07 April 2012

The Future Is Not Pretty For Women

Sixty percent of women in the United States who are 65 or older do not have enough income to cover basic expenses without help, even if they are married, according to the report.
That is compared to 41 percent of men in that age group.
The report compares income, not including food stamps or help with utility bills, to very basic monthly expenses for housing, food, transportation and health care. For a single person, this Elder Economic Security Standard Index, developed by Wider Opportunities for Women, estimates an annual income of $19,000 to $28,000, depending on whether they own their homes outright, rent or pay a mortgage. For married couples, the necessary income to cover basic expenses ranges from $29,500 to $39,000.
More than half the nation’s elderly do not make enough. But women, who typically outlive men, are more vulnerable. Nearly half of white women, 61 percent of Asian women and three-quarters of black and Hispanic women have incomes that fall below the Elder Index levels. Men 65 or older report incomes that are almost 75 percent higher than women’s.

There are two trends that promise a miserable future for women.

First, the sexual revolution, which has enabled female promiscuity on a scale heretofore unseen, has done serious damage to marriage, and will continue to do so as men realize that informal LTRs are preferable to legal marriages.  This means that women are less likely to have husbands in the future, ad will be less assured of having access to a man’s wealth.  This will be problematic for women since it is already difficult for them to make ends meet without spousal or government help.

Second, the current federal spending trend is unsustainable.  Quite simply all the benefits that today’s retirees take for granted, plus all the other benefits that politicians continue to promise them in their various bids for election, will simply not exist in the future.  People cannot have everything, which is one way of saying that resources are finite.  At the current rate of consumption, they will eventually be squandered, and no one will have anything.  This means that women will be even worse off because the government will not be able to provide for them anymore, particularly if environmentalists of the left wing manage to impose their plans for destroying the economy for Gaia.

Women will have three options to avoid this mess.  They can either take their future financial security into their own hands by getting degrees and jobs (and real jobs, wherein one actually contributes to the economy and doesn’t merely engage in busy work), they can marry beta providers (trololol), or they can become part of an alpha harem (and here alpha refers to a man who can command resources to provide for multiple women). My guess is that women will go down first path until the bottom falls out of the economy and demand for superfluous workers declines, and then they will go down the third path, which will incidentally lead to the decline of civilization.


  1. Women have taken a HUGE gamble in separating sex from provider. I have no future compunction to subsidize women who i currently watch make a ton of shitty decisions. I feel like someone is going to coerce me in the future though. Gotta brush up on those solicitation rejections.....

  2. I fully concur. The same women who scream WAGE GAP and demand more gov't cheese out of one side of their mouth, and END OF MEN/WOMEN ARE THE RICHER SEX! out of the other, will be the same generation of lonely old hags who will die childless and alone in a third-rate retirement shelter, with a lap full of cats.

    I, for one, take delight in their fate. The skanks deserve nothing less.

  3. Feminism's death will be presaged by the lamentations of the cat ladies.

    Future generations of women will look at them with horror and they will be a story older women will teach to the younger ones, warning them of the dangers of straying from the straight and narrow.

  4. Women will simply have the laws rewritten so that they can extract resources from men NOT their husbands. We see this happening in the Commonwealth countries now (e.g. Britain & Australia), whereby members of cohabiting couples (read women) are entitled to the SAME RIGHTS AS THEIR MARRIED COUNTERPARTS after the relationship has lasted a certain period of time; I think it's two years or so as of now. Governments have to do something, because men are opting out of marriage in increasing numbers.

    As men catch on to these new rules of the game, the government will shorten the time period needed to qualify for 'equal divorce rights' of married people. It'll be shortened to 1.5 years, a year, and so on. It'll get to the point that, going on much more than a date or two will obligate you to a woman, providing for her and any bastard womb turds she has.

    Also, gov't could do the bachelor tax. It was done in ancient Rome, right? Since we're repeating Rome's history, why couldn't this happen again? Also, since men are so comprehensively discriminated against (leading to the vaunted 'end of men' and supposed 'superiority of women'), why not take this extra step? Why not really stick it to American men? What are they going to do, bitch some more?

    No, gov't and the women to whom they cater have more options for wealth transfer. Guys in cohabiting relationships are already being hit outside the US; how long before that happens here? Also, there's the bachelor tax; that would only make the prevalent discrimination and marginalization of men more official. No, we have a ways to go before the gov't gives up and the system collapses. Since women are the majority, they won't give up their bennies without a fight.

  5. Simon: "[women will be] less assured of having access to a man’s wealth...."

    MM: "Women will simply have the laws rewritten so that they can extract resources from men NOT their husbands"

    You both are correct. Which is why rational slackerhood is so powerful. It is the male version of the sort of 'liberation' women pursued 50 years ago. Whereas women's lib loosed women from the home and chastity, men's lib frees them from expectations of responsibility and productivity.

    Rational slackerhood short-circuits women's access to men's wealth by creating less of it in the first place. Therefore no wealth to be attached, either in a voluntary union, via confiscation, or fractional slavery.

  6. Matt Strictland07 April, 2012 19:35

    Male unemployment and underemployment is too high to support a bachelor tax. Youth unemployment and underemployment are approaching 50% in many countries

    They can try but you can't get blood from a turnip.

    More likely they'll have to try austerity and hope the country doesn't revolt or burn.

    Also what Elusive Wapiti said makes sense, a lot of guys simply aren't going to strive for that big house, new car and all that.

    I am sure the State will try to force people to buy new cars or something but again, people don't have jobs or income. They'll just do the minimum required if that.

    As far as shortening the cohabitation period, sure.

    Men will just live alone and the hypergamous harlotry out there are not going to risk what they want by clamping down too much. If it gets too risky, the pool of men will dry up further and that would wreck the game.

    There has not been a single state that can force people to make families and make things run properly.

    Romania under Nicolai Chauchescu banned abortion and birth control and tried to rape gang a baby boom, they did that but as soon as those kids grew up, well we know what happened to the leaders there.

    Since the invention of birth control, the rise of capitalism and the decline of religion, everything has to be paid for.

    There are no free high quality citizens and among the people you want in your society (the ones that enable it to be rich and powerful) every child is a rational transaction and as technology increases, pricey.

    That brief period of good citizens, cheap is over.

    And sure the poor can pop out kids without thinking but they can't raise them for more than being what they are and many of them lack the biology to be smart. TANSTAAFL ..

    Last point, male birth control is growing closer

    Sooner or later despite political delays RISUG or something much like it will be available.

    And yes there are a lot of delays, its a scary technology

    If it gets to be cheap , common and widely used it will put an end to the birth control games women play. No more baby poaching and in every case the man will have to consent.

    That sounds great but women and too an extent Western society are depending on those "single moms" to put out a new crop of citizens for them.

    This is insane but even the psychopaths in government and the corporate sector know you have to have babies from somewhere and that immigrants just aren't cutting it, specially as you bring in too many and they'll expel the existing leaders.

    Now RISUG has some downsides, it makes mass sterilization cheap and reliable for one and this will create all sorts of political pressure (imagine tying welfare benefits to RISUG use for example) but if/when male birth control happens its going to be huge.

    We won't handle it well but what can anyone do.

  7. Great artIcle, I completely agree with Matt Strictland above. As a young man soon to graduate college, I'm planning to forego the nice new car, house and starting a family in order to retire at age 39 to another country. As of now I focus on learning languages and enjoying a few short term flings with co-eds. Guys my age laugh when I tell them about reliable residual income, but when I'm retired at 40 on a beach in Thailand we'll see who's laughing.

  8. If the government can't get a bachelor tax a man tax will be their next bet. When men turn off marriage en masse a man tax is inevitable. Just you watch; the Swedish feminists may have failed a few years ago with the idea but feminists elsewhere will try again eventually. Sooner or later government will be forced to make a choice - tax men even further or back off and stop pandering to women. Government will opt for the former but that won't be the end of it. Man tax, male revolution, and then the end of feminism.

  9. Are alimony and child support payments factored in when counting female income?

    "not including food stamps or help with utility bills"

    Aren't women disproportionately benefiting from those?


  10. @Fearless

    It *is* possible to do what you're saying. I am pretty close to 40 and I'm calling it quits imminently. I saved the bulk of my disposable income from working as a software engineer and then later a manager in Silicon Valley for about sixteen years. After working for so long I've accumulated enough wealth to live off the income stream. My last day of work is in three weeks.

    During this time I've learned to speak Russian fluently by studying a few hours a week over eight or nine years.

    The rules in my new life are going to be a lot different than in the old one. I've spent a fair amount of my vacation time in Russia over the past ten years and the "social contract" between men and women is 180 degrees different.

    This path wasn't easy and it cost me a lot. I'm not sure I would recommend this path to others. However, it CAN be done and I'm the proof.

  11. "Feminism's death will be presaged by the lamentations of the cat ladies.

    Future generations of women will look at them with horror and they will be a story older women will teach to the younger ones, warning them of the dangers of straying from the straight and narrow."

    Dude, they see them all the time. But they will not learn. Most are impervious to learning. And by the way, they waste A LOT of money.

  12. If and when the government takes more drastic measures to redistribute wealth from men to women, it may push men further and further into "rational slackerhood" or Roosh-style emigration. However, it could also have a different effect.

    As their victimization at the hands of the government becomes more blatant, men could do what real men are supposed to do and refuse to be victims. I hope that, instead of merely refusing to allow modern feminist society to exploit them, men actively rebel against this society by attempting to institute a more favorable political, economic, and social order.

    Men need to get degrees in high-demand fields and earn lots of money, something they have always been good at. Instead of standing idly by while the government skims the cream off of the tops of their incomes, though, they need to move to low-tax areas, keep more of what they earn, and use some of that money to support third-party candidates who will stand up for them against mainstream feminist hacks of both stripes. All politics is local in the U.S., so this is the first step towards regaining national political power. Meanwhile, men need to re-learn how to be men every minute of every day by practicing armed and unarmed combat skills to train their bodies, reading the great works of past ages (all of which were written by men) to train their brains, and taking absolutely zero shit whatsoever from any woman.

    We can already see this happening. Those of us who spend time in the "manosphere" have already introduced many of these measures into our own lives. More of us take the red pill every day. In the end, we may be too little and too late to stop the tide of matriarchal neo-barbarism from sweeping over the world and reducing Western civilization to a few scattered packs of what are basically really smart animals, but even so, we will have stood our ground like men.

  13. Women have killed the goose that has laid the golden egg. The option of joining an alpha males harem will not happen. If you want to see why refer to Germany, Russia, Ukraine etc.

    For men who are members of the Mens Business Association the legislation changes you make reference to are not relevant. MBAs will be able to move their assets to switzerland. If they wish TOTAL secrecy that is doable as well.

    MBA Law Services will re-present them in the MBA courts and MBA Peace Officers will defend their rights with force if necessary.

    Men who are part of the MBA are part of the solution, part of the future. Men who are not part of MBA are part of the past, part of the problem. It is that simple.

  14. "Dude, they see them all the time. But they will not learn. Most are impervious to learning. And by the way, they waste A LOT of money."

    Correct. I was talking to my ukrainian lady friend recently. For those who have not heard about the rape and setting on fire and subsequent death of an 18 year old girl in the ukraine just google it.

    My lady friend was telling me how violent prone men were in the Ukraine and how the police do not protect them. I said to her words to the effect.

    "You women are just too stupid to ever listen to us men or learn from us. The reason this girl was so violently assaulted, and why there is so much crime in the Ukraine, is that WOMEN told men they wanted to be "liberated". You told men "we do not need you" and you told men "we can take your child away from you at any time". And many do.

    So you have taken away the ONE THING that men really want in the main. The chance to raise a family. So what do men do when they do not have a chance to raise a family? Not much. They will not work hard. They will steal more often as they have little to lose by doing so. They will rape or sexually assault more often as they do not have a wife to have sex with, a basic male need.

    And when all that happens what do you women say? You say "someone must do something to protect us women". By this you mean that MEN should become police and RISK THEIR LIVES trying to stop OTHER MEN from harming women. And these police men are the SAME MEN you told you did not want or need because you were "equal"...and for some reason, even the best and smartest women like you do not see that the CAUSE of these problems are women yourselves.

    You NEVER look at yourselves and ask if you are doing something that CAUSES this kind of male behaviour."

    1. I don't know that women "cause" the violent male behavior, but, there is no doubt that women were STUPIDLY LYING when they said they were *equal* to men and didn't need men any more than a fish needed a bicycle. At this point they can't admit that fish do need bicycles.