By "forum post" I mean that this is really more or less something I'd appreciate read, and then posting why you think it is wrong, right or in between.
Where to begin... I've been thinking of this topic since Christmas or a little before, and have hit brick walls occasionally with where the logic ends or where it goes from there and IF we really want things to turn out that way. Welmer's recent post on The Spearhead inspired me to write this piece and get it discussed. I know there are great writers in the MRM/MGTOW, but I can't write something of this magnitude alone, it needs to be discussed and dissected from every perspective of the old, the young, the in between, the pro-natal, and the lifelong bachelors. So after reading my case, feel free to say what's on your mind. If I could get this posted on The Spearhead, that'd be great, but writings on The Spearhead a bit more thought out than this one, if a talented writer would like to take this after its processed and run with it, feel free. I don't "own" ideas or writing, at least I don't think I do.
This post is mostly intended for a male audience, because... well parts of it are only experienced by mostly Men, and Women trying to vicariously write may not understand the entire picture of what Men go through, especially since Men and Women have completely different expectations, desires toward and outlooks on rearing offspring. Feel free to post if you're Woman, but understand if you're disagreed with or supported but for reasons you didn't expect.
Anyway, my topic today is about gene preservation; bringing future generations into the world.
Now, personally, I think it is GREAT to have your own offspring, it's up to the individual if he/she wants kids, but I've always kinda imagined what it would be like, and not imagining nightmares.
"But AmStrat, this is the case AGAINST gene preservation!"
Correct, and I don't want to drive yet another difference between Men in the MRM/MGTOW/FRM (F stands for Fathers), but this needs to be dealt with, at least in a philosophical sense.
We are all familiar with the Catalog of Shaming Language, if not, click and you will be. What I see on forums occasionally is yet another series of words that seems to only really serve a purpose in argument only in shutting down opposition... that's shaming language to me. It usually goes along the lines of "The future belongs to those who create children, so your philosophies and achievements will die with you." or something to that effect.
First off, there are plenty of Men who used to strive for the "white picket fence" fantasy of a wife, children, job and being a pillar of the community (to borrow a phrase from The Fifth Horseman), but the vitriolic Man-hatred, changes in law and general trend of any Man getting married and having kids going through hell in family court, losing all or most of what they own, and never seeing their kids again have proven to these Men that perhaps it's better not trying, the statistics and risk weighting certainly say so. What good is passing on genes if 1. you'll never see them, 2. they'll grow up in a misandric household or have THEIR ideals of marriage broken just by watching what just happened and 3. they may never pass on THEIR genes, which is actually one of the main points of you passing on yours.
I want to say that to call those who don't pass on their genes "genetic losers" or "losers" is kinda irrelevant. What did they (perhaps we) lose? I don't want to sound Keynesian, but in the as n approaches infinity, the likelihood of your genes passing on (since it is not ensured) approaches zero. Calling someone a "loser" just because "their" genes won't directly show up in the next generation is like judging someone solely based on how fast they can eat, it doesn't actually matter and here's why.
I was inspired to write this topic in the first place by Biblical Manhood (I think that's the post that did it, not sure.) because he makes a point whether you're atheist or Christian; Your genes are very very VERY similar to your neighbor. Heck, biology textbooks place the genetic difference between any two people on Earth as .1%. This means that you are, at worst, 99.9% the same genetics as anyone else, and even more if that person is the same race as you, or comes from the same ancestral country. Passing on general things like your skin color, your polydactly, or your interest in engineering WON'T be in short supply from others, so why does it have to be you? (Note: It didn't mention if the people could be of different genders, seeing as how different the Y and X chromosome are, even if Men have one)
But I'm getting ahead of myself, I want to emphasize that quite a few in the MGTOW and Marriage Strike wouldn't feel this way if the laws and attitudes were different, we have nothing against kids, but to throw oneself into a meat grinder in hopes of offspring emerging is a fool's game.
"Finding a good church" and settling down with "the right Woman" isn't absolute. Women change, and though some look at them as horrific past mistakes there were regulations to keep her from breaking the marriage contract selfishly in the past. As long as there are divorce courts and the no fault divorce laws (and many others) on the books, it doesn't matter how devout you are, or how traditional you thought your wife was when you married her, you're a potential target. Change the system, then we'll see.
I want to make a point that genetic legacy SHOULDN'T be that important to a man, it's okay to want, but disadvantageous to need. If you absolutely HAVE to "get your genes passed on" you can be screwed any which way to make the deal happen. But if you only WANT offspring, you can take or leave any trashy deal, and that's precisely what many Men are doing. To me, genetic legacy is really maintenance. Some say that passing on genes is one's truest or only purpose... why is that? You live to pass on life to others? Who's purpose will be to pass genes on to more? When does something get done that isn't just about continuation? That's why I believe that gene preservation is a maintenance function, and not the "purpose of why we're here", it's something that, for a species to continue, needs to be done, but not by every individual. The ones who don't pass on a genetic legacy will pursue other callings. If we all just bred and bred and bred, what else would get done? Precisely. If a truck is traveling from Washington to Canada but needs to refuel every so often, is it's "grand purpose" to refuel, to use that fuel, and refuel again? No, it's to deliver whatever needs to be delivered, but refueling is an essential function to this. THUS, I conclude (at your discretion) that populating is an important function, but not "the grand scheme", and that those who opt not to for whatever reason are not necessarily "losers" of any sort. Feel free to call them "genetic losers", but that is a shortcoming in one field, by the same logic you are a "chemical engineering loser", a "furniture designing loser", a "satellite trajections specialization loser" and various other kinds of loser, anything you don't "do". Loser then loses any sharp point edge it had and you might as well have not even brought it up.
Still not convinced? I'm not surprised, everyone has a different idea on "how things should be" or how things are ranked. Let me tell you why I am against gene preservation as an individual NEED. It places all the power in the hands of Women. Are you saying that Women inherently know which genes are superior? To what purpose? Is every Woman getting impregnated by biker thug making the best choice? Okay, maybe (for evolutionists) in evolutionary psychology she is because (well, the short of it) is that in pre-civilization times, he would best defend her and her children, at least in theory. But are said genes the best genes for NOW? Is living a lifestyle that drains the rest of civilization good for present day? Probably not.
Now for my first brickwall: Some SMBCs (single mothers by choice, NOT Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal) and SMBC advocates (surprise surprise, usually other Women) argue that single Men should be up for marrying SMBCs even with no chance of creating a legacy of his own due to whatever limitations. They argue that such a proposition is a "ready made family". I've just argued that genetic preservation shouldn't matter to a Man, but if a Man WANTS this but doesn't NEED it, he should be able to walk away. I don't want my argument to bolster SMBCs because Women just don't get the difference between Men and Women in this regard, they get the long end of the stick. Yes, they get pregnant, then have to give birth, but to know 100% for sure that the offspring that emerges is YOURS makes it worth it and then some... with interest! Men don't have this guarantee, even if/when paternity tests become mandatory and the Man leaves the cheating and cuckolding harridan, it just means a failed trial, a broken heart, and a betrayed sense of self. This is why I don't think Women can really understand the viewpoint of the Man in this context. Gen tics don't matter to Women because they CAN'T matter to Women! You're asking the Ocean what it's like to be dry, it'll never know! Women will never understand the pains of cuckoldry.
This post is subject to edit when I think of what else I thought while thinking of this post, BUT feel free to begin posting!