Threatpoint created the Puerarchy

Threatpoint created the Puerarchy

Jul 22, 2013

I believe it was Dalrock who coined the term “threatpoint” regarding marriage and divorce reform in the West over the past 40 years. He was referring to the restructuring of marriage, giving more power to person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage:

They aren’t under any illusions;  divorce reform is all about redistributing power from the spouse who wants to honor the marriage vows to the spouse who doesn’t.  This is one of the best kept open secrets I’ve ever encountered.


Also, don’t be confused by the gender neutral terms;  women are overwhelmingly the ones who don’t want to honor the marriage vows.  This is confirmed by the academic study“These Boots Are Made for Walking”:  Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women and the data on the age of wife at the time of divorce. Putting this together, divorce reform is all about redistributing power from the husband who wants to honor the marriage vows to the wife who doesn’t.

This threatpoint gives leverage to women in a marriage, giving her unilateral control over the future of the commitment. Does she want out? She gets a payday. He will avoid this (that is, he will try to maintain the marriage) at all costs, hopefully for reasons such as love, commitment, and loyalty… but the risk of financial ruin certainly cannot be overlooked.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, meant that marriage was now at the emotional whim of women.

There are books upon books about the history of marriage. Armchair theorists (such as myself) can only speculate about the economics of religion and the institution of marriage. It’s hard to know what was going through our ancestors’ minds, if anything at all. One thing is certain, however: marriage was an effective control on hypergamy.

For those of you just joining us, hypergamy is the tendency for women to mate with the highest status male available. One of the problems this raises is that built into the psychology of women inherent in hypergamy is their need to constantly test (shit-test) their mates to ensure they are up to snuff, and prepare for jumping to another branch if a mate of higher value becomes available. Higher-value mates are easier to come by if they find themselves in a relationship with somebody who is no longer passing their fitness tests. (Displaying lower value over time)

There are many in the red pill community who believe with proper game and frame control, you can keep hypergamy tamed. I think it’s a gamble, and certainly becomes increasingly difficult as the length of the relationship grows. This is where marriage used to run the show: in times of emotional unrest or displeasure, the commitment of marriage was there to keep things in check anyway. Your goal was to avoid divorce, because it was bad for both men and women. Women outside of a marriage would have a hard time affording life, children, food, etc.

Marriage was necessary for women to afford children. Marriage was security for men to have children. Marriage had benefits for both, and trade-offs for both.

Now, thanks to threatpoint, there is still benefit for women, but for men, it’s entirely risk.

Threatpoint poisons relationships

Inherent in red pill psychological theory is the understanding that women desire dominant men. The problem of threatpoint not only arises because it puts unilateral control in the hands of only one partner (with no fear of repercussion), but also because that it puts that control in the hands of the women in the relationship- the one who craves her man to be the dominant one.

As I’ve mentioned above, and is common knowledge to the red pill crowd, hypergamy dictates that women will constantly fitness test their mate. This test controls to see how much push-back they get from their tests. Is her man docile and bends to her whim? Or is he strong and dominant, and refuses to fall for these tests?

Threatpoint puts the control into the hands of the one fitness testing- making it close to impossible to pass these tests, lest it spark a divorce if she does not get what she wants.

And if he fails fitness testing, he loses her attraction.

Threatpoint doesn’t just make marriages easier to break, it forces marriages into breaking.

Threatpoint 2 : The fatherhood paycheck

Unilateral control of one partner over the other is a big reason why marriages are failing, and why others are avoiding marriage altogether (puerarchy), but little has been spoken about what’s happening in lieu of marriage altogether.

Threatpoint was effective at dismantling the marriage institution from the inside- but feminism did not stop there in their never-ending quest to redistribute resources from men to women.

Wising up to the fact that the bad deal marriage is becoming is keeping men away from marriage, feminism needed to find another way to ensure women had a way to continue what they wanted: babies.

Originally, a family needed to be established to ensure the proper care and up-bringing of a child. Sure this lead to a few shotgun marriages, but in short, women found that childbirth without a husband was more-or-less a prison sentence for the next 18 years. Neither the mother, nor the child would benefit from such a situation. It was so dire, that many women opted to get illegal abortions until abortion was made legal in 1973 across the states.

This should be telling- it was so bad to have a baby outside marriage, women would risk their lives to end their children’s potential lives.

And we couldn’t have that. Women needed choice. If a baby outside of marriage turned you into a slave, then an option should be made for women to opt out of motherhood.

And options have been made. Birth control, abortion, & legal child surrender save-havens. No woman would ever be made to be a mother unless she chose to. The tyrannical shackles of motherhood would finally be abolished!

But it didn’t stop there. If men weren’t getting married, then affording babies was going to become close to impossible. How could we replace the function of the family unit? We certainly can’t have mothers aborting every fetus! We’d die off!

If threatpoint #1 was the risk of losing everything in marriage, threatpoint #2 was the risk of losing everything despite avoiding marriage.

Having sex with a woman with no intention of fathering a child can become a trap – even if you don’t conceive! Feminism was able to ensure that if babies were made, somebody was going to be on the hook for taking care of it. It didn’t even matter if the man paying wasn’t even the biological child. Heck, in some places, feminism has been so bold as to make it illegal to even check paternity!

Theatpoint #2: interacting with women carries a risk of financial slavery and forced responsibility of fatherhood, but no right to visitation with the child. Women don’t need you to settle down to bring you to the cleaners. Tampering with birth control is not only not illegal (for women) but a career path. Maternity fraud isn’t just a risk- it’s legally endorsed with judges around every corner just waiting to knock up your paycheck.

Women are given all the options and rights, and men- expected to shoulder the responsibility of her choices. Unilateral choice for women to make men into fathers. No, not fathers. Paychecks. Threatpoint 2.

How does feminism leverage threatpoint 2? They use it to try to trick you into a making a baby!

From the article “6 Reasons You Should Want to Date a Feminist“:

#4 Unlikely shotgun wedding scenario in your future

Have I already mentioned that feminists are educated women? Safe sex is part of the package.

That’s right folks, you heard it here: The auther, Hansen, obviously a feminist, is giving you a peace offering. You know that terrible legal world feminists made that give you no reproductive rights and all the responsibilities? Well, date us and we promise not to abuse it against you!

That’s mighty kind of you Hansen. Thanks for the offer.

Said the slave owner to the slave, “don’t worry, I won’t use the shackles, don’t you feel free now?”

Well, Hansen, when somebody has no power, your offer sounds less generous and more like a threat. And what happens when men have no recourse? They go their own way.

Share Button


RedPillSchool is the head moderator of the forum and and a fantastic saxophone player.

More Posts


  1. protagonist /

    When out with your buddies and their wives and girlfriends, when they (inevitably) ask you when you are going to grow-up and settle-down with a “nice girl”… you can find the gentlest, most subtle way possible of answering that there is no way that you would voluntarily put yourself into that sort of no-win scenario… then watch as all the women shoot first you and then their property (by which I mean spouse) the evil eye.

    These can be otherwise intelligent women who, if they were inclined to do so, would easily be able to see the logical trap that marriage and children can be for a man these days… but they are simply incapable of looking past their own privilege and seeing the ThreatPoint as it truly is.

  2. Eli Ednie /

    & Low, herein may be found the most telling counter-shit-tests to her “let’s talk about us” conversations. It’s not fear of commitment, but fear of ruin that distances us. Not insecurity, but distrust that impedes communication. Not incapacity to be protective, but lack of interests of our own to protect.
    Easy question: who needs who more? Apparently women need someone other that me more than I need one of them.
    The Western woman has “jumped the shark”. That phrase describes the attention-getting gimmickry used to distract from their decline of substance & character.

    • Jeff Walsh /

      Perspicacious posting. The problem is getting worse than that. The social democratic approach that dominates most Western democracies means that the State has become the insurer for these women, if all else fails. In Australia and Brazil, they deem living together to be marriage after 2 years in Australia and then they can claim all your property and claim maintenance. Why? Because no one was getting married, because the deal was so bad for men. This pushed many men into homosexuality, so they gave homosexuals the same rights. The reason this has been able to be done is it is illegal to publish the details of divorce cases, unless the names are entirely removed. Further, the real people behind all this is the divorce bar. They make a fortune out of it. The simplest way out of this is to get the Supreme Court of the United States to void “no fault” divorce statutes, as opposed to the Contracts Clause, but to do this requires talented male lawyers to get interested again in matrimonial law. I doubt it will ever happen.

  3. Good article. Good analysis of the deconstruction of family.

  4. Passingby /

    And listen to their husbands tut tut you for your views, while knowing in their hearts–*knowing* from experience–that you are right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

two × 8 =