Post: #1

WASHINGTON—According to a report released Thursday by the Pew Research Center, a steadily increasing number of weak, emasculated men—if you can still even call them men—are choosing to forego a career and stay at home to raise their children. “Our research shows that thousands of American men—all of whom are pitifully frail and impotent—are leaving the workforce to debase themselves by preparing lunches and tending to their children, ultimately rejecting their role as the family breadwinner in favor of what is effectively gender reassignment,” said head researcher Paul Lopez, noting that the growing ranks of meek, delicate little husbands and fathers often spent their entire days embarrassing themselves and their sex by cleaning, shopping for groceries, and in some extreme cases, folding laundry. “While their anatomy would suggest that, yes, in purely biological terms these are males, their wholesale renunciation of their masculinity has relegated them to the status of subservient, ineffectual nothings who might as well be castrated since that is what they clearly desire anyway.” The report also described a correlated trend of repellent, overly aggressive, testosterone-crazed mothers flooding the corporate world.

From the Onion. Video included. Comedians are still able to speak some truth.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-...rki,35194/

Post: #2

I've believed this for some time.

The truth is that we are engaged in a struggle for our very existence. If you think that sentence is hyperbolic or alarmist, think again about what you've seen in your day-to-day life around you. Every day.

These people (feminists and their supporters) are deliberate, serious, and unrelenting. By mounting some kind of challenge to their dominance, we are fighting for the survival of social order.

Post: #3

There is nothing emasculated about being a stay at home dad, and I'm actively seeking that role. My wife can go suffer through all day board meetings, then come home for a turn and burn to head back out for a fundraiser or cocktail party. Equal rights is a bitch. In the meantime....

I'll be sitting at home taking classes fulltime online. Raising kids is hard, but the Swedish nanny knows about that. She don't bitch though cause I pay her well from my wife's salary, and give her the dick. She takes it like a champ in hopes that one day I'll divorce and we'll go live somewhere tropical off 1/2 the divorce earnings, child support, and alimony. But that is here, and while she is feeding my offspring, I'll be next door with the lonely housewives complaining about how hard life is being a prisoner in upper crust suburbia. One by one they'll fuck, cause of my reputation of slinging dick like a rockstar.

Yeah, time to find me a corporate woman.

Post: #4

"Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't."

Post: #5

onion hitting close to home for the betas?

Post: #6

My girlfriend makes like three times what I do. If we reproduce I wouldn't mind staying home. I've got kids from an earlier relationship - they're wayyy more fun than most of the jobs I've had.

I wonder if the housework-decreases-attraction thing (/thread-32826.html) still occurs if the woman doesn't observe the work. If a man loads the dishwasher and his wife isn't there to see it, does her cunt still dry up?

Post: #7

Sounds like Ali has been watching the movie Mr. Mom....

Post: #8

Gotta go with Ali on this one. A sugar momma is the way to go.

Post: #9

(02-07-2014 02:07 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  Sounds like Ali has been watching the movie Mr. Mom....

"wanna beer?"

"It's 7 o'clock in the morning!!!"

"Scotch?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMlqjOqNrjw

Post: #10

Being a stay at home dad would be so awesome. It's just important to not let her back you into a corner and you need to maintain a hella dominant frame. Think the male lion in his pride.

I'd bite the next opportunity I get. Gotta role in the right circles.

Make sure to get the alimony at the end of it too!

Post: #11

Guys its VERY feasible with style, game, and a little money to move through the right city/circles to wife up a girl making $200K. Over the years I've dated chicks that moved onto white collar professions, or been hit on by cougars whose husbands left her with a string of beach side hotels. This isn't even including the mass of girls out there that come from family wealth.

So from a marriage standpoint, why not stay at home? You make $50k annually, and she brings in $250K and better benefits. Live tight between paydays or high on the hog w/ some leftover.

There is NOTHING about housework that is emasculating. If you live alone you do it. If you had a kid and your wife died, you'd still do it. You still do it even when you have a bunch of concubines coming over and won't let them do it cause they ball up your socks stretching out the tops.

So from experience I can promise you that the pussy don't dry up because you are independent. In fact, the pussy will get wetter. I know from an array of different cultural experiences.

Its only emasculating if you make it, and most guys already are to begin with. Hire an au pair to help with the tasks around the house, and you have a lot of time for education, fitness, xbox, nurturing your child, and still maintaining your manhood. And really, 5 years is all you need to stay home, as when the offspring goes to kindergarten, you are now free.

If I had a rich wife, kid, au pair, and stay at home status for 5 years? I'd be a fucking well-educated crossfit beast. My wife would be hauling ass home every evening to keep me on lockdown......and make sure my white devil dick didn't accidentally slip in the Swedish nanny.


Frenchie- a chick I know is a dentist, and is terrified of getting divorced cause her husband put her through school. She knows the alimony monster will get her. He holds the cards.

Post: #12

Quote:There is NOTHING about housework that is emasculating. If you live alone you do it.

The fuck I do....

Post: #13

Before I was red pill, I was really against SAHD. In fact, the whole reason why I discovered the manosphere was because of Liz Mundy and Hanna Rosin's bashing of men. It freaked me out so much I was obsessed with finding data that proved them wrong. Once I got into the red pill/manosphere, I realized how being a workhorse for a 21st century housewife just b/c I want it to be the 1950s was delusional, and that in modern day America, being a breadwinner is a one way ticket to chump city-unless you have solid LTR game, and with LTR game, you can be the "lion"-stay at home, make the wife work, and still have significant hand. If the SAHD fad actually continues (so much of the data is distorted by the heavy amount of single moms, only like 20% of married women outearn their husbands, and only 1% are stay-at-homes), the cathedral will nip it in the bud.

Post: #14

(02-07-2014 02:42 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

Quote:There is NOTHING about housework that is emasculating. If you live alone you do it.

The fuck I do....

Post: #15

My favorite comment:

"Bitch is fucking retarded"

I've been on my own since I left home for college and do my cleaning, nothing weird about it.

Post: #16

(02-06-2014 07:18 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  There is nothing emasculated about being a stay at home dad, and I'm actively seeking that role. My wife can go suffer through all day board meetings, then come home for a turn and burn to head back out for a fundraiser or cocktail party. Equal rights is a bitch. In the meantime....

Yeah, I am considering going that way. Find a Filipina or Malaysian with excellent English and skills - nurse, IT, or accountant, give her a baby, then stay at home collecting my pension and social security with the baby while she goes out and works.

Post: #17

I'd be completely fine with being a stay-at-home-dad if women appreciated it. I don't care who earns money or does what, as long as they love each other and their kids are fine. But as we have seen from both divorce stats, earning stats and the famous "Why I left my Beta husband" article on Marie Claire, women will actually despise you for doing that, and there will be an extremely high chance (say, 85% instead of the usual 50%) of your marriage going down the drain in the form of either divorce or involuntary celibacy. So no thanks.

Funny how humans respond to stimuli, eh?

Post: #18

Honestly I'm not sure about this one, I've got nothing against dudes staying at home. Betas be beta regardless of who goes to work, I'm certain I'm not the only guy on this forum who has fooled around with bored house wives while their husband is a work, allowing the woman to be the bread winner isn't going to make a man more or less of a bitch.

If you embrace the ideals of this forum, for a lack of a better term 'red pill' ideas, you will still be killing it while you're Mrs is out earning. A strong masculine hand, presence, and leadership is essential to the raising of any children and to holding a family together. When you look at the issues surrounding fatherless children, like affinity for crime and drugs, it becomes obvious that, as ever, that men add value that women simply do not. Motherless children are not a problem, they do not have the same issues that fatherless kids do. More men deciding to drop out the traditional role would have a fine affect on children, and so long as they follow the masculine ideals of self improvement and achievement that this embraces it's all good.

The only loss would be the inferior output at the work place that feminisation causes. The improved free time given to men would result in intellectual gains though, free thought, philosophy, invention and innovation, a new renaissance of masculinity. The idea that men owe it to society to keep it running is slave thinking. All of society, all of civilisation, all gains made by the human race is the result of male effort. The profits and gains arising from men working is the by product of the natural male trait to endeavour and create.

I have no interest in controlling my fellow man, let him do what's best for him.

Post: #19

Also to the guys highlighting that women aren't attracted to sahd and will probably cheat/divorce them. So fucking what? If you're a punk girls are going to cheat on you. If a women thinks, nay if a women feels like leaving you would benefit her in anyway she's gone. Women already divorce at the drop of a hat, they don't give a shit about the damage they do to the man or to their children. Accept the reality of the situation, the whole marriage racket is skewed in women's favour and they respond to incentives.

Now I'm the case of sahds who aren't weaklings the entire script is flipped. Suddenly a woman cheating on you results in you divorcing her, getting the children, the home, and a sizable chunk of her assets. The number one reason women give for divorcing is that they'll win. Women finding effeminate men repulsive is nothing new, and this is where the distaste for men doing house work comes in. So hire a maid or make her do the housework. If she bitches about working all day just to come home to do chores then laugh in her face and say that's women's work before dragging her into bed and dominating her. She'll get right on the dishes after that.

Also it's not even the house work, it's the men. You don't think women find guys who can cook attractive? Chefs get no pussy? If you cook, clean, and repair like a man then she'll still be into you. Men should not embrace the female model of lazy non achievement and child monitoring.

Ali has the right call on this, those of you calling sahds out are holding on to limiting beliefs. Do you think being a working man ensures women are attracted to you? Does being the breadwinner stop your wife cheating on you? Does it stop her divorcing you? Me and Ali will be having mutual affairs with your bored housewives while your at work between gym sessions and running day game at the grocery on newly minted women who are dying to buy us gifts having just divorced their long suffering bread winner husband.

Post: #20

While you're completely right that a man working isn't going to prevent the wife from cheating or divorce, and likewise a SAHD with good game can still not be emasculated by his role (consider that the woman in the story I linked fell for another stay at home dad, just a more confident one - no guarantee that she won't divorce him too, but still an indication that game trumps economics), I still think that the idea you're pushing is (on average) a bad one. Why? Let me explain through an analogy that we often use - women and short hair:

A woman with long hair isn't going to prevent her boyfriend from cheating or dumping her, and likewise a hot woman with short hair can still look great.

What is the key sentiment that is the same in both your and mine example? Despite. The woman who remains just as hot with short hair does so despite having short hair. The man who remains just as attractive to his wife does so despite being a stay at home dad. Not because - despite.

In an age where women already have so much motivation for divorce, why would you pile another reason on top of it? In an age where a man's self confidence and game have so many obstacles, why add yet another obstacle in its path? To brag about completing a game on high difficulty? Where are my achievement points?

This analogy can be repeated a number of ways. A man with no limbs can still attract a hot woman and have great game (see Nick Vujicic), but do you really want to go down that path? Why?

I can understand if you accidentally find yourself in that position (i.e. you lose your job and can't find it anymore - in that case Statsi's advice is going to come in handy so you don't turn into a bitch) - but willingly plan for that? Fuck that. Why not marry an American woman with 20 previous partners while we're at that too? We already have enough enemies in life. We don't need to expose our throats to another one just to prove something.



I personally know a couple where the wife earns about 4x more than the husband so he has become a SAHD (he has just a high school diploma, whereas she has a doctorate), and the amount of "find a better man" advice that she is showered with everyday is incredible. His solid game has helped him to keep that in check and I don't think that they're ever going to divorce but still, it's another obstacle to deal with.

p.s. have no illusions that being the lower earner in a relationship will protect you from the child support racket if the worst-case scenario happens. The court can just as well use your SAHD status against you by claiming that the child will be more financially secure with the mother, giving full custody to her, and then ordering you to pay "to help out".

Post: #21

Every time I've mentioned marriage before it's been to say no man should get married. This is the one exception I'd make to that rule, as there is so much to gain.

The short hair and sahd is a false equivalency, having short hair will harm a women's happiness, being a sahd will improve a(as stated masculine) man's happiness. Women with short hair are sabotaging themselves when it comes to getting men they desire. A sahd has more time to pursue women he desires, as the only factor relevant to an individual man's ability to get women is game(roughly divide able into inner and outer game, or as I'd prefer game and value) a man's career has very little effect on his value, the income means nothing to us when it comes to women since we aren't suckers trying to buy our way into a girl's pants. Jobs that affect value are ones that add status, which you can gain while being a sahd anyway. With so much free time to practice an instrument, a language, to build minor celebrity in your chosen interests.

We're talking about marrying top end women who's income allows for you to never work and to hire a maid. As always women don't owe you anything and you don't owe them anything. You shouldn't be attaching your happiness to the actions of someone as capricious as the majority of western women. If she cheats on you divorce her and get yours, even at 200k income you'd be good for 50k a year alimony for the rest of your life, beyond that it's all gravy.

Children are awarded to the primary care giver, which would be the sahd. However it's a red herring anyway as even if you're correct that some how the working woman would get the children it's a mute point as if you were the bread winner the woman would get the children anyway. However, statistically the children go to the primary care giver the vast majority of the time. I'd assume the guys on this forum would be sharp enough to prepare for the potential divorce long before it happens to be the best position for maximum gain.

Honestly it's entirely a winning situation. It's like being asked if you want a 50k passive income and half the assets a high earner has acquired throughout their life. Even if the divorce rate was 100% and I'd definitely lose custody of the children I'd take the deal. Since the alternative is to lose custody of the children and have to pay child support, alimony, and hand over half the assets you've acquired to the woman destroying your family.

The reason I say no man should get married is that there is only loss in it for the vast majority of men. When the situation is flipped then it stands to reason that every man should get married.

Post: #22

You'd have to have your own source of passive income and have your own assets, maybe securely offshore. You would want to own your own house and have a pre-nup lock it down for you before going into the marriage. You would need a will with clauses motivating her to stay around. You would need to stay in shape and game her all of the time. Many things could go wrong in this, but the important thing you would do is screening the woman for deviousness and greed. Many things can go wrong in almost anything.

I would not recommend it for someone in their 30s with a wife in her 20s, but for me at 57, with a prospective wife around 37, might be OK. Then the wife can double as home care when I get Alzheimer's.

Post: #23

Claims of who would get custody of the children are valueless without evidence
http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachus..._Study.htm (on mobile, can't format link) shows that when men pursue custody they get it, and that's including men who aren't the primary care giver. Again it's not the system, it's the men. If you're not a bitch about things then the system works for you.

Post: #24

Sp5 your advice is the wrong way round surely? Those are steps a breadwinning husband has to undertake. If you're a sahd you don't want a prenup since she has the greatest income, you don't need to screen against greed as a divorce results in your gain.

Honestly, I'd marry a women I hate if she was rich. It's all gravy.

Post: #25

(02-08-2014 04:42 AM)Statsi Wrote:  Claims of who would get custody of the children are valueless without evidence
http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachus..._Study.htm (on mobile, can't format link) shows that when men pursue custody they get it, and that's including men who aren't the primary care giver. Again it's not the system, it's the men. If you're not a bitch about things then the system works for you.

I was operating under the assumption of the "bargaining in the shadow of the law", but I have to admit that your document really is correct.

Massachusetts study, sample size 700 Wrote:2. Refuting complaints that the bias in favor of mothers was pervasive, we found that fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time.

[*831] Although perceptions of bias that discourage fathers from seeking custody are a concern, n52 the outcome of cases in which custody is contested provides a more direct source of information about possible judicial gender bias. We heard testimony from George Kelly, a representative of Concerned Fathers, that in contested custody cases, mothers are awarded physical custody over 90% of the time. Mr. Kelly was unable to provide substantiation, however, n53 and our own investigation revealed a very different picture.

The statewide sample of attorneys who responded to the family law survey had collectively represented fathers seeking custody in over 2,100 cases in the last 5 years. n54 They reported that the fathers obtained primary physical custody in 29% of the cases, and joint physical custody in an additional 65% of the cases. Thus, when fathers actively sought physical custody, mothers obtained primary physical custody in only 7% of cases. The attorneys reported that the fathers had been primary caretakers in 29% of the cases in which they had sought custody.

I stand corrected. If a man has been the primary caretaker, he is really almost certain to win primary physical custody as well. I am glad to hear that.

Note however, that the study presents this as abusive and questions at multiple points why women are being held to a greater standard here. This is not to mention the possibility of the court interpreting your claim that the woman is not fit custody can be interpreted as "emotional abuse" or "coercion".

The overall tone is vastly biased in the "this is an injustice that needs to be fixed urgently" direction.

It is also in contrast with this, a few paragraphs later:

Massachusetts study, sample size 700 Wrote:6. Women support obligors may be held to a lower standard than men, paying less than men in similar circumstances would be ordered to pay.

Only a small percentage of mothers are ordered to pay child support to fathers. Some information gathered by the Committee indicates that they may be held to a different standard. Family service officers in focus groups reported that they believe women obligors are not held to the same standards as men, but are required to pay less. Some family service officers noted that under the guidelines some custodial men began to receive support for the first time. Half the attorneys responding to the family law survey reported that women rarely or never are ordered to pay custodial fathers when the fathers would have had to pay support to a custodial mother. One contributing factor to this difference may be that women who lose custody often do so because of mental, physical, or emotional handicaps that prevent them from earning comparably to men.

But when a man has handicaps that limit his earning capacity, he could get imputed income instead. So why not the women too? It also implies that women who lose custody really do lose it because they already have mental or other problems, which makes the previous paragraph a bit questionable. Could it be that a dad requesting custody has such a high chance of getting at least joint custody merely because the woman is obviously screwed up? If she isn't, what are your chances then?

Anyways, it is a very interesting and well done study. I recommend everyone to read it (if you're short on time, just search for "custody" and read around it where it appears). I'm glad to hear that the "Shadow of the law" effect is not so great as the folk wisdom describes it to be.

With all that said, while I acknowledge your risk/benefit calculation about marrying a woman who earns 200 000$ a year (whereas you earn zero) and being a SAHD as valid, you have to admit that this is incredibly rare. How many women who earn 200 000 a year would be willing to marry such a man in the first place?