This post is a more detailed explanation of the concept found in this comment from earlier today.
Traditional marriage
Before feminism ruined marriage, marriage was a lifelong partnership between a man and a woman. (Yes, polygamy existed in many places but that's irrelevant to this discussion). Within this union, the man brought masculinity and the women brought femininity to the table. These two polar opposites worked together to produce a happy and balanced home. While the success rate was never 100%, overall, as a generalization, it worked.
Masculinity and femininity
The polar opposites of masculinity and femininity can be seen in several different ways. One of these is - as giver and receiver. Provider and provided for, protector and protected, go getter and gotten for are just some of the traditional gender roles that come back to the base concept of the man being the giver and the woman the receiver.
When this union works the way it's supposed to work, these two characteristics are like the charge and grounding ends of batteries which together produce a stable dose of power. The masculine is the charge, always out to conquer new horizons and the feminine is the force that keeps him grounded.
For thousands of years, this arrangement worked most of the time because society enforced these roles in such a way that neither end of the sexual dynamic could go unrestrained.
Leaders and followers
In addition to the physical protection and provision that was given by men and received by women, was something deeper - the essence of being a giver and receiver and the deep intimacy that comes with it.
Without the giver, the receiver goes hungry and unprotected. Without the receiver, the giver has no one to give to. Being a provider and protector is built right into the male psyche and brings a deep sense of satisfaction to the men who engage in it.
This partnership called marriage was therefore a two way street. Men gave and women received, men led and women followed. Givers create receivers and receivers create givers. Leaders create followers and followers create leaders. Women need men for their physical needs and men need women for their emotional needs.
Takers
Along came feminism and began to fight battle after battle to remove responsibility from women while still expecting men to remain responsible for traditional male roles of responsibility. Many women today are progressive with regards to female gender roles and traditional with regards to male gender roles.
Men remain the givers and women remain the recipients of male generosity and giving. This hasn't changed and probably never will change because it's likely to be biologically driven. What did change was that women used to be receivers and now they're takers. The relationship used to go both ways and now it's a one way street.
As a side note - this one way giving is what's referred to as simping which is the female exploitation of the very deep seated male need to be a provider and protector. Many men wake up as a result of this one sided deal because unlike the deep satisfaction brought about by the giver and receiver relationship - the giver and taker relationship leaves one feeling empty and taken advantage of.
Conclusion
There's a fundamental difference between receiving and taking. The former has been a key element in thousands of years of successful marriages while the latter is a key element in the breakdown of gender relations in general and marriage relations in particular.
As more and more men wake up and refuse to keep on being the givers in this one sided deal, more and more women are asking - where are all the good men? Ladies, you did this to yourselves. You (collectively) became takers instead of receivers. You made the bed you now lay in.
Cheers!
BluepillProfessor 5y ago
Men: All the responsibility with all benefits removed. No family. No wife. Nothing except what the wife chooses to let you have.
Women: All the benefits remain. Children, hers. House, hers. Social support. Hers. The wife needs to do NOTHING and these are all hers. She need not support her man. She is free to betray him. There is not a scrap of requirements for women once you are married. None, except what the husband refuses to tolerate- but even then she is always free to leave with all of the benefits.
loneliness-inc Mod 5y ago
Which means, he doesn't even have the option of not tolerating whatever he doesn't want to tolerate without considerable risk.
lorem6300118 5y ago
Great post! Thanks for sharing.
Let me know if this is off-topic: does this also apply to the OASDI-SSI imbalance ( ie Social security is going broke)?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_in_the_United_States
[deleted] 5y ago
Social security is not going broke, as there was never any money to begin with. Payouts have always become immediate credit balances due from the surety bonds created by the US Treasure and backed by the people and assets of those people that willing gave them up.
So, yes, your post is off topic, but only slightly in the sense that A) Social security can't be bankrupt because there was no fund to begin with and B) the imbalance doesn't describe the relationship between men and women
I will agree, however, that the topic you lay here is a direct cause of women's advantage in the dating markets because social security stands as a direct benefit to women in that their part of the exchange from men is security and resources. So if they are already getting their end of the bargain, they need much more from men in society today, and that creates a growing disparity between the 2 genders (men can't get what they want out of the exchange from similar [governmental] functions)
lorem6300118 5y ago
Thank you for your patience with my off-topic thought, and for your thoughtful reply. (Btw, as a lurker, I do want to offer many thanks for your contributions to this subreddit: these topics were never discussed before we had the internet: it was blue pill all the way down. I appreciate your generous sharing of observations and insight.)
What I meant to say (but clearly did not!) is not that Social Security is “going broke”, but that with the coming tide of automation, I choose OASDI over SSI. Even though OASDI is me throwing my actual income away, to no benefit to me.
The “social contact”, if there ever was one, was that the employed (OASDI) would “help” those too old or sick to work (ie SSI).
What we have now, I posit, is an increasing number of takers. A sense of community is gone; at 42 I have been working for 25 years, and I have never been thanked by local government, military veterans, or SSI recipients for my contribution. I can’t put my finger on it, but something has changed. The original post gets at it, but I can’t quite express myself cogently.
I could have used my OASDI earnings to great effect over the years. Instead they have been taken, and I use that word intentionally, per the original post.
I don’t expect anyone to agree with me, or even care, but I like to think that paying so much into OASDI gives me the right to consider the matter. I am getting no other benefit from it.
Again, many thanks for your kind reply, and I definitely appreciate your contributions. Your thoughts, expressed in this subreddit, have made me a better person.
loneliness-inc Mod 5y ago
You should organize your thoughts and write a post. Here if it fits the theme of this sub, elsewhere if it fits elsewhere.
The issue of the welfare state is a major and multifaceted issue. While there is definitely overlap with gender issues, it remains a separate issue and therefore is too off topic for me to comment on here.
[deleted] 5y ago
Thank you for your kind words. Also, I'm glad I could make such an impact on you. I forget sometimes that we have many lurkers here, so it's nice to hear from someone that enjoys it as much as the commenters do.
I think I understand what you are saying here, that the correlation has been made between a presumed relationship [contract] and and the presumed social [compact]. That is an interesting connection you have made there. I really don't think it fits this discussion, but since it particularly interests me, I am going to entertain it. So, you brought out a response from me, you disobedient lurker you. Keep in mind that I'm not offering any kind of advice, and none of this can be used for any purpose other than for your own entertainment. These thought exercises are important to understand the way the world works, not to make decisions on how to operate or conduct yourself within it. I am merely explaining this so that the topic of "takers/receivers" can be expressed in other ways.
There never was. There was never any kind of understanding between social security beneficiaries and social security administrators. The administrators don't even work for the people as they are not government institutions, but delegated private organizations to fulfill the purpose of government. The distinction is required because congress only has the legal power to appropriate taxes on yearly approval basis. If they did that, than they would need to collect tax money for recipients every year that the program runs. Instead they delegate the task of managing taxpayer funds to the private IRS which then handles the legality of collecting those taxes. Since the IRC actually removes itself, no liability is imposed upon it to ever report or audit its procedures. As a private organization without any liability to the people, delegated by the government to handle private affairs of foreigners that wish to do business with the government, it enjoys both the enforcement of government while avoiding the ramifications of failing to provide its services.
Now that you understand who/what/why such an organization was created, you now know that it has nothing to do with "helping" people. It exists purely as a liaison from private and foreign interests, operating completely outside of any requirements for people at all.
The object was always to increase the demand for services so that those [people] would start to depend on those services, so that government would force more [people] to sign up for those services. It was always a ponzi scheme, and anyone that received anything from it was always a taker. No [one] that pays into the program is entitled to anything from it. All who are a part (or could be a part of it) of it are considered beneficiaries, even if they receive nothing and contribute everything.
The fundamental reason for ensure the programs success was remove any sense of community. A strong, tight nit community is impervious to dependency and reliance on larger organizations. Such a community would be very difficult to control or persuade.
And why should any [one] thank you for anything? You are the [one] benefiting. If someone promises to provide you with an apple when you are hungry, do you require them to thank you for making a note of what they are going to do for you? Your obligation for benefiting from the system is that you must support it. In this analogy, you must water the apple trees every now and then. That should be common sense, but it has been spun in such a way that people think they are "paying" then they should be "getting". Since you voluntarily "paid" for a system you "benefit" from, there is nothing left in the transaction to be thanked for.
Nothing has changed. The agenda is the same, remove people from being able to help themselves so that they rely on the cold, calculated interests of a machine. All you are seeing is the goal manifesting due to the global agenda and increasing political divide.
That is your fault. You signed up for it, you consented to it, you provided into it, you benefited from it, you made sure that it exists and is supported without expecting anything from it. The legal ramifications for doing this are:
1) you become property of the organization that you asked to take care of you
2) you become a ward of the organization in order for them to fulfill the task you asked of them
3) you gave them permission to use your time/energy/labor/property to meet the goals of the task you asked of them
4) you make yourself accountable in a legal, private jurisdiction outside of government, but with all the limitations of government.
5) you made yourself a public servant responsible for all the functions of government, the general welfare of the people, and agency for all the actions imposed by that governing body
6) you accepted the lack of human rights within this jurisdiction
7) you accepted that you would not be able to claim any loss of time/energy/labor/property due to your ignorance of your agreement
8) you accepted the provisions for your welfare would not guaranteed and that no [one] individual could ever claim unfair treatment
9) you accepted responsibility for the functions of a private organization without requiring reciprocation from that organization, providing evidence you do not know how to take care of yourself or your own affairs
10) you opened up legal vulnerabilities for public servants to claim power of attorney over you should you fail to make good on your obligations or create public distrust in the program you asked to care for you
They didn't take shit. You gave them everything, and expected nothing in return (legally speaking). They owe you nothing and now you want to complain about unfair treatment. Tread lightly: see 10) above.
I don't agree with what you are saying because it doesn't sound like you read the law. You should start reading USC Title 42, then read USC Title 8, then read USC Title 18. Once you have understood those 3 books, you will be ready to release yourself from these chains of torture that government fraudulently claims you created knowingly, willingly, and solely for your benefit.
Nope. You have no rights: see 6) above.
Wrong again. You are being taken care of because you publicly stated you were unable to. Then you created evidence of this fact yearly, to ensure you "do not forget".
Now, the way that this all comes together in the post is when dealing with women and relationships, a similar process happens, and unironicaly, a similar result.
A woman will provide you with sex. That is your benefit. You never stated how much sex you will get however, so once the deed is done, technically she 'fulfilled' her end of the bargain. You never laid out the terms of acquiring sex from her either, so she has an open ended agreement with you to 'take care of you' in 'any way she deems fit'. You take agency for her and all her foibles, including the liability she imposes on your wealth, assets, and mental stability. You agree that you will treat her how she wants to be treated, and if you fail to 'meet these obligations' than she will 'use her [social machines] to extract resources from you by force'. You made no contract with her, and understood no such arrangement, so the burden falls upon you to make good on those terms you ignorantly agreed to by taking from her what you desired. Since you made no such effort to legally understand how the relationship operates, the default the legal framework that her government agents will apply in order to 'provide for the general welfare of society'.
Humans have the unlimited capacity to contract with one another or entities. With such great freedom, an equal portion of responsibility is required to prevent bad contracts and agreements from usurping their ability to function as humans. When you sign a marriage license, the woman is given an immediate blank check to extract resources from you, with her only discretion in the matter how much and with what efficiency she can utilize this vice against you.
lorem6300118 5y ago
Thank you for your thoughtful and intellectually vigorous reply. You have given me much to think about.
BewareTheOldMan 5y ago
"Along came feminism and began…to remove responsibility from women while still expecting men to remain responsible for traditional male roles of responsibility."
What feminists and many women have failed to learn is that you can't "liberate" one group without freeing another - in this case by freeing "sexually liberated" women they become easy lays for men. It's been my assessment that women lost big in the Sexual Revolution.
Men saw their chance to break free from traditional gender roles, accept easy sex with little to no requirements, live their lives in relative peace and ease, and allow women to bust their ass doing what men were formerly required and expected to do.
Notably, most women hate it. Also - they come against the stark reality that men have no use for hardcore feminist, man-hating, former/"reformed" man-hopping carousel riders other than casual sex.
And after watching men get smoked hard in divorces mostly initiated by women, even the Beta Males are opting out of traditional male roles and women are left frustrated by this exodus.
Fewer marriages + no kids = equals Toy R US shutdown and closures...that's just one of many second and third-order effects of "progressive" women behaving as men.
No intelligent man would trust this type of woman to be a loyal, dutiful, and faithful wife - much less serve in the honorable position as mother to his children.
loneliness-inc Mod 5y ago
I'm gonna nitpick on this because the rest of your comment is solid and there isn't anything for me to add or argue with ☺
While some/many men did engage in casual sex, most men still got married and many were still opening doors, lifting the heavy boxes and filling other male roles. It wasn't until a few decades later - in the 90's - when TRP ideas began to sprout among men. So men didn't break free the same way women did.
It just goes to show, how deeply ingrained the protector/provider instinct is within men.
BewareTheOldMan 5y ago
I agree with you on this - "It wasn't until...the 90's - when TRP ideas began to sprout among men."
When you consider it took almost 30 years for men to "react" to women's promiscuous behavior and rejecting traditional wife and mother roles, it reflects that men slowly but eventually refused the bad deal of marriage, family, legacy, and trad responsibilities.
It's almost 60 years since the Sexual Revolution and fewer men have interest in marriage to a known whore. The next 30 to 40 years should see even more men rejecting these women.
The male-shaming tactics in the year 2058 will be "interesting."
loneliness-inc Mod 5y ago
There are several reasons why it took so long, but now there's no turning back. The pendulum is swinging and isn't showing any signs of slowing down or switching course. Not any time soon.
We find ourselves in a stalemate of sorts. Everyone believes that women ought to have equal rights and opportunity but not everyone believes in women having equal responsibility. That's a big part of the problem. The two main options available are to either take women's rights away or to give them true equality including equal responsibility. Thing is, the will of the people isn't behind either. The traditional gender roles, family and marriage died a long time ago and there's no real interest in reviving it and the MRA's tried to achieve true equality and failed every time because the will of the people is not behind them.
This is a stalemate. There's no available solution under the current circumstances, all an individual man can do is to protect his own ass. Some MGTOW men are masturbation to the idea of a societal collapse but in reality, societal collapses are never pretty....
Fewer men are interested in marriage altogether.
That's really far out. I think a lot will change by then. There's only so far a society can travel down the path of insanity before a societal correction occurs and the pendulum swings in a different direction. I'm more interested to know what tactics they'll use in 2,3 and 5 years from now. 2013 was 5 years ago and 2008 was 10 years ago. A lot changed since then. I'm curious to see the changes to come.