The membership of mgtow.com may be small in the relative big picture of things. But the number of younger men who aren’t married, and have no plans to be, is no small thing at all. These men are the future of marriage, and they are becoming more and more well known for having none of it, without or without membership here.

So I was wondering about the extrapolation of this trend, and others that I’m seeing, and that brought me to this: everyone knows women like to marry good providers, but don’t necessarily like the responsibilities of being a wife. And everyone knows they like to have babies because they feel completed and can be certain that the state will either force the father to be responsible even after she discards him, or the state will step in and be financially responsible for the children. The state can do this because it has the power to forcibly extract resources from all men for the support of single women and their children, regardless of wether any of those other men have chosen to be fathers or not.

So if you are one individual man, you are expected to marry a financial parasite, (who will only agree to marry you if you can provide financially) but you get to pick which one. If you choose none of them, you pay higher taxes than that married man with his ‘deductions’ would pay, and those higher taxes go to fund the irresponsible reproductive decisions of all those women no one chose to marry, but whom someone chose to get pregnant.

But what if you’re not one individual man. What if you are an entire generation or two of men and the trend of refusing marriage has become so widespread that NONE of you are getting married. What is the reaction of women and the government to this? Women who do not wish to work, and aspire to get through life on the value of the uterus, have always needed to find some man somewhere to get them pregnant… much as they do now. But because in the future it seems no man will offer them the chance to marry anymore, they will all face this choice: compete with men directly for what resources and assets there are, or find a way to get pregnant out of wedlock by at least one man in order to get the state to seize the assets and resources from all men for you. Because of the crushing power of the state to devastate men financially who father a child with a woman, there may be another trend of not marrying, and also not agreeing to have a child with them either.

How will an entire generation of men react to being told that the state will force them to support women they have all chosen not to marry? When none of them are married, but all of them are paying to support women… will they watch where their money is going, and where women’s money is coming from?

There will of course always be the man who is tricked into fatherhood. But I think there will also be those irresponsible men who have nothing to lose and little to take who will then be able to father as many children as they wish, because like women, they know it will be someone else paying the taxes to support them.

So what happens next? The men who are the least responsible, and the least concerned about their own offspring end up having the most children, and those who are most responsible and most productive have either none, or a relatively fewer number of children. What children there are, are more likely to be raised by single mothers, who are at a disadvantage when it comes to raising the healthiest children (no matter how much assistance they get from the state).

So we create a selection process that favors those least capable of being parents and allows them to have the most options for having children, we select against those who are most capable, and we assign the raising of the kids to a process (no father present) already proven to produce unreliable results.

If the trend of younger men choosing not to marry continues, and the trend of women wanting babies wether they are married or not continues, then isn’t the result of the government’s trend of confiscating the resources of the most responsible/productive men in order to pay the support of the offspring of the least responsible/productive men… just going to be a recipe for reverse evolution?

In evolutionary biology, I always understood that when chimps or other primate ancestors lived in trees where food was essentially just found by the individual who needed it, the mating model was that the dominant ‘alpha’ male had exclusive mating rights to all the females, which he won by one on one combat. But then when, in the course of evolving to humans they moved down from trees onto the ground, food had to be secured by hunting, and on territory that had to be defended. Having no scales, fangs, claws or particularly great speed, these primates were at a disadvantage both for hunting, and for defending hunting territories. Either of these could be life risking. The only real advantages they had were the ability to use tools, and the ability to work in teams.

The ability to work in teams was effective for the males of the time, but required a sharing of the mating rights. Males were not going to risk their lives hunting and defending territory in order to provide for females to whom they had no access and offspring that were not their own. And there was no alpha male who could adequately provide for all the females while working alone. So teams of males working together to provide for females they each had access to on a one to one basis evolved into what was the family unit.

Now it seems that women wish to have it arranged such that many females can become pregnant by one or a few of the least productive males (selected by women, not by combat) and that women can simultaneously force all the other males who have had no mating access to still produce for those offspring that are not theirs.

In some schools, the number of children from single parent (single mother) households is already a majority. But there are probably no schools left where none of the children are from single mother households. Feminism gave women all the necessary power to make either bad reproductive choices with the least productive men, while having the state forcibly distributing the costs to all other men, or no fault divorces with the most productive men whereby a productive man can be discarded, but still be forced to turn over his production to a woman to whom he no longer has access, for children with whom he is no longer allowed a parental relationship.

If you are a productive man already mined for your resources by a woman who’s discarded you, but forced you to continue paying for her reproductive choices, or if you are a childless man, and you are paying income taxes to fund single mother assistance, or property taxes which go to support the education of the children in those schools… then you’re already there.

Reverse evolution.

The state can do this because it has the power to forcibly extract resources from all men for the support of single women and their children, regardless of wether any of those other men have chosen to be fathers or not.

Eighteen trillion dollars (and rising) of debt shows pretty conclusively that the state can’t even do that.  Single motherhood is utterly unsustainable.

If you choose none of them, you pay higher taxes than that married man with his ‘deductions’ would pay,

Expect those deductions to go away in the future as the debt eclipses the need to buy single mommy votes.

but whom someone chose to get pregnant.

Yeah.  Her.  She has the sole “right to choose”, so the pregnancy is her sole choice.  Don’t ever let anyone tell you differently.

How will an entire generation of men react to being told that the state will force them to support women they have all chosen not to marry?

We’re already seeing it.  Upwards of one in five men have left the official workforce.  Many have disappeared entirely.  And those numbers are growing, and growing significantly.  Those men are feeding themselves somehow, but they are NOT contributing to the support of some slore and her spawn, regardless of what the government might say about it.

just going to be a recipe for reverse evolution?

It’s certainly a recipe for total societal and economic collapse.  We’ve seen it before any time redistributionism in any form happens.  Eventually you run out of other people’s money.

But evolution?  Not really.  Even by the theories of punctuated equilibrium and fast evolution it’s still too fast to have any permanent evolutionary effect.  You would have to have sustained redistributionism for a few thousand years, but redistributionism cannot last that long.  If something as major as the agricultural revolution didn’t have any sustained, measurable evolutionary effect on humans that we can detect so far, greedy baby mommas don’t stand a chance.

Then again:

How will an entire generation of men react to being told that the state will force them to support women they have all chosen not to marry?

There is a historical precedence for this. Emperor Augustus put a tax on unmarried men and childless couples. The targets could not wiggle off the hook by disappearing because they were of the noble class. There was a flurry of sham marriages and adoptions to get around the rules.

Our current situation brings to mind the famous “too many rats in a cage” experiment. One key difference is the rats did not have a tyrannical central government which could force them to breed.

Patriarchal Traditionalism (ie. straight after the ending of any significant war) –> women = “property of men”  | men have authority  | women submit to men  |  laws explicitly favor men

next stage:

Gynocentric Traditionalism (ie. during economic boom times after war)  –> women protected  |  men responsible for women  | male sacrifice = honor

next stage:

Matriarchal Feminism   —>  welfare replaces men’s provision  |  women are liberated from responsibility  |  men required to be responsible for women  |  laws explicitly favor women

and as for the final stage (where we currently seem to be heading towards) before the cycle repeats all over:

Economic Collapse  —> overburdened welfare state  |  marriage abandonment  |  demographic winter

And here is the full video explaining all the juicy details in depth:

Let’s see whatever happens next, gents with or without our awareness of the current situation.

Best

Ned T.

Evolution is a singular term, no matter which direction it takes, it is still evolution. To append “reverse” to the term is pointless, as regressive evolution is still simply evolution, just in a direction that takes the organism to a biologicaly inferior result.

Good, bad, pointless. It’s just evolution.

If you’d like a good idea of how a society like this functions, just look at inner cities, it has been going on there for decades.

On a side note…this is why I have been putting as much of my retirement savings as possible into ROTH accounts, a post tax brokerage account, and in the future more real estate for the tax benefits rental properties offer.  The only pre-tax savings I do is enough to max my match out for my 401k.  I’m 31 now, and I’m more than willing to gamble that taxes will be higher 20-30 years from now when I want to retire because of our national debt and constantly growing cost of social programs.

What really scares me is how unprepared for retirement baby boomers are, and they had a lot higher marriage rate than my generation, and spent their prime in a much better economic era.  Even unhappily married/never divorced couples had the chance to attack life with dual incomes and work out a schedule without having to pay for child care.  When I look at younger people…I see a lot of men who can’t save much for retirement because they are getting massacred by child support, and a lot of women with a crappy job who live high on the hog for 10-20 years milking child support and public assistance money.  Once that ends, you have a bunch of men approaching 50 who can finally start saving for retirement but really lose out on the power of compounding, and a bunch of women approaching 50 who have nothing saved because women can’t plan ahead, just saw their income get cut down to less than half, and generally have a sucky job because they never imagined they wouldn’t be able to hook another sucker before the gravy train ended and would have to provide for themselves.  Someones gonna have to foot the bill for them.

Agreed Ned…
It seems the most painful part of that circle is going to be the next one. The video is more historically thorough than any I’ve seen, and the author does a good job of making it a statement of facts and data without instilling emotion into it. It does make sense to me that fluctuations in relative abundance or scarcity of resources over time would create a fluctuating effect on behaviors that adapt to them. Perhaps at some point, there will have been enough of these cycles that history will be clear enough for anyone to see, and we as a species can adapt to this reality, although I don’t hold my breath for that happening in my lifetime.

i think as a whole the human race is resilient and even if this current unfortunate model comes to a breaking point, we’ll get through.  even if there seem to be more slackers now, in a time of crisis great men will rise up to grab the reins and get things moving again.