your misinformation.

[–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Its very common for Canadians to think the pastures are greener south of the border. Hell I did -- that's why I moved down here.

Bottom line is that we were materially more comfortable living in Edmonton Alberta on a family income of 55K in 1994 than we were living in Berkeley California six years later on a family income of 140K. All the really important shit costs way more down here. We've paid over 20K a year for daycare and had an additional 18K deducted from paychecks for medical insurance (which still doesn't cover everything).

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Edmonton Alberta on a family income of 55K in 1994

Yeah well in the 90's everything was SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper in Canada. Not so any longer. Especially in the last few years prices skyrocketed in everything from food, to housing, to OHIP covering fewer procedures/drugs, to day to day items, taxes. Liberals are going to run this country into the ground, and stupid young female cunts are voting trudeau because 'he is sooooo cuttteeee'.

[–]Incel9876 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bottom line is that we were materially more comfortable living in Edmonton Alberta on a family income of 55K in 1994 than we were living in Berkeley California six years later on a family income of 140K. All the really important shit costs way more down here. We've paid over 20K a year for daycare and had an additional 18K deducted from paychecks for medical insurance (which still doesn't cover everything).

Your mistake was to move to California or any blue state, those may be "in the USA," but they "ain't America," not anymore, not for decades now. Your wife could drop her job, and you could better off of just your income in America.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (6 children)

welfare budget is running out in these western countries other than the US as well, feminism is not sustainable because it ruins fertility rate, and women are incapable of replacing men in the work force due to being biologically inferior to men.

[–]coco5440 -1 points0 points  (5 children)

A slowly falling population is not such a bad thing. Will certainly make housing more affordable.

Regarding women being biologically inferior -- WTF!!! There is very little need for brute strength these days -- women are in the workforce to stay -- don't be a pussy just get over it and adapt.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children)

but its indisputable fact that women are biologically inferior, women would get easily out competed in tje work force today if it werent for all the feminist help programs and quotation laws that favor them over men. This is also the case in the education system.

In spite of all these handicaps, men still outperform women in STEM fields and jobs that are still physical, almost all contruction jobs still require strenght in spite of the use of machines, and womens bodies are to fragile to handle these jobs long term, which is why even if businesses try to recruit many women here to fulfil quotas, most of these women end up quitting within a few years due to injuries etc. Women are also less mentally adapted to handle working as much as men.

im not a pussy just i always prioritize the truth over not hurting sensitive people.

[–]coco5440 1 points1 points [recovered]

This is an ongoing issue with TRP. While this site has been incredibly useful for me in gaining insight into how and why women behave the way they do the site is also home to far too many people with racist and sexist views.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

thats not the issue, the issue is weak and dumb emotional people who refuse to believe in anything that doesnt paint them in a positive light. The world doesnt care about fairness or equality, it has always been survival of the fittest, and some species fail to adapt and go extinct. Sometimes due to competition with other superior species.

There is no reason to believe or assume that the human genders are equal when we dont witness equality in most other animal species, especially when all data available points to men being superior as well.

Cry about it or get over it. Nature is both racist and sexist by default for not making everyone biologically equal, and pointing out that fact does not make a person sexist or racist, just logical. And denying these facts like you do simply makes you ignorant or stupid.

[–]coco5440 1 points1 points [recovered]

The alleged superiority of the Aryan male was disproven in the 1940s as you might recall.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

thats such a retarded and irrelevant statement to this discussion that i now question your intelligence.

First of all, aryan is not a race, it used to be a social class in ancient india and iran. It has literally nothing to with white people except hitler who stole the term.

And the racial disparities are smaller and more nuanced compared to the gender differences. But overall european and various different asian people including indians and west asians have better IQ than the rest on average, and blacks are better at running and jumping, andsports that require a lot of running on average compared to other races.

Of course intelligence is more valuable for a civilization so the argument that the euroasian ethncities are at the top of the foodchain is supported by facts. Now who is the absolute apex predator among them there is too little data available to make a conclusion.

Gender differences are more significant and obvious and thus its already safe to conclude that men are superior to women. If an alternative to women to procreate like artificial wombs and sex robots became mainstream, women could actually go extinct if they didnt start to adapt to mens standards. Because women need us more than we need them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I never said that patriarchy was related to wealth or well-being

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (24 children)

I'd say it has more to do with world war 2 than gender roles.

[–]coco5440 8 points9 points  (23 children)

England was devastated by WWII. Finland had to deal with both the Nazis and the Russians. Yet today they're just as prosperous as the rest of the western world. And don't forget that Germany rebuilt itself from rubble.

Germany is actually a great example. After the war Germany was effectively neutered militarily and its population swung far to the left politically and socially. Yet despite what conservatives would have predicted the country prospered to an extraordinary degree.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (16 children)

A countries prosperity has a lot to do with the average intelligence of the population

[–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (14 children)

Which has a lot to do with how much a county values and invests in education. This is an area where the United States lags .

Without foreign talent our colleges and university would be in big trouble. We poach talent from all other the world and then complain about immigrants.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (13 children)

No one is complaining about immigrants from Europe, Aus, NZ, SA. It's the non-white immigrants that don't assimilate. And that have higher rates of crime and lower workforce participation

[–]coco5440 -4 points-3 points  (12 children)

Actually asian immigrants have the lowest crime rates and highest workforce participation rates. I'll take a country full of hard working brown people over a bunch of lazy scapegoating white folks anyday.

[–]AllHailEuropa 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Only Northeast Asians which make up less than 5% of the US population. Also, students are already preselected for talent, hard work, and intelligence. Obviously since they are accepted into schools here. "Lazy, scapegoating white people" built the countries that your beloved immigrants have to come to for education. And I bet a huge percentage of those foreign students are white anyway.

Weird that people like you always want to live in Canada, Europe, Australia, or New Zealand AKA the whitest places on Earth.

[–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm a Canadian citizen. I grew up there -- that's why I use it for an example. BTW Canada is the most ethnically diverse developed country in the world.

I'm actually considering retiring to Mexico, Central America, or Puerto Rico (my mom's homeland) if I can improve my Spanish.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

BTW Canada is the most ethnically diverse developed country in the world.

Not a good thing. Go study history as to why that is the case.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (8 children)

And yet immigrants are causing terrorist attacks and raping young girls.

[–]coco5440 -1 points0 points  (7 children)

WTF are you talking about?

I deal with hundreds of criminal cases every year and can tell you that immigrants commit far fewer crimes than do native born Americans. Regarding sex crimes -- I've never had an immigrant defendant. However, every last child molester I've defended has been a native born white guy.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

So you're admitting that immigrants are causing terrorist attacks in Europe, right?

Are you also saying that all those "sexual emergency" news of muslims raping women and young girls are false? What about the acid attacks?

Just because you haven't seen the cases does not mean they are not happening.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You're 100% full of shit. Even the federal government's own crime statistics say you're wrong.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Germany rebuilt itself from rubble

You w0t mate. That is clearly wrong. Europe did not rebuild itself after WW2, neither did Germany (and especially not East Germany). It was America under the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe under the condition that they join American sphere of influence against Soviet expansion. That is why Eastern Europe (and former warsaw pact countries are still poor af - because the Soviets did not care much for rebuilding their buffers).

[–]coco5440 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The Marshall Plan certainly helped in the beginning but let us not flatter ourselves it was Germans themselves who did most of the rebuilding.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nah. It was the Marshall Plan and continuous US investment and support (and US occupation) that allowed them to rebuild. Compare the development of East Germany vs West Germany (even now), huge difference and the people is still the same.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

the marshal plan built up those countries after world war 2.

[–]coco5440 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The Marshal Plan certainly helped a little but most of the work was done by local people. There are real limits to nation building -- just look at Iraq and Afghanistan.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd say that places like Iraq and Afghanistan has even more exaggerated gender roles and they are doing worse than western countries. OP cant point to britain to say that gender roles is a primary cause of destruction of society, and then also point to Iraq. There's obviously other things going on.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 4 points5 points  (0 children)

they collapsed presumably due to a "moral breakdown" figuratively represented in the Bible as the "Tower of Babel" (which was inspired by a real tower).

I'm skeptical that any real lessons can be gleaned from such an anecdote. I imagine thousands of years from now someone, somewhere, will point to this incident as being "evidence" of how the American empire was in a downward spiral.

Civilizations rise and fall, just as the planet has periods of incredible evolutionary diversification and subsequent mass extinctions, cycles of global warming and ice ages, human civilizations come and go and the reasons are numerous and complex.

[–]mcpaulus 2 points3 points  (3 children)

The main reason for the downfall was the difference between rich and poor on Rome. You say the romans had wealth so they didn't have to work, but that"s not true. Under 5% of the romans were perhaps that rich. Probably less. Not going to find exact numbers. The rest, the plebs, were dependent on welfare from the state. The early romans had jobs, which the slaves took over. So the rich bought the farms from the poor. Or took them. Oh and this was in Rome. The provinces were mostly farmers, some in a kind of serf arrangement. The difference between rich and poor became greater as the empire grew larger, and this was a far far greater cause of the downfall than feminism, which with modern eyes didn't exist at all. Some of the comments here are amazingly wrong. Rome didnt fall because they enjoyed "centuries of peace" and became feminine. It's true that after the empire was founded, most soldiers came from the provinces, but these was also considered romans, and certainly not immigrants. Heck, a lot of the emperors were provincials themselves...

The downfall of Rome was a very complicated matter, but we as a modern society should be far more concerned about the wealth differences than immigration and feminism. As long as the rich get richer and poor gets poorer we will sooner or later collapse.

[–]Rabalaz 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Thanks for posting, bud.

It should be said here that the men of the TRP should be hitting the books like they hit the gymn. As having an educated population is extrememly beneficial to any society they belong to.

Fun fact, the lack of an educated society was another of the many reasons the Western Imperium of Rome disolved.

[–]Leonidas_79 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Seems we’re headed that way

[–]JimiJons 2 points3 points  (1 child)

While the theory is mostly sound, the history here is fairly inaccurate, especially the last point.

People were absolutely not living in caves. Religious zealotry has been characteristic of every civilization since the dawn of time. "Intellectual darkness" is not a real concept. Science, commerce, philosophy, and human rights were absolutely not "unknown concepts" after the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire.

You paint the common misconception of the "Dark Ages" as this apocalyptic era in the history of human civilization when it was nothing of the sort.

The many tribes and kingdoms that formed from splintering factions of the Roman military aristocracy were all still essentially Roman, maintaining Roman customs, Roman systems of administration, and Roman styles of culture. The major cities, particularly in Southern Europe, Greece, Italy, and Northern Africa continued to function as major independent towns or incorporated as cultural centers into other kingdoms. For the average resident, life continued as normal, even as the face on the currency changed to a non-Roman ruler.

Literacy and other higher education declined simply because education no longer fell under a centralized system, but this had been happening for a hundred years prior to the fall.

Instead of unified historical records from the state, we now have many different accounts of many different factions written under the direction of many different rulers.

Certainly, Europe was a fractured mess, but was absolutely not without civilization.

Most importantly, the numerous other great civilizations of the world at the time, particularly in the Middle East and Asia, continued to drive scientific and industrial progression past the Roman level.

Not to mention the Eastern half of Rome continued to exist as a powerful, imperial realm for another thousand years.

[–]Leonidas_79 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aka The Byzantine Empire which eventually became the Ottoman Empire

[–]fakenate1 12 points13 points  (4 children)

You ought to demand a refund from where ever you got your classical studies degree. Because I have one and basically everything you said is completely incorrect.

For one, The Roman Empire didn’t fall until AD 1453. And civilization didn’t crumble to the Bronze Age when the goths set up the kingdom of Italy.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I hope you kept your receipts too. That's a little like saying the Baath party is still in charge of Iraq. Sure, it's a lot of the same actors, but Saddam still danced at the end of a rope.

Oh, and the Roman Empire still exists. It's just more into fucking little kids while bitching about abortion and capitalism these days.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Nice try. 1453 is the fall of the Byzantine Empire, formerly known ad the Eastern Roman Empire. It was hardly anything like the WESTERN Roman Empire - they did not speak Latin (hence Latin died out), they spoke Greek and their social structures were Greek not Latin. Sure they are OFFICIALLY the Roman Empire, but they were not actually Rome. Hell, Russia was called the Third Rome at one point and Russia was not similar to the Roman Empire at all.

[–]AnjaJutta 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Hey Muslim. The name "Byzantine" is an exonym given by western scholars to the Eastern Roman Empire who rightly called themselves Romans. They were a part of the Roman Empire that lived on. The language shift came after Rome was split into two. As for mentioning Russia, that's a strawman you built up only to destroy two sentences later, without it having anything to do with what fakenate1 said.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know that Byzantium is an exonym invented after the split. Too bad you can't provide any argument and have to resort to sounding smart by using terms like 'strawman'. Too bad you don't know what it means.

The east was always Greek. In the WRE they only used Latin as the 'State' language for administrative matters and as the lingua-franca. In the ERE, it was Latin and Greek, but Greek was more popular as those who knew Greek were seen as being more cultured. This divide was further pronounced after the split.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (5 children)

This might be the dumbest thing I have ever read.

[–]Thrawy124 7 points8 points  (2 children)

And the crusades were fought solely in the name of God.

[–]Orsick 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The comments are even dumber.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TL;DR in The Roman Empire : Peace caused Feminism,

Comparing the freedoms (feminism) of women in Roman Empire with the current (feminism) ones is plain stupid. I might give you an example of "men in Roman Empire were feminized b/c they wore clothing that by our modern standards is borderline gay/trans looking" - it still only clothing we're talking about, so what's the big deal right? Context matters.

As for actual feminism in Roman Empire - there's only ONE source - Heartiste's article (https://goo.gl/GdoDRe) in which he cites another dude's work - which itself is VERY superficial, b/c it only looks at ONE (and relatively not important) aspect of why the Empire fell and it is not describing how actually things looked like in the examples (quotes from link, not OP) :

~5 century BC: Roman civilization is a a strong patriarchy, fathers are liable for the actions of their wife and children, and have absolute authority over the family (including the power of life and death)

This example omits a very important thing: Roman women had the right to own land, represent themselves before the law, they were treated equally to their brothers when it comes to who is the heir after pater familias dies. Another thing is - it was not a patriarchy per se - it's not MEN who ruled over women, it was FATHERS who ruled over households. Wife's responsibility was first and foremost to her household/father NOT to her husband.

1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work.

It was ALWAYS like this. Roman's economy was almost entirely based on agriculture, and that means on slaves. It's not like the Roman Empire became so rich that they could stop working and became decadent. They NEVER worked in the first place.

The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy,

I'll skip the arts and philosophy, since the number of people who did this and their impact is inconsequential. As for democracy - yes they did have democracy ON PAPER. In practical terms ow governing it was a republic. The common people (plebeians) could vote when gathered in an "assembly" BUT the "assembly" could only be called by the Magistrate who (despite being elected) always came from aristocracy. On top of that the weight of each vote was strongly tied to who was casing it, therefore the will of the common people was basically ignored.

and women become emancipated.

No, they didn't. They had some freedoms and some restrictions, but generally women never had the same possibilities as men did, as it was the men that were expected to follow their father's footsteps in maintaining the household. There was no such thing as "emancipation of women" on par with what we have now.

No-fault divorce is enacted, and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century.

Omitting the fact that de facto "no fault divorce" was a standard practice among the high standing families to facilitate political alliances easier. And omitting the fact that it was MEN who initiated this no fault divorce in the majority not women. And omitting the fact that there was no divorce rape. And omitting the fact that dowry was standard practice.

~1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a “bachelor tax”, to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers,

Total bs. Not the "family unit". Equating a commoner's "family unit" with a high profile household is wrong. In the time period the author mentions it's not the "family unit" that declined - it was the rich and powerful Roman households who were the main political, economic and thus military force behind Roman Empire.

Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies.

An average Roman plebeian could not afford nannies. Again, he's referring to upper class, which I explained above.

The wealth and power of women grows very fast,

VERY few independent women ever got to the wealth point of men. In most cases their wealth and power was ALWAYS tied to the men around her, either her father or her husband.

Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.

It was always popular, especially when compared to modern times. It was not something that appeared suddenly out of nowhere.

Roman population declines due to below-replacement birth-rate.

Of citizens, not average plebs.

Vice and massive corruption are rampant,

Nothing new either. The apparent "democracy" was basically an overt corruption anyway.

There is extreme economic, political and military instability:

Author used 8 words to describe what historians and economists wrote thousands pages on as the main reason for the RE fall. This is straight up making evidence based on conclusion.


Quote from OP

it results in a massive immigration to sustain demography

Really now...

You're describing migrations (basically a moving war front) of barbarians who were subjugated by Romans during the course of the centuries. Once RE couldn't control them anymore (weak military) they decided to act their own interests. Your example is idiotic, you might as well call Hitler invading Europe a "migration".

[–]m4t31 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Finally a thread where I can share this: https://www.sustainability-modeling.com

Basically a how-to attempt for saving the human race through moving to a natural economy instead of money-based economy (embrace nature to save the planet and avoid extinction). I think this subject should be discussed in TRP.

[–]abstractplebbit 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If you haven't done so already I highly recommend reading Jack Donovan's "the way of men"

The book draws some strong parallels with what you are saying in this post but it takes those insights to their logical conclusions to give you a better understanding. It's a solid book

[–]slamdunktiger86 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be fair, defending Christendom from marauding Muslims is not zealotry. It’s called defending your home.

The Crusades were defensive campaigns. Castles all over the coastline of the Mediterranean weren’t to fight other Europeans, it was to defend from Muslim pirates.

[–]fight_me_fam42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LMAO "In a few centuries". But alas it looks true. Nonetheless that doesnt mean it'll be a good thing. Hard times->Strong men. Strong men-> Peaceful times. Peaceful times -> Weak men. Weak men -> Hard times.

[–]Big_Dombo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TLDR: This history is rubbish, ignore it and whatever you get out of it.

This version of Roman history that OP presents is absolute nonsense. Roman society was incredibly patriarchical throughout its entire history, and only a very few particularly wealthy women enjoyed a level of autonomy during certain periods.

The rest of his points are riddled with errors. 1st century BCE Rome wasn't a blossoming utopia, it was a failed state ravaged by civil wars, with hundreds of thousands killed and an overgrown urban population living in squalor and poverty. All the complaints about divorce and bachelors were about the top .1% of society. These definitely weren't the type of people who were joining the army. The family unit was never destroyed, as any epigraphic survey will blatantly show.

As for this "moral collapse" carry on, this idea is several centuries out of date. The causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire were political and military, perhaps economic but definitely not moral or social. There is no underlying moral weakness causing collapse in Rome, and feminism certainly isn't to blame for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire; it didn't exist then. Don't make up history to justify your views.

Also as a side note recent archaeological surveys have found that in early agrarian societies (2000 BCE - 500 AD) women's skeletons show evidence that they engaged in frequent, hard manual labour. Peasant societies (like Rome) were a whole lot more egalitarian in terms of economic activity than this comment section would make out.

[–]teunzinho 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe, from your Story, that feminism or weak empires are created from good times. It’s like the meme: strong men create good times. Good times, weak men. Weak men, hard times. Hard times, strong men. When (like I saw in the highest comment, shoutout to that man) people do not need to focus on Just surviving anymore, they grow lazy and Some people tend to take advantage of that. When feminists saw that feminism was accepted they started to push further. That was When they screwed up. Because they wanted more attention instead of basic rights (wich they already had) people started to “retaliate”, and that triggered the feminists. And so we are where we are today.

(Excuse me If my spelling is off, Dutchie here)

[–]fondthinker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But this does not make sense: "femenisim and future is an oxymoron" and the misconclusions drawn from tenuous comparison. Civilisations always decline and change. There is no logical causal reason for democratic femenist values to bring 'the end' (more likely the opposite, a longer continuation because it precisely breaks cyclic patterns). Because - surprise - pre-modern societies are very different to the liberal democracies of today. Abuse, child labour, slavery, sexisim are rampantly illegal, for instances. There is economic abundance. And the very root of what we call femenisim emerged with Mary Wollstonecraft and John Stuart Mill quite recently; not in pre-modern times before large scale constitutional democracy, high technology, nations, globalised capitalism, standardised education, scientific enlightenment and all!