Once you have taken the redpill and realized how stupid and evil women's mating preferences really are (the hypergamy, the hybristophilia, the serial monogamy, the attraction to dark triad traits, the fact that five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta… basically everything Scott admitted was in "Radicalizing the Romanceless" [http://web.archive.org/web/20140901014000/http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanceless/]) there really are only three coherent responses.
1. The traditional patriarchal response: Women, like children, are clearly too stupid, short-sighted, and impulsive to make their own sexual choices. They must be kept under close supervision from puberty to marriage, and in particular never left alone with a male who is not a member of her family. When she marries, it will be to a man of her social class who is of good character and has some means to support himself, as selected by her father (or, if the father is dead, her oldest brother). If something like dating is to be part of the courtship, chaperones are an absolute must; everyone in trad societies knows what happens when two people of opposite genders are alone together.
This, of course, is how the West dealt with the problem until very recently. And it is still how the Muslims, who make up one fifth of the world population, solve the problem.
2. The principled individualist libertarian response: Women have the right to make their own choices, just like everyone else. This will predictably result in women who have five bastards by five different baby daddies and no way to support themselves (see the black community), but that's their own fault and it is no one else's obligation to support them. If the bastards starve in gutters, not out problem. And if nice, smart, hard working men continue to be lonely virgins into their 30s, that's the price of freedom; there is no positive obligation on the part of women to sleep with productive men instead of violent criminals.
This is what we tried first when we got rid of patriarchy. It wasn't stable; it turns out that people are simply not hard-hearted enough to allow bastards and sluts to starve in the rain when faced with sad pictures of them crying and suffering. This inevitably leads to…
3. The modern progressive liberal response: Women have the right to make their own choices, just like everyone else. When their riding of the cock carousel predictably result in them having five bastards by five different baby daddies, they should be celebrated as heroic single mothers and we should steal money from responsible, productive, hard-working men at gunpoint to supply them with welfare, food stamps, and housing. If these same responsible, productive, hard-working men complain about how they are footing the bill for irresponsible, unproductive sluts and sexy bad boys while remaining lonely virgins themselves, shame them for being nice guys who are worse than Hitler and destroy their reputation and their ability to make a living.
This is where we are now. And, predictably, birth rates are collapsing, more and more men are giving up on hard work in favor of playing video games and smoking pot in mom's basement, and women who are holding chad thundercock's baby in one arm and can't get a date are left wondering "Where have all the good men gone?" Basic income shills are basically trying to push this even harder, stealing from anybody who is even minimally tax-positive and redistributing it to thots and chads so they can fuck away their lives on our dime (no wonder Scott the cuck supports it).
This seems to be unstable as well, if only on the societal level; at this rate, it is only a matter of time until our societies weaken enough that Arabs conquer us (indeed, they are already conquering Western Europe), at which point we will be back to patriarchy.
