Da gbfm and yours truly are on the same lollzolzy page. From Le Chateau, circa 2008:
The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.
Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.
And here’s da gbfm, this week’s COTW winner, explaining the well-known connection between women and leftism:
hey hertaistetsts!! dA after much study nd reflectionsz like PLATO, da GBFM figured sometinsgz outs eiculicd logicalz!!
why do so many women vote for leftist governmentsz?
because leftist govenerments enforce da Alpha fux beta bucks system at gun point!!
obammasz tellz womenz “if you vote for me, you can ficky ficy and butthext all da thugsz, and i will criminalize white mensz for complimenting your hair in the workplace, and send da police state to grab and sconfisce da BETAs tax dollarsz zlzzlzloo and give them to you and your bastard chcildrenz, if yo vote for mez and da obammsz kangz lozlzoozolzozo”
So true it hurtslzlzlzllolz. Eunucho-tyranny.
more gbfm poetry,
once upon a time
teh great reformes said things like
“a chicken in every pot”
“A car in every garage”
“A family in every home”
todya the eneeoocn berenankerkieisi say, “lotsas cockas in every buttholeelllzlzolooloio lzozozl”
…and in every public bathroom.
PS There’s now a study which has confirmed (years late) both the Heartistian and GBFMian observations of the postmodern sexual/marital markets.
As predicted by a simple model of marital decision-making under uncertainty, we document that adverse shocks to the supply of ‘marriageable’ men reduce the prevalence of marriage and lower fertility but raise the fraction of children born to young and unwed mothers and living in in poor single-parent households. The falling marriage-market value of young men appears to be a quantitatively important contributor to the rising rate of out-of-wedlock childbearing and single-headed childrearing in the United States.
Two cardinal results help to weave these many empirical strands together. A first is that trade shocks faced by the U.S. manufacturing sector—which employs a disproportionate share of male workers—reduce the economic stature of men relative to women. Consistent with this pattern, shocks to male-intensive manufacturing industries are particularly destabilizing to marriage-markets. A second broad result, predicted by our model and strongly affirmed by the data, is that gender-specific shocks to labor-market outcomes have strikingly non-parallel impacts on marriage-market outcomes. Male-specific shocks reduce overall fertility, but reduce it by less among teens and unmarried mothers than among older and married mothers, thereby increasing the fraction of children born out of wedlock and living in poverty. Conversely, female-specific shocks have more modest effects on overall fertility but reduce the share of births to teens and unmarried mothers, thus raising in-wedlock births and reducing the fraction of children living in single-headed households. These patterns are consistent with our model in which a decline in the quality of male partners makes single motherhood a more attractive option to young mothers, while a decline in female earnings potential increases marriage rates conditional on fertility. Netting over the effects of secularly falling male earnings and improving women’s labor-market conditions during recent decades, our model predicts a reduction in both fertility and marriage, a rise in the fraction of children born out of wedlock, and an increase in the prevalence of children living in single-headed and poor households. These patterns are evident in the aggregate data and, moreover, hold as causal relationships within local labor markets when we isolate plausibly exogenous shocks to earnings opportunities overall and by gender.
So why are women now the eager instigators of divorce? What changed in the culture? Four things, primarily: the pill, easy divorce, women’s economic independence, and rigged laws that make divorce a good financial prospect for women. The four sirens of the sexual apocalypse together have created the perfect sociological storm where a woman has every incentive in the world to ditch a husband to follow the whims of her heart once his usefulness has been exhausted.
Female economic independence is the default setting when labor shocks adversely affect the economic and job prospects of men. Single mommery and alpha fux follows from that. The Trump phenomena is as much about working and middle class men striking out against an unfair economic and immigration system deliberately arranged to leave them behind as it is about beta males expressing their subconscious displeasure with the regressive, death match sexual market that has inevitably taken form as they have lost a chunk of their SMV currency.