The problem is that dads are being emasculated and chads are not being emasculated
Men want children, children are hostages against them, the hostages make them weak, so their wives despise them and fuck a black rapper, who fucks their husband’s daughters and beats their husband’s sons. If we preferentially give children to the husband in the event of divorce, women will not wish to divorce – not because they don’t want to lose their children, but because husbands will not behave in ways that make their wives wish to leave them.
If irresponsible and reckless women can take their husband’s children away, we severely weaken every man that loves his children. If we weaken him, his wife will despise him, and will take his children away, and his daughters will be raped and his sons beaten by some black rapper
It is not that women like being beaten, though some do. What they like is that they could be beaten. To successfully raise children, needs to be a man and a woman forming one household. One household, one captain. If cannot be beaten, not really one household. So women feel insecure.
They want to be held by strong hands. If not held by strong hands, will fuck black rappers.
They want a husband who is an oak, against whom their wild storms beat in vain. Women want men who actually have power in the relationship, despite the intemperate female urge to get their way in arguments.
Emancipation was a shit test that we failed. Women demand stuff, but when they get what they demand, are more unhappy
What nearly everyone wants is a secure relationship. But men want a secure relationship, and a mistress, or two mistresses, or two secure relationships plus some fly girls. And women want a secure relationship with a male that is way more alpha than they are, the billionaire vampire of romance novels. So they shit test their husbands by making demands, which demands are tests for weakness. They want a secure relationship with a strong man, and current rules make all men weak.
Prisoner’s dilemma ensues: Nobody gets what they want.
The deal that everyone would choose if they could is illegal and unenforceable, except by personal charisma and the potential of personal violence.
Women truthfully complained that the traditional deal meant that some women were apt to be severely oppressed and ill treated. But abolishing the traditional deal is not what anyone wanted. The result is that everyone gets ill treated. If a woman gets her way, she will feel insecure, and go looking for a man who denies her her way. Because if a woman gets her way, it is not really one household, one flesh, and if not really one household, difficult and dangerous to raise children in it.
The telos of sex is children. But because humans take a long time to raise children, must form a unitary bond. And so the Roman Catholic position on the natural law of sex is wrong, for the telos of sex is not children directly, but the unitary bond, the formation of one flesh, sex as an expression, the primary expression, of erotic love. Hence wife goggles. And because a ship must have one captain, because raising children requires a single household, sex is also an expression of female submission and male domination. More so for women than for men. Men fantasize about having sex with a woman, but women fantasize about submitting sexually to man’s masterful domination. Hence men look at women’s boobs while women shit test men. Women want to be taken, want to be commanded to submit to sex. They really hate this affirmative consent stuff.
If one household, then husband has sex whenever he feels like. If husband begs wife for permission every night, not one flesh, hence not a safe environment to raise children, hence women do not really like it. Moment to moment consent is a shit test. Women demand it, but if they get it, they really hate it.
If husbands need to ask wife’s permission for sex, then wife will not like sex. Further, if consent to sex is moment to moment, then consent to marriage is moment to moment, men and women are unable to make the deal that they both want: A secure, stable, durable bond. A safe place to raise children in. They both want it and neither can get it.
The type of relationship women need is illegal, not because women didn’t like it, but because they think they don’t like it. They struggle against it, but that is to test the strength of the husband, not because they actually don’t like it. They think they don’t like it so that they will only submit to a worthy man, but under current rules, no man is worthy.
Women were not fooled on manipulated into asking for this. It is what they really asked for, and what they think they really want. It is in the nature of a woman to rebel against a man. But if she successfully rebels, she loses interest in that man. He completely ceases to exist for her. She forgets that he ever existed.
So women only see men that dominate them and push them around, they are completely blind to the current American reality where women walk over men all the time as if they were carpets. Hence the common complaint that men continually interrupt, talk over, and ignore women, when in fact it is the other way around.
If a woman interrupts you and talks over you, you do not really exist in her universe.
If a woman interrupts her husband, then in her mind she is single and has been abandoned.
If a fertile age woman interrupts her husband, she is cruising for a dick, because every single fertile age woman is cruising for a dick.
If your fertile age wife interrupts you and talks over you, you are probably being cuckolded.