Outcome

Linanati writes:

“In more primitive times, when life was a lot more dangerous, impregnating a lot of women might not have had a greater chance of success than staying with and protecting your children and their mother.”

Overall, I agree with that.

But that’s the whole point of the manosphere.

Stating how things have changed and men must adapt to the new circumstances.

 

 

Nowadays, with healthcare, schools, police and firefighters men don’t really need to protect their children to have them survive.

Other men will gladly do it for them.

So why should they bother?

The stark, cruel but brutal Truth is:

They shouldn’t.

Which is exactly why we’ve seen the numbers of single-mothers quadruple over the past 50 years.

 

 

The new “best” male reproductive strategy became simply spawning bastards and leave others to hold the bag.

Repeat as enjoyable.

However, women have finally caught on to the new tactics being utilized.

 

 

As in all wars, they’ve adjusted their strategy accordingly.

“The best course for men would be to do both, except that today the government will make you provide for illegitimate children.”

The “best” course for males living more than 50 years ago may have been that, I certainly concede.

But with the change in divorce/custody laws, marriage is a far cry from any guarantee he’ll even be permitted to protect his own offspring.

So men simply spawned bastards.

 

 

Again, women have caught on, so now they’re making the government serve their needs – as opposed to simply changing their own behavior.

Therefore, after this fascinating and spirited debate, I’m forced to admit the “best” strategy for men until things somehow change is:

Have no children.

Or spawn bastards with women that can’t/won’t bring the State to bear against them.

 

 

To be clear, this does not make me happy.

Merely informed.

Ω