State-Assigned Wives - Alex Kaschuta | Maiden Mother Matriarch
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- 📰 Subscribe to Maiden Mother Matriarch here to listen to full extended episodes: louiseperry.substack.com
In this episode of MMM, Louise Perry and Alex Kaschuta discuss p*ssy communism; the political regime imagined by the Andrew Tates of the internet, in which all waves of feminism are rolled back - possibly the industrial revolution as well - and the government issues wives to single men.
The MMM podcast can also be found on Apple, Spotify, and all other streaming platforms: linktr.ee/maid...
Follow Maiden Mother Matriarch on social media:
Twitter: @maiden_podcast
Instagram: @maiden_mother_matriarch
TikTok: @maiden_podcast
#LouisePerry #AlexKaschuta #MaidenMotherMatriarch
Mens incentive for marriage was access to sex. In a world of casual relationships and distractions, coupled with a 50% divorce rate driven by unhappy wives, I don't blame modern men for opting out
@@BeneathTheFoogyDew So...the sisters of the men who enjoyed the lowering of sexual mores of the 60s-90s would have married men born between 1896 and 1927? Are you serious?
Well, most marriage were a consequence of sex. I found a book on the Internet Archive a few years ago. A study of the sexual practices in NE US in the late 1600s, published in the early 1700s. Sadly can't relocate it.l
Nothing salacious as their data source was church records. But perusing it I did notice a lot of seemingly young married couples before the congregation confessing to fornication. Unsaid, but it seemed evident, the young women was holding exhibit A. Someone did the math apparently.
That is so disheartening to hear. And at the same time, why would women want to marry someone who only wants sex and cares about nothing else? Women are opting out of marriage because as you’ve proven, most men only care about sex.
In a sense I think the welfare state is the state-assigned husband for a lot of women. Fatherless households would be rare without it.
Then you should be pro choice. Unless you're fine with a ton of homeless hungry unwanted kids.
@@kaybrown7733 But my point is that some women are choosing to 'have children with the state' often with bad outcomes for the state and society. Fatherlessness correlates with criminality and joblessness. Abortion is already a free choice.
@Paul.Morgan what woman says I just don't want the father of my child to be responsible? I've never heard any woman ever say that. It's men not wanting to be a parent in real life. I've been in child support and custody cases in court, and 99% of the time, the mom is the responsible parent who chooses to be there with the child. Moms can not force men to be dads. The state is only trying to make sure the child doesn't starve. You all act like a mom can live on welfare. News Flash 165 a month doesn't even cover the light bill, which is why most single moms work usually more than 1 job. You sound like someone who's never met an actual working class single mom.
This is why I say welfare should incentivize non hormonal IUDs instead of fatherless hellspawn.
@@skylinefever That sounds good to me. It's remarkable that everybody is a eugenicist if it comes to choosing a sperm or egg donor but it's a mainstream taboo to say that social outcomes have natural causes.
I'm not a fan of MGTOW or red-pill either, both strike me as funhouse mirror reflections of postmodern feminism, but I understand why a lot of them feel the way they do. Unfortunately, this guest is pulling their worst takes, misrepresenting them, and applying that distorted view across the board.
So I guess I can assume you are ether NOT A MAN or are an effeminate, or homosexual feminine directed male. Because any masculine conservative man is onboard with MGTOW principal. I would say that it is probably wise to actually do some research before you start posting about movements you both don't understand and don't have any real information on. The original MGTOW Moto is pretty dam easy to google and find out.
I find this interviewee circumlocutes in quite an opaque way. Not sure if there are any sentences in there.
"Dating is a libertarian space... " lol. On net, men pay tax and women consume tax as welfare and benefit from affirmative action. The current disparity in men's status relative to women and resultant distortions in the 'sexual marketplace' are side effects of government policy. And that's without getting into Family Law and housing policy...
@6:35 That’s not entirely true. Prostitution is considered “the oldest profession” because of this dynamic. It’s basically the distribution of sex.
What this woman is discussing is hypergamy-the female mating strategy to mate across and up the social hierarchy. When the red pill community says that 80% of men can't get married, what they're really suggesting is that these men's status has dropped to a point where they can no longer attract females. The only way to change this situation is to alter the status of males such that they become more attractive to females. There are two ways to do this: you can increase the ability of males to raise their status levels so that women will find them attractive and want to mate with them, or you can decrease female status and independence, forcing females to rely on males for resource provisioning.
My argument centers on the emancipation of females, which began in the 1920s and culminated in the 1960s. By the 1970s, this emancipation was fully realized and cemented into law, marking a period when females no longer required males politically, economically, or sexually. As a consequence, the relative status of males has diminished significantly, to the extent that they are no longer seen as attractive mating partners. This shift in dynamics directly contributes to the declining birth rates and the drop in the total fertility rate from sustainable levels to, in some instances, below one.
Furthermore, if the relative status of males is not increased, or if the status of females is not adjusted downward, these low birth rates and total fertility rates pose an existential threat to humanity. The stability of population levels and the continuity of societal functions depend critically on addressing these imbalances. Without such adjustments, the current trends in fertility may jeopardize the future survival and prosperity of human societies.
Happy Mother’s Day to all you Mothers !
In 1910, 16% of 40-yr-olds had never married. Don't have the gender breakdown. This declined until bottoming out at 6% in 1980 for those born in 1940. It then started rising again reaching 16% again in 2000. So 90 years of more people married before age 40. It has continued to rise to 25% in 2022.
So the idea that most people were married in the past is a fallacy. Most unmarried men went to the frontier, in the military, etc. Spinster is a legal term for a never-married woman, especially one over the normal marrying age. " From the 17th century, the word was appended to names as the official legal description of an unmarried woman"
Ironically, the industrial revolution encouraged marriage and children since people could afford children with the increase in wealth.
"People had to be able to ‘afford’ to marry and have children. When economic conditions changed dramatically and called for a huge burst of extra labour, in other words with the early labour-intensive phase of the industrial revolution, then the age at marriage dropped and a larger proportion of the population married. Population grew rapidly as jobs became available." ---Invention of the Modern World, Alan Macfarlane
The unmarried population is bigger now and increasing, and singledom is increaing.
But there is another issue now, which is that for men, there is more things around them that trugger their sexual arousal and so on(social media ...etc) and that makes them feel more what they are missing ...
The stats you cited literally say that most people were married in the past. By implication, 84% of 40 year olds had been married in 1910, 94% had been married in 1980. Now only about 75% of 40 year olds have ever been married. This is lower than it was even during the Great Depression suggesting that it isn't due to people's finances. Maybe it's due to fornication and bastardy having become normalized especially among the lowest classes.
Women like to converse in pairs in which one does all or most of the talking and the other does all or most of the listening. It seems like discussion is not mostly about an exchange or debate of ideas but mostly about relating and bonding by forming these radically heterogeneous dyads. I have seen it many times across many ages and cultures. I suppose, more than men, women process thoughts by speaking to someone who is actively listening, and this active listener recognizes and supports this need in the other woman. Fascinating.
I did a stand up bit on this years ago. I was pointing out how absurd socialism is. "From each according to their needs and each according to their abilities." This is beyond satire and beneath contempt.
It’s from each according to ability; to each according to need.” It’s from the Bible .
Some scholars trace the phrase to the New Testament.[11][12] In Acts of the Apostles the lifestyle of the community of believers in Jerusalem is described as communal (without individual possession), and uses the phrase "distribution was made unto every man according as he had need" (διεδίδετο δὲ ἑκάστῳ καθότι ἄν τις χρείαν εἶχεν):
Acts 4:32-35: ³² And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. ³³ And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. ³⁴ Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, ³⁵ And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Other scholars find its origins in "the Roman legal concept of obligation in solidum",[13] in which "everyone assumes responsibility for anyone who cannot pay his debt, and he is conversely responsible for everyone else".[
And that's why socialists have no sense of humor
I'm sure it got a big laugh
Femcel cope
Anyone who says femcel is a toxic pathetic key piece of the world's problems. And showing their idiocy
Do we still believe that feminism is necessary? Wtf is going on? Why is discussing any women's issues considered intolerant all of a sudden?
@@anarchist_parableBecause some men are deeply emotionally fragile and cannot handle it when women talk about things that don’t center them. Now I sit and wait to be called a “misandrist” for making this obvious observation.
@@KLKosi123you'll anyway blame men regardless of whichever topic you talk about. "Patriarchy" is women's favourite scapegoat. It's so hard for so many women to think beyond all of this being a silly gender war.
The title made me click.
How about "state-assigned husbands"? Do you get it now?
You are a smart woman, Alex, and I like you.
But you have been trolled this time around. Grow a thick skin and move on from this embarrassment.
Channel is still very light on Matriarchs...
Maiden, Mother, Matriarch (or maiden, mother, crone) symbolizes the life stages of a female human:
“The Triple Goddess is a deity or deity archetype revered in many Neopagan religious and spiritual traditions. In common Neopagan usage, the Triple Goddess is viewed as a triunity of three distinct aspects or figures united in one being. These three figures are often described as the Maiden, the Mother, and the Crone, each of which symbolizes both a separate stage in the female life cycle and a phase of the Moon, and often rules one of the realms of heavens, earth, and underworld. In various forms of Wicca, her masculine consort is the Horned God.”
Suggested matriarch?
@@wabi_sabi52Yes I know. But the point still stands that the channel is light on matriarchs.
Word salad 🤔
Ideally there would only be one party and everyone would have a right to vote, but for one party
Didn't various communist countries try it?