Red Pill

The Choice

The Choice
The great danger for family life, in the midst of any society whose idols are pleasure, comfort and independence, lies in the fact that people close their hearts and become selfish.” – Pope John Paul II

Contents:
1.) The Male Perspective – A Quandary
1a.) The Patriarch’s Problem
1b.) The Bachelor’s Problem
2.) The Female Perspective – A Prize
3.) The Differences Between Men & Women In Summary
4.) The Civilizational Perspective – A Crisis
5.) In Closing / Relevant Reading

1.) The Male Perspective – A Quandary:

To enjoy the decline, or to start a family, that is the question. And of course this is a problem unique to man, particularly those conscious and critical of the paradigm we occupy, for it is not a consideration that even crosses the threshold of consciousness in the archetypal drone. And yet unlike the drone who knows no quandary, who idly autopilots his way into an unremarkable five to fifteen year marriage that yields two point one children, the more enlightened man finds himself in the pivotal yet privileged position of making an informed choice about his future’s course.

Such a man is free to direct his fate absent the demands of religious indoctrination or self-serving women. After all, should one of the most important decisions of a man’s life be made by anyone other than the man himself? Does a man pressured and cajoled into starting a family do so on his own terms, or on the terms of those with a plan for him? With both reason of mind and heart of soul, the man free of spells and delusions can exercise his mental sovereignty by weighing up the risks and rewards of the lifestyle choices available to him, be that the life of a patriarch, or the life of a bachelor.

A self-respecting, free thinking and proud man should not be bullied into marrying, by his religion, his family, nor the woman manoeuvring to get a ring on her finger. A man should make this decision free of external devices and with full mental clarity, for a man should establish a serious relationship in much the way he would seek to maintain it. Therefore it stands to reason that should a man be cajoled or duped into marriage and babies, that although it may initially fill the dissimulating woman with nought but estrogenic rejoice and maternal glee, such shadowy foundations do not bode well for their relationship’s longevity.

A strong man does not respond to shame, he acknowledges it for the manipulative transgression that it is, disregards it as folly, and continues to forge his path absent the mechanisations of such duplicity.

The free man wonders which lifestyle choice would be in his best interest, and is he, no matter what he does, condemned to an unforgivable degree of heartache either way? If marriage leads to divorce, and bachelorhood leads to childless loneliness, what is a man to do? After all, a choice between misery or loneliness hardly seems like much of a choice at all.

1a.) The Patriarch’s Problem:

If a man is to marry, there is reasonable fear the fresh legal supremacy his woman enjoys will disrupt the balance of power that previously maintained their relationship. The informed man is all too aware the legal privilege of the modern wife can be used to force him into domestic servitude, and that legally speaking, the marriage hangs on a thread tied to a hovering sword that follows him wherever he goes.

From the moment he has said “I do”, a dangling sword of Damocles stalks him, scrutinising his every action, primed to strike. Too many mistakes, and the sword falls, divorce initiated, financial and emotional chaos wrought.

Now of course there is an imbecilic, ignorant argument to be made that “not all women are like that“, and indeed this is true, not all women will whimsically detonate a divorce bomb. And yet a wise man in his prudence must ask himself “is my woman like that?” and then follow up this question with “if my woman is not like that, what is the likelihood she could become like that?” to which the answer in all earnestness is a most pertinent “easily”.

If too much comfort is indulged, if too much is neglected or too much left to chance – the ruination of marital union is all but a certainty. A marriage is like a car hanging off a cliff, it requires the man driving to accelerate now and again to ensure the car does not tilt and fall into the ocean below. Just as it was in courting, in marriage the burden of performance is man’s to bear.

If man fails in his capacity as husband, or is at least perceived to have failed, he loses everything, by contrast if his woman is an abysmal failure of a wife, she gets a pay day and a fresh chance. In today’s society a woman’s marriage risk is minimal, and of course, this comes at the expense of man’s being astronomical. Women do not fear marriage because they have no reason to, men do because they have every reason to.

A marriage’s odds of success are merely improved, but still mightily unfavourable for man even when the potential wife is of considerable quality. And so although it is not impossible to become a patriarch, it is a dangerous affair regardless of who is involved. This danger is neither explicitly the man nor the woman involved’s fault, but rather, the fault of a judicial system that makes marriage so costly to men.

The success of a marriage is of course dependent solely on the parties involved, but what was once merely a monumental investment on the part of man has been perverted by the misandry of feminism into a monumental gamble. A sensible man is not a gambling man, he does not wager half his assets and his emotional stability on the odds of a woman’s whim remaining pretty. No matter who is involved, this aspect remains the same: a man has no assurances nor protection from the state, in a worst case scenario, the woman is protected and the man is left to rot. Idiots will marry blindly and gamblers will marry brazenly, whilst sensible men will abstain and the intelligent romantically delay.

As such, it is a lazy and ill-cultured wife’s prerogative to “cash in” the marriage whenever she deems fit, for if she and her husband are at odds, and it is too difficult, too cumbersome and too taxing for her to compromise, she can force the man to leave, keep the home he laboured for, and make off with much his present and future wealth.

1b.) The Bachelor’s Problem:

The opposing side of the quandary is of course the lust for family and lineage, for one to not die childless and alone. The informed man wishes not to be ravaged by the effects of feminist marriage, and yet neither does he wish to be wrecked by the absence of companionship or children in his elder years.

Where the patriarch fears divorce, the bachelor fears childlessness and loneliness. Although men are not as dependent on family as women for sanity, success and happiness, they still value family. The reluctance to marry is as such a synthesis of a distrust in women married to a contempt for a misandric legal system.

The bachelor is a man who values his freedom more than most, and thus the constraints, demands and expectations inappreciatively thrust upon him by a wife hold no appeal. This does not mean such a man would not enjoy being a father, but rather that, becoming one would mean giving up an inordinate degree of freedom to the mother.

For the bachelor, a rat pack is his family replacement. Through the formation of a rat pack, a bachelor can assuage his loneliness and need for tribe. A rat pack is a small tribe of cohabiting, single and childless men. Such an arrangement allows the group to fully indulge in the wealth and freedom of childless singledom without any of its accompanying loneliness. Nonetheless, the desire to reproduce is not so easily assuaged.

Men sensitive to, and aware of the nature of evolutionary biology feel they have a genetic imperative to reproduce, and thus the quandary presents itself: is a man to enter an institution hostile to him so that he may build a family, or is he to enjoy the full succulence of his fruits and yet leave no worldly legacy behind? The artistic man may leave his creations, the academic man his research, but what of the layman, and are achievements acceptable substitutes for legacy in the absence of reproduction?

This is a choice all informed men must make, and there is no right or wrong answer. It is my presupposition that most informed men will take full advantage of their extended fertility window and opt to settle down with a younger woman in middle-age. I believe most informed men are willing to risk divorce in their elder years if it means they got to lead a good life before becoming a father.

2.) The Female Perspective – A Prize:

Women do not face the quandary that idiotic men shirk and informed men face. Women’s marriage risk is minimal, and her fertility window is short. The nature of a woman’s limited fertility is precisely why once women have decided they want to settle down, they’re frenetic to do so. This is in stark opposition to men, who are happy to take their time and vet their mate more rigorously, particularly when dating older women, who are circumspect by merit of their availability. The quaint poetry here of course is that the older the woman, the greater her sense of urgency, and the older the man, the more reluctant his urge to commit.

Of course, fertility is only part of the equation, men hold the keys to commitment, women to sex. If commitment, attention and provision is what women value most, then men are the gatekeepers to womanly wants, and marriage is a jackpot in which she is bestowed an endless supply of these things.

If a 50-year-old woman had the charm, sex appeal and mental stability of her 20-year-old self, she’d be as leisurely and lackadaisical about the speed the relationship progresses at as the men her age are. Yet whether a woman can admit it to herself or not, she is intuitively aware that as she ages, her capacity to attract a top-tier mate decreases. A woman’s power erodes with each passing year, and thus like anybody all too aware of their depreciation, the cleverest attempt to leverage their power at its peak.

The question of marriage is always a no-brainer for a woman, as I previously stated, this quandary lies solely in the jurisdiction of man. If a woman asked me, “IM, should I get married?” I’d say “Yes, as soon as you can, and ideally no later than 26” because marriage is a really good deal for women. For women, marriage represents something it scarcely does for men – financial security and psychological sanity.

And although I do not write much in a manner conducive to a woman’s viewpoint or need, it does not mean I don’t understand the importance of marriage and babies to women. It is the life goal of all intelligent and sensible women to become wives and mothers, for scarcely can a woman achieve the happiness in business her man can, as to be a mother buzzing in the embrace of family is her highest calling. Family is where women derive emotional nourishment, for it gives them a sense of internal completion, and to honour her husband whilst suckling her young, is in and of itself, a most noble of goals.

3.) The Differences Between Men & Women In Summary:

Men get purpose from art and business, whereas women get purpose from the family, not all men and not all women, but generally speaking. This doesn’t mean men don’t want family, merely that they need it less, and a longer fertility window permits them to sensibly delay patriarchhood.

Testosterone needs challenge, estrogen needs comfort. This is why women are more relationship orientated than men, for it provides the apex of their happiness, their very reason for being; to be desired, and feel integrally vital in a family rich in love and abundance.

Family is important to men, but so are aspects irrespective of it. A man’s priorities are more evenly weighted than a woman’s. If his family does not have an immediate need, rather than manufacture a need to fill (as a woman wanting to feel relevant will do) he will busy himself with commerce (resource acquisition) or art (an outlet for his masculine creativity that the wonderful yet splendid mundanity of family life does not provide).

A woman on the other hand is lost without family, no matter how much she attempts to fill the void with art, business, or pets, she cannot help but feel a most profound sense of absence strike the core of her being. Whether she knows it or not, her very fiber yearns to be a wife and mother, and no matter her opinion of that, she is powerless to escape this most visceral of compulsion.

4.) The Civilizational Perspective – A Crisis:

The salvation of a crumbling civilization, the very thing it needs to persist and replenish itself morally, intellectually and socially is the very thing that has been poisoned to disincentivise man, the family. Deprive a nation of the nuclear family, and eventually, you deprive a nation of its very existence.

And it is the poisoning of women by feminism in tandem with the hostility of family law that is encouraging men to embrace the playboy lifestyle in record numbers, in an accelerating social breakdown, cocaine, whiskey and hookers can seem like a smart choice to the live hard opportunist.

We cannot blame the men who shy away from their responsibility as men, Christians, or whatever, for not indulging the burden of patriarchy when said burden has been contorted to ensure man’s life will almost certainly become a living hell should he be anything but perfect.

When men conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the potential for marriage, and rightfully deduce the chance of success is not in their favour, and that a painless exit is all but unattainable, we cannot blame their aversion. It is easy to mount the entirety of blame on men, and accuse them of immaturity and commitment phobia. But I believe many men are, at heart, family men. They are socially smart for avoiding marriage, but evolutionarily dumb for not reproducing. Many things in life are a trade-off, and this is by far one of the greatest a man will ever contemplate.

The more men begin to put their own interests ahead of women’s, the fewer the number of children to be born and the quicker our civilization collapses. So really, who is abetting civilization? The bachelor who hastens its decline, or the patriarch who slows it?

Is there a way to reverse rather than merely slow the decline? Yes, I believe a reversion of family law to a pre-feminist state would be a great start. If the religions can take back marriage from the clutches of feminists, the corrupt family courts and the parasitic divorce industry, then the family unit may yet be saved. But unless such judicial change takes place and gives men the peace of mind they need to functionally marry, I believe for better or worse, the decline of civilization and the bedrock it is built upon will continue at rapid pace.

5.) In Closing / Relevant Reading:

Without judicial reconciliation between what is in man’s best interests and what is in woman’s, men will continue to shun marriage and society will, family by family, shrink and deteriorate with increasing pace. Give men incentive and legal assurances, and many more will be willing to take up the mantle of responsibility in what is already a thanklessly rewarding, yet toilsome endeavour.

Promiscuity & Civilization
The Empress Is Naked
Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream
The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men