THE QUESTION OF MARRIAGE: SURVIVAL
lolz…. yeah, well, you know, it turns out that men living largely with men, f-cking a range of women, and letting them keep the kids (how africa works) is much better… for men. The boys will defect as soon as they can, and join the men. Restoring the masculine feminine divergence. In these worlds women to much more of the work, and men much less because our needs are so much less.
We just built all this marriage sh-t so that we could keep capital (property) in the family (See the Marxists on Family).
Realistically unless you’re a hypergamic windfall, women don’t love us or want us they just want their matrilineal family and a few men to fuck for fun, manipulation, market value testing (status), and resources.
The only material value of a dedicated mate is that compromise is cheap and habituated so you get a real ‘friend’ – as long as hypergamy(upward) or opportunity(lateral) don’t interfere too much.
So given that this is true, what does the future of society mean when property (capital) is no longer meaningful because we are too productive (stuff is too cheap, we are too wealthy) to need each other.
I mean, in the end men are sovereign by default but women want sovereignty so the choice of marriage, matrilineal family, or single motherhood because it’s affordable, is a matter of obtaining sovereignty by one means or the other.
I dont’ see this as complicated. But you know, people don’t want to admit that the homogeneous society is falling apart because we are too wealthy to need one another for anything other than sex and entertainment.
My understanding from the evidence is that since the rate of reproduction wins, and dedicated motherhood wins reproduction, then those who practice marriage will exterminate those who don’t and that’s certainly what the evidence is showing.
In this sense it’s better to separate politically into intergenerational and surviving, vs generational consumption and extinction.