Tag Archives: Series

Bureaucrats

Bill wrote last month about bureaucracy, and it was scathing. I have no more love for bureaucracy than the next man and all the scorn he heaps on bureaucracy is well deserved, but from my experience in the public sector, I think he is mistaken about bureaucrats.

Bill has a lot of scathing criticism of bureaucrats, but it is not the bureaucrats who are the problem, it is the bureaucracy itself. The system is what destroys.

I’m not saying there aren’t bad bureaucrats, just that bureaucrats are just like workers anywhere else. Most bureaucrats are decent enough folks, some are  assholes, and most are just doing their job and trying to get ahead. They respond to incentives just like anybody else.

There’s the problem: the system of incentives that government bureaucracy has created for its workers is what is destructive.

As Frost wrote in Freedom 25, there are 3 iron laws of bureaucracy:

1) You will never have to do anything.

2) If you ever actually do anything it will be useless.

3) If you ever actually do something useful, it will be rendered useless by subsequent layers of management.

It is this system which oppresses its own workers that is the problem.

Now, there are some not-so-great trends among bureaucrats: bureaucrats do tend to lean somewhat more leftwards and believe more in the efficacy of government solutions, but (most) bureaucrats are not trying to screw you, no more than any other group of people. Most bureaucrats either don’t care, are just going their jobs, or they honestly believe that they are helping the public.

This is the first in a planned short series of why government bureaucracy doesn’t work, where I’ll go into the incentives that create government failure in more detail.

****

For now though, I’ll address a few of his points:

The real power of the government is with the petty bureaucrat, the one you might see from time to time.

A single petty bureaucrat has almost no power; he can at most moderately inconvenience you. The petty bureaucrat is a slave to the rules. The biggest problem from a petty bureaucrat is not what the bureaucrat himself, but if he decides to put you into the system.

The system is a maze that is almost indecipherable to anyone who is not a lawyer or bureaucrat in that particular system. The system can ruin your life: whether it’s the family court system, the tax system, or what have you, but rare is it that a single bureaucrat can hurt you that much until you’re in the system.

The problem with the system is not with the people, it is the rules. Each person in a bureaucracy has a specific role and rules guiding his role. There are no deviations from your role or your rules. Even if breaking the rules in a minor way would benefit everyone involved, the bureaucrat is not allowed to deviate. There are also no exceptions to the rules, they have to be applied as written (and interpreted) to everybody equally, which is why you’ll occasionally here about stupidities, like bureaucrats shutting down children’s lemonade stands.

The rules are hard, cold, and unyielding. Even if they make no sense, the rules or roles are still paramount.

The people who are attracted to bureaucratic or government jobs know that they are unsuited for any social success or productive work and it infuriates them, so they want payback. What better way to get payback than to fuck with people who they know are their betters? They relish their jobs because every time they can make someone wait, audit their tax returns, place a lien on their property or in extreme cases cause someone to die, they feel that their revenge is taken.

In most countries, most bureaucrats aren’t any more (or less) competent than employees the private sector. The US is somewhat of an exception, for reasons I’ll explain in a later post. Most can, and many do, switch between the private and public sectors.

There are some gross incompetents in government, and the government union system makes removing incompetents much more difficult for bureaucracies than for the non-unionized private sector, but most government employees are reasonably competent at their functions.

Also, most bureaucrats (again, there are the occassional exceptions) don’t care about you. They don’t want to fuck you and they take no pleasure in doing so. Some may want to help you, but for the most part, they simply want to do their job so they can get paid and go home, just like most people in the private sector.

That’s not to say they won’t fuck you. If the rules they follow require fucking you, they’ll follow the rules, and you’re fucked, but that is a problem with the rules not the people and most people won’t take any pleasure out of it unless you’ve been a complete ass to them. They will feel apathy. (Whether that’s better or worse is debatable).

No truer statement was ever uttered and if you don’t believe me on this, just fuck with one of these dickheads. They will ensure that, to all extent of their government bestowed powers, they will do anything they can to make your life as hellish as possible and make you pay even more of your hard earned money than you do presently. Fuck with them enough, or just be in the wrong situation at the wrong time and they’ll ruin your life…or get you killed.

Generally, bureaucrats will not go out of their way to hurt you, but like most people they do have a tendency revenge. If you fuck with anyone they will usually try to get revenge, bureaucrats are not different. Generally, though, the bureaucrats are apathetic. As long as you don’t personally piss off an individual bureaucrat, they don’t care

They have no reference for what it is like to live as a person, much less a free individual with hopes and dreams and the means to attain them. And so, we are dangerous. We don’t behave “by the book.” And we have to be controlled. It’s all for our own best interests, isn’t it? Why should anyone be allowed to follow their individual talents and drive for the life they wish to live? That might make someone else feel inferior, just like they do. So we must be at the least controlled, and at the extreme destroyed.

It is true that progressivism and statism are somewhat more common among bureaucrats than the population as whole. For the most part though, it is not about control; most honestly think they are helping. (See the term useful idiots). Now, there are probably some bureaucrats at the higher echelons who want control and there are little tin gods at various lower levels, but most don’t want control.They are either apathetic or believe they are doing good. There is little malice behind most bureaucrats.

I’ll be going over why the system fails in the future, but for now, it is enough to say that blaming the bureaucrats is pointless. In fact, blaming the bureaucrats is counter-productive. The bureaucratic system is the problem, blaming bureaucrats rather than the system merely makes the alt-right seem petty and vindictive and alienates potential allies within the government (and yes, there are people in the government who are in favour of limited government).

Biblical Alpha: Samson

Next in our Biblical Alpha series is Samson.

Samson is promised by an angel to his parents, who are required to raise him a nazarite. He will never drink alcohol, eat unclean food, or cut his hair. The last one is important to the story. He’s born to his parent’s who raise him as instructed.

The first action Solomon does that’s recorded by the Bible is demand his parents get him a Philistine (Israel’s traditional enemies) woman as his wife.

Samson went down to Timnah and saw there a young Philistine woman. When he returned, he said to his father and mother, “I have seen a Philistine woman in Timnah; now get her for me as my wife.”

His father and mother replied, “Isn’t there an acceptable woman among your relatives or among all our people? Must you go to the uncircumcised Philistines to get a wife? ”

But Samson said to his father, “Get her for me. She’s the right one for me.” (His parents did not know that this was from the Lord, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.) (14:1-4)

That’s neither here nor there as alpha goes, but as they go to meet this woman:

As they approached the vineyards of Timnah, suddenly a young lion came roaring toward him. The Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon him so that he tore the lion apart with his bare hands as he might have torn a young goat. But he told neither his father nor his mother what he had done. (14:5-6)

He kills a lion with his bare hands. That’s pretty impressive demonstration of strength and real alpha behaviour.

On the other hand, in the next part of the story we can see that, although Samson can often act alpha in relation to his environment and other men, his betaness with women is often his downfall.

Now his father went down to see the woman. And there Samson held a feast, as was customary for young men. When the people saw him, they chose thirty men to be his companions.

“Let me tell you a riddle, ” Samson said to them. “If you can give me the answer within the seven days of the feast, I will give you thirty linen garments and thirty sets of clothes. If you can’t tell me the answer, you must give me thirty linen garments and thirty sets of clothes.”

“Tell us your riddle,” they said. “Let’s hear it.”

He replied,

“Out of the eater, something to eat;
out of the strong, something sweet.”

For three days they could not give the answer.

On the fourthday, they said to Samson’s wife, “Coax your husband into explaining the riddle for us, or we will burn you and your father’s household to death. Did you invite us here to steal our property?”

Then Samson’s wife threw herself on him, sobbing, “You hate me! You don’t really love me. You’ve given my people a riddle, but you haven’t told me the answer.”

“I haven’t even explained it to my father or mother,” he replied, “so why should I explain it to you?” 17 She cried the whole seven days of the feast. So on the seventh day he finally told her, because she continued to press him. She in turn explained the riddle to her people.

Before sunset on the seventh day the men of the town said to him,

“What is sweeter than honey?
What is stronger than a lion?”

Samson said to them,

“If you had not plowed with my heifer,
you would not have solved my riddle.” (14:10-18)

Samson has a pretty good racket going with some young men from the Philistine village, but he gives in to his woman’s crying. That betaness causes him to lose his little wager, foreshadowing greater problems that will be cause by his weakness to women.

Samson gets his revenge:

Then the Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon him. He went down to Ashkelon, struck down thirty of their men, stripped them of everything and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle. Burning with anger, he returned to his father’s home.  

That’s a rather alpha display of strength.

But then this:

And Samson’s wife was given to one of his companions who had attended him at the feast.

Later on, at the time of wheat harvest, Samson took a young goat and went to visit his wife. He said, “I’m going to my wife’s room.” But her father would not let him go in.

“I was so sure you hated her,” he said, “that I gave her to your companion. Isn’t her younger sister more attractive? Take her instead.”

Samson said to them, “This time I have a right to get even with the Philistines; I will really harm them.” So he went out and caught three hundred foxes and tied them tail to tail in pairs. He then fastened a torch to every pair of tails,lit the torches and let the foxes loose in the standing grain of the Philistines. He burned up the shocks and standing grain, together with the vineyards and olive groves.

When the Philistines asked, “Who did this?” they were told, “Samson, the Timnite’s son-in-law, because his wife was given to his companion. ”

So the Philistines went up and burned her and her father to death. Samson said to them, “Since you’ve acted like this, I swear that I won’t stop until I get my revenge on you.” He attacked them viciously and slaughtered many of them. Then he went down and stayed in a cave in the rock of Etam.(14:20, 15:1-8)

The Philistines than come for him, so he let’s the Israelites bind him and turn him over. He snaps the ropes and slaughters them all with donkey’s jawbone. He then leads Israel for 20 years.

Samson shows some oneitis here. His woman is given away, when offered a more attractive, younger woman, he instead takes revenge. When the Philistines take revenge on his woman and her father, he takes revenge on them, then when they come for him, he kills the lot of them.

Again, he shows alpha in relation to other men and his environment, but is a beta sucker for women.

One day Samson went to Gaza, where he saw a prostitute. He went in to spend the night with her. The people of Gaza were told, “Samson is here!” So they surrounded the place and lay in wait for him all night at the city gate. They made no move during the night, saying, “At dawn we’ll kill him.”

But Samson lay there only until the middle of the night. Then he got up and took hold of the doors of the city gate, together with the two posts, and tore them loose, bar and all. He lifted them to his shoulders and carried them to the top of the hill that faces Hebron. (16:1-3)

Prostitutes are generally considered beta behaviour, an alpha male would get sex without paying. So, it’s possible he’s not that good with women. After that though he shows some impressive feats of strength.

Some time later, he fell in love with a woman in the Valley of Sorek whose name was Delilah. The rulers of the Philistines went to her and said, “See if you can lure him into showing you the secret of his great strength and how we can overpower him so we may tie him up and subdue him. Each one of us will give you eleven hundred shekels[a]of silver.”

So Delilah said to Samson, “Tell me the secret of your great strength and how you can be tied up and subdued.”

Samson answered her, “If anyone ties me with seven fresh bowstrings that have not been dried, I’ll become as weak as any other man.”

Then the rulers of the Philistines brought her seven fresh bowstrings that had not been dried, and she tied him with them. With men hidden in the room, she called to him, “Samson, the Philistines are upon you!” But he snapped the bowstrings as easily as a piece of string snaps when it comes close to a flame. So the secret of his strength was not discovered.

Then Delilah said to Samson, “You have made a fool of me; you lied to me. Come now, tell me how you can be tied.”

He said, “If anyone ties me securely with new ropes that have never been used, I’ll become as weak as any other man.”

So Delilah took new ropes and tied him with them. Then, with men hidden in the room, she called to him, “Samson, the Philistines are upon you!” But he snapped the ropes off his arms as if they were threads.

Delilah then said to Samson, “All this time you have been making a fool of me and lying to me. Tell me how you can be tied.”

He replied, “If you weave the seven braids of my head into the fabric on the loom and tighten it with the pin, I’ll become as weak as any other man.” So while he was sleeping, Delilah took the seven braids of his head, wove them into the fabricand tightened it with the pin.

Again she called to him, “Samson, the Philistines are upon you!” He awoke from his sleep and pulled up the pin and the loom, with the fabric.

 Then she said to him, “How can you say, ‘I love you,’ when you won’t confide in me? This is the third time you have made a fool of me and haven’t told me the secret of your great strength. ” With such nagging she prodded him day after day until he was sick to death of it.

So he told her everything. “No razor has ever been used on my head,” he said, “because I have been a Nazirite dedicated to God from my mother’s womb. If my head were shaved, my strength would leave me, and I would become as weak as any other man.”

When Delilah saw that he had told her everything, she sent word to the rulers of the Philistines , “Come back once more; he has told me everything.” So the rulers of the Philistines returned with the silver in their hands. After putting him to sleep on her lap, she called for someone to shave off the seven braids of his hair, and so began to subdue him.[c] And his strength left him.

Then she called, “Samson, the Philistines are upon you!”

He awoke from his sleep and thought, “I’ll go out as before and shake myself free.” But he did not know that the Lord had left him.

 Then the Philistines seized him, gouged out his eyes and took him down to Gaza. Binding him with bronze shackles, they set him to grinding grain in the prison. But the hair on his head began to grow again after it had been shaved. (16:6-21)

Samson gets another case of oneitis and becomes a beta schlub. Despite his woman betraying him three times, he doesn’t dump her. Instead, he gives her the secret to his strength. This supreme act of beta, delivers him into his enemies hands, where he’s blinded and enslaved.

Now the rulers of the Philistines assembled to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon their god and to celebrate, saying, “Our god has delivered Samson, our enemy, into our hands.”

When the people saw him, they praised their god, saying,

“Our god has delivered our enemy
into our hands,
the one who laid waste our land
and multiplied our slain.”

While they were in high spirits, they shouted, “Bring out Samson to entertain us.” So they called Samson out of the prison, and he performed for them.

When they stood him among the pillars, Samson said to the servant who held his hand, “Put me where I can feel the pillars that support the temple, so that I may lean against them.” Now the temple was crowded with men and women; all the rulers of the Philistines were there, and on the roof were about three thousand men and women watching Samson perform.Then Samson prayed to the Lord, “Sovereign Lord, remember me. Please, God, strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes.” Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived. (16:23-30)

In one final act of impressive strength, he gets revenge on his enemies at the cost of his life.

****

Here we can see a dichotomy.

Samson was superficially an alpha: he was a paragon of strength, vengeful, and a warrior who killed his enemies by the hundreds and thousands. He was a leader of men, who led his people for 20 years.

On the other hand, when it comes to women, he’s as beta as they come. He has multiple cases of oneitis, to the point where he continues loving a woman even after she repeatedly betrays him. He resorts to prostitution. He repeatedly allows himself to be pulled into women’s frames, resulting in many problems for himself, and eventually his downfall.

We can tell from the story though, his alpha behaviours were blessed by God, while his beta behaviours caused him nothing but grief and pain. The moral of this story, don’t be beta. Don’t allow yourself to be tempted by woman and stay out of their frame.
_______________________________________________________
*All references from Judges

Biblical Beta: Saul Crowned King

Having discussed the alphaness of young David, who was anointed king, we will contrast his alphaness with the betaness of another young man anointed king, Saul (The same Saul who is David’s king). 

When we first meet Saul, he is described thusly: “as handsome a young man as could be found anywhere in Israel, and he was a head taller than anyone else.” (9:2)*

So, in the realm of physical looks, he had a great, natural advantage of physical dominance over the competition. Too bad he ruins it with beta behaviour.

Saul is looking for some lost donkeys at his father’s request and this interaction occurs:

When they reached the district of Zuph, Saul said to the servant who was with him, “Come, let’s go back, or my father will stop thinking about the donkeys and start worrying about us.”

But the servant replied, “Look, in this town there is a man of God; he is highly respected, and everything he says comes true. Let’s go there now. Perhaps he will tell us what way to take.”

Saul said to his servant, “If we go, what can we give the man? The food in our sacks is gone. We have no gift to take to the man of God. What do we have?”

The servant answered him again. “Look,” he said, “I have a quarter of a shekel[a] of silver. I will give it to the man of God so that he will tell us what way to take.” (Formerly in Israel, if someone went to inquire of God, they would say, “Come, let us go to the seer,” because the prophet of today used to be called a seer.)

“Good,” Saul said to his servant. “Come, let’s go.” So they set out for the town where the man of God was. (9:5-10)

We can already see some beta behaviour here. Despite Saul being blessed physically, he is somewhat indecisive, unwilling to take risks, and allows his servant, his social inferior, to lead him. He lacks leadership.

He meets Samuel the prophet, who tells him anoints him king. A meeting is called of the tribes of Israel where the new king is to be enthroned and this occurs:

When Samuel had all Israel come forward by tribes, the tribe of Benjamin was taken by lot. Then he brought forward the tribe of Benjamin, clan by clan, and Matri’s clan was taken. Finally Saul son of Kish was taken. But when they looked for him, he was not to be found. So they inquired further of the Lord, “Has the man come here yet?”

And the Lord said, “Yes, he has hidden himself among the supplies.”

They ran and brought him out, and as he stood among the people he was a head taller than any of the others. Samuel said to all the people, “Do you see the man the Lord has chosen? There is no one like him among all the people.”

Then the people shouted, “Long live the king!”

Samuel explained to the people the rights and duties of kingship. He wrote them down on a scroll and deposited it before the Lord. Then Samuel dismissed the people to go to their own homes.

Saul also went to his home in Gibeah, accompanied by valiant men whose hearts God had touched. But some scoundrels said, “How can this fellow save us?” They despised him and brought him no gifts. But Saul kept silent. (10: 20-27)

Saul is, literally, anointed by God to be King, and when the kingship is to be given him, he hides like a coward instead of taking leadership. Then goes home quietly rather than accept his rule and does not answer those who scorn him. That’s weakness, that’s beta.

Following this, Saul, seized by the Spirit of God, finally takes some leadership when the Ammonites attack Israel:

Just then Saul was returning from the fields, behind his oxen, and he asked, “What is wrong with everyone? Why are they weeping?” Then they repeated to him what the men of Jabesh had said.

When Saul heard their words, the Spirit of God came powerfully upon him, and he burned with anger. He took a pair of oxen, cut them into pieces, and sent the pieces by messengers throughout Israel, proclaiming, “This is what will be done to the oxen of anyone who does not follow Saul and Samuel.” Then the terror of the Lord fell on the people, and they came out together as one. When Saul mustered them at Bezek, the men of Israel numbered three hundred thousand and those of Judah thirty thousand. (11:4-8)

He wins the battle and is anointed king.

He is crowned king, then goes to another battle where he is commanded by God to wait for Samuel to commit a sacrifice:

The Philistines assembled to fight Israel, with three thousand chariots, six thousand charioteers, and soldiers as numerous as the sand on the seashore. They went up and camped at Mikmash, east of Beth Aven. When the Israelites saw that their situation was critical and that their army was hard pressed, they hid in caves and thickets, among the rocks, and in pits and cisterns. Some Hebrews even crossed the Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead.

Saul remained at Gilgal, and all the troops with him were quaking with fear. He waited seven days, the time set by Samuel; but Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and Saul’s men began to scatter. So he said, “Bring me the burnt offering and the fellowship offerings.” And Saul offered up the burnt offering. Just as he finished making the offering, Samuel arrived, and Saul went out to greet him.

“What have you done?” asked Samuel.

Saul replied, “When I saw that the men were scattering, and that you did not come at the set time, and that the Philistines were assembling at Mikmash, I thought, ‘Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the Lord’s favor. ’ So I felt compelled to offer the burnt offering.”

“You have done a foolish thing, ” Samuel said. “You have not kept the command the Lord your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time. But now your kingdom will not endure; the Lord has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him ruler of his people, because you have not kept the Lord’s command.”(13:5-14)

First, Saul loses control of his men, (showing a lack of honour) who being to desert him. Then, instead of obeying the commands of God and waiting or showing leadership to control and comfort his men, he decides to violate God’s command out of fear. When rebuked, he dishonourably shifts the blame to his men and circumstances rather than take responsibility for his actions. He loses his future dynasty because of his disobedience.

Saul’s story of beta continues, and will be continued for the series later, but for now we’ll stop here.

****

In Saul’s first appearance his betaness is made plain. He’s indecisive and let’s his social inferior, his servant, lead him around. He is anointed king, but cowers in fear rather than take the power given him. He then let’s those he rules scorn him without answer. He then has his moment of alpha and takes his kingship.

He follows this up with a complete fiasco. He fails to lead or control his men, who desert him. Instead, he lets their fear and actions drive his behaviour and control his frame.

Saul loses his dynasty because of this lack of leadership, this betaness. In the future, his betaness will result in his continued downwards trajectory.

_______________________________________________________
*All references from 1 Samuel

Biblical Alpha: David fights Goliath

For the Biblical Alpha series, we are going to start with King David, whom God called a man after his own heart.

When we first meet David (16:8-13)*, he is tending sheep. He is called by Samuel (a prophet) from his duties and is anointed king.

The current king Saul is troubled, so he asks his court to find him a musician to calm his nerves. One of his attendants responds:

“I have seen a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play the lyre. He is a brave man and a warrior. He speaks well and is a fine-looking man. And the Lord is with him.” 
…
David came to Saul and entered his service. Saul liked him very much, and David became one of his armor-bearers. Then Saul sent word to Jesse, saying, “Allow David to remain in my service, for I am pleased with him.”

 Whenever the spirit from God came on Saul, David would take up his lyre and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him. (16:18, 21-23)

We can see here that David, despite his youth, is a man of many talents, demonstrating mastery. He’s known for his courage, for being a warrior, for his oratory capabilities, and his artistry. The king instantly takes to him and makes him what is more or less part of his royal guard.

Israel enters another battle in their perpetual war with the Philistines. A champion named Goliath, a giant, calls out all of Israel’s warriors, but everybody is too afraid to take him on, despite the king offering huge rewards, until David shows up to take food to his older brothers.

Now the Israelites had been saying, “Do you see how this man keeps coming out? He comes out to defy Israel. The king will give great wealth to the man who kills him. He will also give him his daughter in marriage and will exempt his family from taxes in Israel.”

David asked the men standing near him, “What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine and removes this disgrace from Israel? Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?”

They repeated to him what they had been saying and told him, “This is what will be done for the man who kills him.”(17:25-27)

David gets there, sees this giant challenging Israel and sees everybody’s afraid of him. His first question, what do I get for killing him? His second question, who is he? Stone cold.

So, King David immediately goes to see the king, demanding to fight the giant:

David said to Saul, “Let no one lose heart on account of this Philistine; your servant will go and fight him.”

Saul replied, “You are not able to go out against this Philistine and fight him; you are only a young man, and he has been a warrior from his youth.”

3But David said to Saul, “Your servant has been keeping his father’s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock,I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it. Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, because he has defied the armies of the living God. The Lord who rescued me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will rescue me from the hand of this Philistine.”

Saul said to David, “Go, and the Lord be with you.” (17:32-37)

He convinces the king to let him fight a giant everybody else is afraid of, by recounting his stories of killing lions and bears. Remember, he is thought of as too young to fight in a war in an ancient tribal society when he did this.

Then Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head. David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them.

“I cannot go in these,” he said to Saul, “because I am not used to them.” So he took them off. Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine. (17:38-40)

The king gives him some armor and weapons for his duel, but David shrugs them off, instead choosing stones and a piece of wood for giant-killing

Meanwhile, the Philistine, with his shield bearer in front of him, kept coming closer to David. He looked David over and saw that he was little more than a boy, glowing with health and handsome, and he despised him. He said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. “Come here,” he said, “and I’ll give your flesh to the birds and the wild animals! ”

David said to the Philistine, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the Lord will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.” (17:41-47)

The giant is obviously not impressed by the boy and his sticks. The boy confidently tells him God will help him and begins the fight.

As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.

So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.

David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the sheath. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.
…
David took the Philistine’s head and brought it to Jerusalem; he put the Philistine’s weapons in his own tent. (17:48-51,54)

David rushes the giant, then one-shots him in the head with his sling, demonstrating mastery over his weapon. He then takes his head and weapons as trophies. Thanks to David’s victory, the Israelites rout the Philistines.

****

David as a young boy is a master of his weapon, the sling. He’s a master of the arts, good enough to play for the king and is known for his oratory skills. He’s an acknowledged warrior, known for his courage and put in the king’s guard. He’s killed lions, bears, and a giant, demonstrating unreasonable strength. At an age when most modern young men are killing virtual giants, he has a giant’s head and weapons as his personal trophies.

That’s alpha.

_______________________________________________________
*All references from 1 Samuel

Adam’s Original Sin: Disobedience and Betaness

For the Biblical Alpha series, we’ll start at the beginning of the Bible, with the first man, Adam.

Now, the first mention of man’s creation goes:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground. ”

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. ” And it was so. (Genesis 1:26-30)

We can see here that man was created to rule. Man’s purpose, the reason for his creation, was to rule over the rest of creation and to his expand this rule over whole earth. Mankind’s purpose is leadership.

Now, knowing man’s purpose, we move onto the first man. The Bible only gives a few chapters to Adam but they are revealing. He was created, told not to eat from a specific tree, and named the animals. While in Eden:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the ribhe had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. (Genesis 2:15-22)

The creation story is re-iterated, putting the focus on man. Man is created to care for creation. His purpose is leadership over the earth.

We can also see that woman was created to be a helper for man. Man is to rule, woman is to assist the man in his leadership. This is the natural Christian order of earth, man rules, woman helps man.

Man was created by God for the purpose of being the alpha over the earth. He ruled over paradise with his helper at his side.

Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.(Genesis 2:25)

Man (and woman) was originally created to feel no shame. Shame is a result of sin.

It is interesting to note, that the alpha is immune to shame, but susceptibility to shame is the hallmark of the beta.

Then the Fall occurs:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’? ”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from? ”

The man said, “The woman you put here with me —she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” (Genesis 3:1-12)

Here Adam displays a stunning lack of leadership and betaness leading to the fall.

First, while he is with her, he allows his helper to be tempted by the serpent, who is under his dominion, and he does nothing. He takes no leadership over either his helper or the one he rules.

Second, he then allows his helper to convince him to violate his duty. He falls into the woman’s frame and allows her to lead him against his own principles and duty.

Then he, rightfully, feels shame.

When confronted with his disobedience, what does he do? He shifts the blame. Instead of taking responsibility for his own actions as a man and a leader, he blames his helper.

The original sin was disobedience to God. This disobedience was caused and exacerbated by the beta actions and inactions of the first man, Adam.

Had Adam taken his alpha leadership role given him by God, the Fall would not have occurred.

Biblical Alpha – Defining Alpha

For the Biblical Alpha project, there must be an operational definition of alpha for the posts to make any sense.

One classic definition in the manosphere is Roissy’s (it even comes with a handy chart):

Make no mistake, at the most fundamental level the CRUX of a man’s worth is measured by his desirability to women, whether he chooses to play the game or not… It hits on the three major factors influencing male rank — how hot are the women he can attract, how strong is that attraction for him, and how many of those women find him attractive.

This definition would not really work for the project. While the notch count of some in the Bible, such as Solomon with a stunning 700 wives and 300 concubines, are available, most do not have one available. In addition, most Biblical heroes were under an anti-fornication/adultery moral code, which they admittedly often fell far short of, but which would have limited the amount of partners they would have, and there is no way to know how much female attention they could potentially have pulled.

So, I will not be using sexual results as the primary measure of alphaness. Instead, I will measure alphaness by the behaviour game tries to emulate. The alpha traits of social and physical dominance and leadership and the four tactical virtues that define manhood from Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men (review to come): strength, courage, mastery, and honour.

A man who demonstrates these virtues will be considered alpha; one who doesn’t will be considered beta.

****

Now I know the alpha/beta distinction is debated relentlessly, but I’m not really gonna get involved. Some of you may disagree with the way I’m defining it and are free to say so in the comments. I’m not here for the next couple of weeks, so I won’t respond, but, you can bicker among yourselves. The next few posts in this series are already written.

****
For the Christians who may come across this, but do not really know of the alpha/beta distinction, being alpha is morally neutral in and of itself. As Jack Donovan wrote, “there is a difference between being a good man and being good at being a man.” So, David having sex with Bathsheba was alpha, even if it was a sin. Just because I write that something is “alpha” or something else is “beta” does not necessarily make the former “good” and the latter “bad” in a moral sense and does not indicate whether I, or the Bible/God for that matter, approve or disapprove of the action.

Biblical Alpha – Introduction

Common modern church teaching focuses on the teachings of the New Testament, where meekness, gentleness, love, submission, etc. are expounded. Now, a lot of this feminized doctrine is based on incorrect interpretation of these words or selective readings of verses that ignore the greater context of the Bible, but I’m not going to get into that now. At some point, I will probably write about different aspects of this more in-depth, but I want to talk about something else.

There is a common perception of biblical heroes as being “nice guys”. The Jesus-as-a-boyfriend meme is well-known, and, despite some differences the manosphere might have with Driscoll, he has pointed out the falsity of the limp-wristed Jesus. There are calls to masculinize modern Christianity, but these often just end up being calls of betaization, usually through the “man up” meme.

To anyone coming from a Christian background, the manosphere and the alpha/beta distinction seem to be fairly unchristian. This is partly because of the feminization of modern churchianity, but also because the manosphere does advocate some fairly unchristian things. In particular, the game blogs tend to focus heavily on promiscuous sex, something sinful to a traditional Christian, and this attitude tends to permeate through much of the Manosphere. (There are some great exceptions, such as Athol and Dalrock).

The advice on being an alpha is often seen as recommendations to be an asshole and/or sinner (I know that game is more and/or different from that, depending on whom you read, but that’s a way it can come across).

But, if you read through the Bible you realize that most of the biblical heroes, the one’s the Bible posits as the good guys, are, for the most part, alphas. They may not always be sexually prolific, but the heroes of the Bible are usually man’s men and great leaders, the traits modern game mimics.

****

David ruled a kingdom, killed a lion, a bear, and a giant as a little more than a kid, won the heart of a princess and a kingdom by slaughtering his enemies, stood up to and shamed a king, etc.

Elijah stood up to a king (and his harlot who controlled him), outran a chariot, and summoned fire from the sky before slaughtering false priests.

Moses slew a man in anger, stood up to a pharaoh, liberated a nation, and led that nation for decades. (Reading the Old Testament sometimes feels like listening to a Manowar album).

I could go on, but instead I’ll end with this:

And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.

****

I’m going to start a series on Biblical Alpha that will look at men from the Bible and show that the Bible does not preach weakness, betaness, and feminity for males, but rather, it preaches strength, masculinity, and alphaness.

For this series, there will be posts showing examples of both alpha males and beta males in the Bible and there will be discussions of masculinity and femininity in the bible.

Economic Analysis of Casual Sex – Prostitution vs Game

I previously mentioned I would I would do an economic comparison of obtaining sex through both prostitution and game for casual sex.

Essentially, which of the two mating strategies obtain the best bang for your buck. (Pun most assuredly intended).

****

Prostitution

Starting with prostitution (it’s the easiest):

I’m going to assume a mid-range escort. We’ll ignore low-quality street prostitution, which would be cheaper, but risky and the high-quality escorts, as most people can’t afford that regularly. Our assumption will be a clean, fairly attractive prostitute.

According to this intro to escorting guide on a business blog for escorts (I guess escorts need business advice too; the weird things you find on the internet) costs about $250-500/hr depending on the city.

So, we’ll say $300 for sex from prostitution. Adjust upwards if you live in a high cost area or if you’re looking for higher quality.

Given the transactional nature of the interaction, there are no time opportunity costs.

Depending on your jurisdiction, prostitution, or aspects related to prostitution, is likely illegal, so there would be a cost attached to the . Every year, about 8,000 johns are arrested and about 45 million Americans (15%) use prostitutes, so the odds of getting caught are extremely low (about 1 in 5000), especially if you are using escorts rather than streetwalkers. The average fine for a first-time offender is about $250, so the economic costs of the risk of getting cost are negligible (about a  nickel).

Cost for Sex: $300

****

Game

I’ve been reading Bang and am almost done (review to come). Near the end of the book Roosh has a little bit on the costs and successes of an average player (someone who goes out to clubs on Saturdays and Sundays with competent game). I’ll assume Roosh knows what he’s talking about (he did write the book on the subject), so we’ll use his numbers.

He does the math in the book, but essentially you are spending $300/month on going to the club, going out on dates, etc. ($3600/year)  for 3-8 notches per year (p. 135 if you want to see). We’ll assume each “notch” leads to an average of three sexual encounters, as some might be one night stands, but a couple might become short- or longer-term relationships.  We’ll give our player 6 notches a year, so 18 sexual encounters at a cost of $200 each.

In addition, each sexual encounter requires time, the nights out, the dates, etc. is time spent in the club, on a date, etc. running game rather than another activity.If you spend an average of four hours clubbing each of Friday and Saturday for a month, that’s 400 hours a year (assuming 2 weeks off).

In addition, from Bang, it seems you can generally expect sex on about the third date and you can expect sex from about half the women you date. So if we assume 2 hours per date for each notch and dating ending in a failure to obtain a notch, we get 72 hours (6 notches *3 dates *2 hours *2 for failures) spent a year on dating.

So, at 472 hours a year at a modest wage of $10/hour, comes to an opportunity costs of spent time is $4720, or $262/sexual encounter.

You would add this to the costs, assuming that you do not enjoy clubbing, game, or dating for their own sakes but are solely in them for the sex. I personally hate clubs, as do many others, and from reading 30 Bangs it was my impression like Roosh only barely tolerates the game so he can acquire sex, so me, Badger, and Roosh would have to add this.

If you enjoy clubbing, gaming, and dating for their own sakes and would engage in these activities even if there was zero chance for sex, you would not have to add these to the calculations, but I’m assuming most wouldn’t, so…

We can conclude that the cost of getting sex through game for the average player is about $460. You could reduce this by becoming better than average, finding a niche like Roosh suggests, running day game, or otherwise reducing your opportunity or real costs.

Cost for sex: $460 ($200 is you enjoy clubbing, gaming, and dating for their own sake)

****

For casual sex, a mid-range prostitute is cheaper than game.

On the other hand, most of game’s costs are in the form of time opportunity costs, so if you have a lot of free time and little money or you enjoy the activities of clubbing, game, or dating  even without the promise of sex, then game might be a better deal.

In addition, the higher your average wage, the more expensive game becomes relative to prostitution, as the opportunity costs of game increase the more potential earning you sacrifice.

Conclusion: For obtaining casual sex, game is the better option if you are paid low wages and have free time or if you enjoy game and related activities. Prostitution is the better option if you are middle-class, don’t have the free time, or dislike engaging in game.

In the future, I’ll have a post on the economic costs of sex in marriage and relationship game.

Projects and Motivation

I mentioned earlier that I’d write about some projects I had planned, so here it is.

One thing I want to use this blog for is just keeping myself motivated in these projects. I have a couple ideas for projects that I hope might create an alternative income stream at some point, but I never get around to working on them. So this blog post is mostly for me to clarify my thoughts and to help motivate me to work on them. If you want to read, feel free, but there’s no analysis here and I don’t know if it will be worthwhile to anybody else; I’m writing this solely for myself.

Website Project #1

About half a year ago, I identified a major gap in one of my hobbies that could be filled through the creation of a social website. I’m pretty sure there’s demand for the project from those within my hobby, as I’ve seen much interest expressed in something similar throughout the hobby’s websites. I’m also pretty sure that there would be a chance at significant revenues as a primary advertiser for the hobby for whoever filled the demand.

On the other hand, I’ve seen a few other sites that tried to fill this demand, but none of them achieved the critical mass of users necessary to make the projects viable, so none of them meet the demand.

That’s the problem. The website would require a lot of work (a year, likely more, of my spare time) as I would need to a lot of programming in php, which I don’t know, but I know I would be capable of doing it. I also know that if I could attain a critical mass of users the site would contribute significantly to the hobby and I could probably monetize it for a decent revenue stream, but I have no idea how I would reach the tipping point when I’ve seen a number of other similar sites that have failed to do so. I started working on it somewhat half-heartedly a few weeks back, and getting a good start on this project was, until today, going to be my goal for the 30 Days of Discipline.

Website Project #2

But today, I had a better idea. I purchased Bold & Determined‘s Spartan Entrepreneur’s Guide (I’ll review this at a later time). I don’t think I’m going to follow his plan as is, (I’ll explain in my coming review), but his ideas on affiliate marketing got me to thinking and I had another idea for a different sort of website using affiliate marketing. This website would require less work upfront, but I could create the framework in a much shorter time-frame and roll out the content over time, unlike the first project which is more or less an all-or-nothing affair. I have to do a bit of research on this to make sure the possible demand for the idea hasn’t been filled, but an initial scan looks positive. So, I’ve decided to change my goal for the 30 Days to creating the framework for this site.

Blog Series

For the blog, I have three longer series I’d like to work out, and if they are well-received, maybe roll them out into clef-published e-books a la Worthless.

The first series I’ve already started: An Economic Analysis of Marriage. Over time, I’d like this to be a complete guide to helping young men considering marriage to calculate the potential costs and benefits of marriage.

I’ve been writing the first post of the second series for over the last few days, and it’s almost completed. Hopefully, it will be out this week. The working title of the series is Biblical Alpha Males, and that’s all I’m giving for now.

The third series is still in the conceptual stage, but essentially, it will be guide for omega males.  As I’ve mentioned before, I was once an omega male, a loser; I’ve since worked my way out of this, but it was not easy. I figure if I create a guide based on my experiences it might help other Omegas in the future.

Novels

I’ve also had three ideas for books that I would like to write at some point:

The first is an idea I have for an epic fantasy series. At this point, I have a strong concept and have developed a story arc that would span at least 5 books. The concept for the series came together last summer as two mediocre ideas I had been playing with in my head came together to make one idea I think is great. I’ve thought about it quite a bit since then. I really want to create this. The only problem is motivating myself to sit down and write. I started writing about half a year ago, and have been writing here and there over time, but I find that while I can just think about the story for hours on end, actually putting words to paper is much more difficult. I’ve almost completed the first chapter and plan to continue on.

The second idea came from an idea I originally had in high school. It’s a near-future sf techo-thriller. I wrote about five chapters in high school, but realized how juvenile, derivative, and inadequate the plot and characterization I was creating were, but the germ of the idea stuck. Since then, I figured out another theme to add to it, which really makes the idea work. I started writing it again about 2 years ago. I finished one chapter, then ran into a major problem: the novel requires a large amount of research on current British culture and socio-economics. The project was dropped as I did not have the time to research this and the epic fantasy idea began to take over my creative thoughts. It does have a working title though: Rivers of Blood. I hope to get back to it at some point; if I do it right it could be major; the idea is good.

The third is the least developed. It’s a mythological fantasy novel based around the modern world. It would require a lot of research on Norse Mythology, but could be interesting; it would probably end up having to be a series, but how long, I have no idea. It’s far behind the other two ideas in priority, but could turn into something at some point.

Over time, I plan to occasionally post status updates of my projects on here to keep myself motivated to continue.

An Economic Analysis of Marriage – Part 1

The Cost of the Risk of Material Loss in Divorce

Marriage is often discouraged in the Manopshere, and a single male, choosing whether I want to marry or stay an eternal bachelor is something important. Now, there’re a lot of reasons provided for why to avoid marriage, but the risk and consequences of divorce are easily the most convincing argument. So, I’m going to create a series on the economics of marriage.

This first post will be the economic cost of the risk of divorce for the average bachelor considering marriage.

At another time, I will attempt an economic analysis of the immaterial losses of divorce and the benefits of marriage. Then I will combine it all together in a cost benefit analysis.

What are the odds of divorce?

The “50% of marriages end in divorce” statistic is thrown out a lot, but this number includes those with multiple marriages and divorces, which skews the number higher than for people considering their first marriage, among other problems.

So, according to the US Census Bureau, for men, only about 60% of men reach their 25th anniversary for their first marriage (p. 11), which means about 40% of men did not.

Now, the data is by age cohort, and those married earlier had a greater chance of reaching any particular marriage anniversary milestone. For example, those married in 1975-79 had a 54.4% chance of reaching 25th anniversary, while those in the married in 1960-65 had a 66.9% of reaching this milestone. But, those married in 1975-79 had the worst chances of attaining any particular marriage milestone; they were peak divorce you might say. Since then, younger marriage cohorts have been more likely to reach milestones.

Meanwhile, in Canada, Statistics Canada has it that about 40% of first marriages will end in divorce.

So, we will estimate there is a 40% chance that a male entering their first marriage will divorce.

(Remember, the chances of marriage ending in divorce can vary depending on a wide range of variables, which I am not going to calculate at this time, but I might go into them in-depth in the future.)

How much does the divorce process cost?

The cost of the actual divorce process varies considerably, depending on a wide range of variables. A simple divorce will run about $1000, while a contested divorce can run from about $8,000-$133,000.

According to this, the median cost for mediation is $5,000, while the average contested divorce costs about $20,000.

So, we’ll say your divorce process will be about $20,000.

(Here’s a calculator if you’d like to play around).

What about Spousal/Child Support?

Your chances of paying spousal support depend on the amount of child support already paid and your income. There’s a ton of laws on this, so I’ll just use this calculator to calculate this.

The average Canadian household income is: $74,700
Two-earners without children: $79,700
Two-earners with children: $85,600
One-earner without children: $58,100
One-earner with children: $60,900

The average length of marriage is 14.5 years, with the average age of divorce for men being 44 and for women, 41.

So, putting the average divorce and income in the calculator we can get the average cost of support (both child and spousal) payments come divorce (in Ontario):

For your own income and planned family situation input the number in the calculator.

So, the average male will have to pay about $149,436 in support if sole provider, $73,458 in support if primary provider, and $0 in support if equal provider. (The cost of child support is there for illustrative purposes, but that would be the cost of having a child, not marriage and divorce.)

One interesting thing to notice: if you’re the sole breadwinner, your likely monthly payments can actually decrease as mandated child support payments replace spousal support payments. I would not bank too much on this, as it’s likely just a quirk in Canadian law or the calculator and may not apply broadly.

US law does not seem radically different overall from Canadian law.

What about a Settlement?

In Canada, “the spouse with the higher net family property is required by law to pay his” spouse “half of the difference between the two spouses’ net family properties.” Net family properties being current assets minus both liabilities and assets at marriage.

In the US, there are two systems, community property and equitable distribution, depending on the state with variations in how they are distributed. The former divides assets gained during the marriage equally, but leaves property attained before marriage alone. Equitable distribution distributes property equitably (not necessarily equally).

In general, we can say that the property you acquired during the marriage will be split more or less in half. If the wife was the primary housekeeper, while the husband was the primary breadwinner, then the difference will be the wife’s payments for continued support of the house. If they both shared provider status roughly equally, then an equal distribution of marital resources should occur.

There does not seem to be much economic cost to the average husband at the point of settlement in Canada, unless he sunk significant sums into the marital home prior to marriage and the wife did not match these sums after entering the marriage.

In the US, one could economically lose if the equitable distribution was not necessarily equal, or by quirks of local law, but for the average divorce, these would not present much of a cost. There might be extreme cases in both systems where quirks or abuses of the law could lead to unequal distribution either way, but

Other Cost Considerations

This is not to say that this will not increase economic hardship. Having to pay the expenses for two dwellings will, by itself, greatly increase economic hardship on both ex-spouses. For the ex-husband specifically though, the extra cost of two dwellings would be accounted for in the spousal/child support payments taken from his income.

It is possible a divorce could affect a male’s job performance, and thus his earnings, creating additional economic cost, but this would be outside my ability to remotely calculate.

The Total Material Cost of Divorce Risk for the Man Considering Marriage

Our formula:
Costs of Divorce Risk = Risk of Divorce * (Cost of divorce process + cost of support)

Average Male Single Earner
40%*(20,000 + 149,436 ) = $67774.40

Average Male Primary Provider
40%*(20,000 + 73,458) = $37383.2

Equal Male and Female Provision
40%*(20,000 ) = $8,000

For the average male who’s considering marriage and planning to be the sole breadwinner of the family, the material cost of the risk of divorce would be just over a full year’s worth of pay. For the average male who plans to be the primary but not sole breadwinner, it would be somewhat less than a full year’s pay. For the average male who plans a marriage where both partners earn equally, it would be a few months’ worth of pay.

So, if you plan on marrying and being the sole or primary breadwinner, you would have to ask yourself if you would pay roughly a year’s salary to be married.

* This analysis will be done for Canada. Canada’s divorce laws are generally nationally coherent, with federal laws and. The US’ divorce laws differ widely between states, so I can’t really calculate for the US. On the other hand, for the majority of men, the analysis shouldn’t vary too significantly.