@Durek_The_Bald Great question. When one feels like a fringe politician who has spent their life in opposition it can be hard to know what you would actually enact if you ever got into government! So I appreciate the question. What would I put in my manifesto?

Most importantly as the first thing to get passed; a man should retain title to all he has ever earnt, inherited, purchased and not actually given away. So you buy her a necklace, she keeps it but you buy a car and she drives it or a house and she lives in it and there is no way you should lose this. This simple firming up of title itself brings authority to decide however you like about your stuff, no questions.

The right of self expression -of ideas and feelings- provided it does no direct physical harm to others. So if a man is upset and angry, he is not an abuser, he is an upset angry man, same as when woman is upset and angry. If a man thinks something is morally or politically wrong or should be changed, he can say it without being cancelled. A man's authority over his own ideas beyond his head is a very important thing to secure.

More controversial and harder to pass -Ideally one vote in elections per net tax paying (not benefit receiving) household (or household where the head has previously paid tax for 30 years or is a veteran crippled on active service), main earner be to hold that vote (would prefer this to be "the man" but main earner would be more "equal opportunity" and would sell better on a manifesto.

What I would ideally like but doubt is achievable in my life time; Legal head of household status for fathers would be ideal. It always was this way in the past but it seems a sin to even think of bringing it back. Many men will not even dare to put it in writing but basically you are the captain and if you can't agree with first mate, then she has to go along with your decision. Real paternal authority. Women should I think be able to quit relationships easily but while in them with children real paternal authority would be ideal for the overall well being of the family.

I have an ongoing debate with my current lady that amuses me not a little and goes something like this. She is very christian and so she believes that men are heads of household and women should be submissive but sometimes when we end up disagreeing on something she tells me she just can't accept it. Occasionally (when she has acted up unfairly to start) I will then bring up her views on submissive women and then the hamster wheel really spins up. The answers never make sense but they go along the line of "But I can't accept this. You are supposed to listen to me before making a decision..." I then explain that I did listen but my decision is not to follow her advice this time.

I suggest she needs to accept that I have made a decision as a leader, taking into account the combined interest of the whole family and she needs to follow it (in fact just like I let her make her own decisions about her property money and time). I don't kick off about these decisions of hers. This does not down go well. I have come to understand that "Submissive" means "not sitting in the driving seat". It does not mean "will accept where the driver chooses to go" it appears to mean "backseat driver" The reality is that in her mind my head of household status is just a captain's hat. It is not a captain's authority.

In fact the real authority resides with the person who has the most legal rights and this is the woman. She also has the most social capital and allowance. If a wife just can't stand how a man is acting he is probably going to be at risk of being an abuser. Its OK if she leaves and takes his money. A man is only socially considered entitled to a happy life if he has a happy wife. A women is entitled outright to a happy life (morally speaking) and a man who does not give her it is at the very least a poor man, a dead beat, a let down, a failure and maybe worse. This gives women the real authority. "I feel triggered" "I feel threatened" "I feel unhappy" these things are enough to overturn a man's decisions. Yet why?

It is only because western society protects women so much that they are allowed to cancel male ideas and leadership. Western society feels putting men into this straight jacket is OK because it will protect some women from some bad men (even though it fucks all the other men up). In the end women are over valued and the things male leadership could bring are undervalued.

Men no longer actually protect women. They used to do a really great job of it in 90% of cases, an OK one in 9% and a criminally bad job of it in 1%. Now society does an OK job in 90% of cases while men comply to society (The job today is Ok if you count making women all anxious and feeling they are vulnerable and second class).

The gods take half the good out of a man when the make him a slave. The state has taken half the good out of men when they make him responsible but without authority. The state has taken away the good men can do by making fair well intention cool headed long term decisions for the intergenerational good of their whole family. The "patriarchy" was actually the best dam thing mankind ever built because it protected and nurtured the basic unit of society -the family.

Virtue presently lies with the state and the culture not with the man. A man is no longer sovereign for good or ill. Yet if you build a company you are the sovereign boss for good or ill. Build a household and you are the care taker, even though you do most of the work and come up with most of the beneficial problem solving an innovation. Its not fair and it takes most of the good out of men and many of the intergeneration benefits out of family. So I want men to have this authority back -for good and for ill because I believe the good in men greatly outweighs the bad on balance.

@Durek_The_Bald

@First-light

Guys, it's a joke.

Just ignore us losers giving you grief. Joke or not, the discussion timing was interesting. You brought up an angle a few hours after I was asked by a young latina I'm acquainted with if she should sell nudes of herself. Seems its still the habit for chicks who want to make 'extra money', when they otherwise have no discernible skills like sewing or whatnot, to only consider exploring the whore skill tree. Retarded.

Maybe I'm smitten with her or was in the midst of post-nut clarity, I ended up giving her practical digital media career advice. We've all probably seen youtube videos of distraught hoes in tears that they're not even making bus fare with their onlyfans to think differently. Yea?

I told her that while I can't stop her from trying, regardless how pretty she might be, unless she gets a handler the sheer volume of competition would completely crowd her out before she could hope to build an audience. She'd have way better luck making money online through crowdfunding streaming herself a few hours a week practicing on her piano. She could even grow her wardrobe by giving simps the option to buy her clothes to wear on stream from an online store wish list. She had everything needed to get started minus a tripod for her smartphone and you can get those for a few bucks.