u/ProfessorHead01

"I am a sick man... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man". These were the famous opening lines of Dostoyevsky's brilliant Notes from Underground. Contrary to what most internet folks believe- they think Dostoyevsky is some very serious Russian writer, but in reality, he is a very humorous novelist. Notes from Underground is a perfect example of it; it is about a pathetic man who is fully aware of how vile and depraved he is. Throughout the book, we explore the events that reveal how deep his spite and contempt for mankind run; he has been living underground (isolated from society) for 20-something years.

To give some context for why such a book was written, it was written primarily as a rebuttal to the ideas of rational egoism and utilitarianism that ravaged the intellects of Europe and were slowly creeping their way towards Russia. Their ideas were simple- they believed that human beings can be predicted and moulded as per what they think is logical and rational. Novelists such as Nikolai Chernyshevsky wrote the utopian novel 'What is to be done?' (1863). Chernyshevsky championed the idea of rational egoism: the idea that human beings are fundamentally logical and good; they do crimes and behave irrationally only because they are not aware of their true self-interest. Once we educate them enough, they'll realise what their true self-interest is, and they will cease to inflict pain, and a good society will be created.

This was completely against Dostoyevsky's own understanding of human nature. The fact that society was slowly moving towards creating a society based on reason and logic haunted Dostoyevsky, who had visited the Crystal Palace in London. It is a real palace modeled after the glass-and-iron structure built for London's 1851 Great Exhibition. The Western world established it as a triumph of reason, science, and rationality.

So, Dostoyevsky created the underground man, whom he saw as a mirror of how people actually behave (at least in a lot of instances, if not all). Throughout the novel, the underground man acted against his self-interest (behaved badly with his friends, degraded the character of his girlfriend who left him, even though he was fully aware that she was the only person who'd accept him, etc), completely aware of what he is throwing away at the given moment. The underground man shows the core philosophy Dostoyevsky is trying to show:-

\*\*Human beings are not fundamentally rational; they are fundamentally creatures of free will ('Independent volition' as per the underground man). Humans will do anything to feel that they are free; if you bind them in rules, they will break those rules not because of some grand plans but because they want to feel free.\*\*

Underground man went as far as to conclude:-

\*\*If someday we humans are given a machine that will fix all our problems and will make our lives perfect, we will gladly destroy that machine because where is our free will in that?\*\*

I personally think that Dostoyevsky's analysis is very spot on. It explains why a lot of people behave in such a despicable manner even when they have no reason to; on the contrary, behaving like that will harm them ultimately. E.g., I was really curious why the insanely successful men in the Epstein client list would do something like that, even though that could completely shatter the public image a lot of them, like Bill Gates, spent their entire lives building. The answer seems evident to me: the 'independent volition'.

Imagine a person like Prince Andrew; he had his whole life perfectly set for him. Son of Queen Elizabeth, had royal status in the family, one of the richest Brits, immense social respect for being a war hero, won several other titles, owned the most luxurious homes around the world, etc.

If human beings were really fundamentally rational, then such a person would have become a symbol of heroism, kindness, etc. Yet he was one of the worst child predators on the planet.

He is emblematic of the idea that if humans are given a perfect life ahead of them, they'll destroy all of it to assert to themselves that they are free.

In the end, the underground man mocks the reader, saying that he is truly free and he is everything that we as readers don't dare to do. Of course, I think he is full of horseshit. I genuinely enjoyed reading this novel, and many instances, such as the underground man cussing at himself or insulting his friends, were genuinely funny. Most of the time in our lives, we are not as spiteful as the underground man, but can we really ignore the fact that we have underground men all around us who will always prove that independent volition will triumph over reason and goodness?

"I am a sick man... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man". These were the famous opening lines of Dostoyevsky's brilliant Notes from Underground. Contrary to what most internet folks believe- they think Dostoyevsky is some very serious Russian writer, but in reality, he is a very humorous novelist. Notes from Underground is a perfect example of it; it is about a pathetic man who is fully aware of how vile and depraved he is. Throughout the book, we explore the events that reveal how deep his spite and contempt for mankind run; he has been living underground (isolated from society) for 20-something years.

To give some context for why such a book was written, it was written primarily as a rebuttal to the ideas of rational egoism and utilitarianism that ravaged the intellects of Europe and were slowly creeping their way towards Russia. Their ideas were simple- they believed that human beings can be predicted and moulded as per what they think is logical and rational. Novelists such as Nikolai Chernyshevsky wrote the utopian novel 'What is to be done?' (1863). Chernyshevsky championed the idea of rational egoism: the idea that human beings are fundamentally logical and good; they do crimes and behave irrationally only because they are not aware of their true self-interest. Once we educate them enough, they'll realise what their true self-interest is, and they will cease to inflict pain, and a good society will be created.

This was completely against Dostoyevsky's own understanding of human nature. The fact that society was slowly moving towards creating a society based on reason and logic haunted Dostoyevsky, who had visited the Crystal Palace in London. It is a real palace modeled after the glass-and-iron structure built for London's 1851 Great Exhibition. The Western world established it as a triumph of reason, science, and rationality.

So, Dostoyevsky created the underground man, whom he saw as a mirror of how people actually behave (at least in a lot of instances, if not all). Throughout the novel, the underground man acted against his self-interest (behaved badly with his friends, degraded the character of his girlfriend who left him, even though he was fully aware that she was the only person who'd accept him, etc), completely aware of what he is throwing away at the given moment. The underground man shows the core philosophy Dostoyevsky is trying to show:-

\*\*Human beings are not fundamentally rational; they are fundamentally creatures of free will ('Independent volition' as per the underground man). Humans will do anything to feel that they are free; if you bind them in rules, they will break those rules not because of some grand plans but because they want to feel free.\*\*

Underground man went as far as to conclude:-

\*\*If someday we humans are given a machine that will fix all our problems and will make our lives perfect, we will gladly destroy that machine because where is our free will in that?\*\*

I personally think that Dostoyevsky's analysis is very spot on. It explains why a lot of people behave in such a despicable manner even when they have no reason to; on the contrary, behaving like that will harm them ultimately. E.g., I was really curious why the insanely successful men in the Epstein client list would do something like that, even though that could completely shatter the public image a lot of them, like Bill Gates, spent their entire lives building. The answer seems evident to me: the 'independent volition'.

Imagine a person like Prince Andrew; he had his whole life perfectly set for him. Son of Queen Elizabeth, had royal status in the family, one of the richest Brits, immense social respect for being a war hero, won several other titles, owned the most luxurious homes around the world, etc.

If human beings were really fundamentally rational, then such a person would have become a symbol of heroism, kindness, etc. Yet he was one of the worst child predators on the planet.

He is emblematic of the idea that if humans are given a perfect life ahead of them, they'll destroy all of it to assert to themselves that they are free.

In the end, the underground man mocks the reader, saying that he is truly free and he is everything that we as readers don't dare to do. Of course, I think he is full of horseshit. I genuinely enjoyed reading this novel, and many instances, such as the underground man cussing at himself or insulting his friends, were genuinely funny. Most of the time in our lives, we are not as spiteful as the underground man, but can we really ignore the fact that we have underground men all around us who will always prove that independent volition will triumph over reason and goodness?

"I am a sick man... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man". These were the famous opening lines of Dostoyevsky's brilliant Notes from Underground. Contrary to what most internet folks believe- they think Dostoyevsky is some very serious Russian writer, but in reality, he is a very humorous novelist. Notes from Underground is a perfect example of it; it is about a pathetic man who is fully aware of how vile and depraved he is. Throughout the book, we explore the events that reveal how deep his spite and contempt for mankind run; he has been living underground (isolated from society) for 20-something years.

To give some context for why such a book was written, it was written primarily as a rebuttal to the ideas of rational egoism and utilitarianism that ravaged the intellects of Europe and were slowly creeping their way towards Russia. Their ideas were simple- they believed that human beings can be predicted and moulded as per what they think is logical and rational. Novelists such as Nikolai Chernyshevsky wrote the utopian novel 'What is to be done?' (1863). Chernyshevsky championed the idea of rational egoism: the idea that human beings are fundamentally logical and good; they do crimes and behave irrationally only because they are not aware of their true self-interest. Once we educate them enough, they'll realise what their true self-interest is, and they will cease to inflict pain, and a good society will be created.

This was completely against Dostoyevsky's own understanding of human nature. The fact that society was slowly moving towards creating a society based on reason and logic haunted Dostoyevsky, who had visited the Crystal Palace in London. It is a real palace modeled after the glass-and-iron structure built for London's 1851 Great Exhibition. The Western world established it as a triumph of reason, science, and rationality.

So, Dostoyevsky created the underground man, whom he saw as a mirror of how people actually behave (at least in a lot of instances, if not all). Throughout the novel, the underground man acted against his self-interest (behaved badly with his friends, degraded the character of his girlfriend who left him, even though he was fully aware that she was the only person who'd accept him, etc), completely aware of what he is throwing away at the given moment. The underground man shows the core philosophy Dostoyevsky is trying to show:-

**Human beings are not fundamentally rational; they are fundamentally creatures of free will ('Independent volition' as per the underground man). Humans will do anything to feel that they are free; if you bind them in rules, they will break those rules not because of some grand plans but because they want to feel free.**

Underground man went as far as to conclude:-

**If someday we humans are given a machine that will fix all our problems and will make our lives perfect, we will gladly destroy that machine because where is our free will in that?**

I personally think that Dostoyevsky's analysis is very spot on. It explains why a lot of people behave in such a despicable manner even when they have no reason to; on the contrary, behaving like that will harm them ultimately. E.g., I was really curious why the insanely successful men in the Epstein client list would do something like that, even though that could completely shatter the public image a lot of them, like Bill Gates, spent their entire lives building. The answer seems evident to me: the 'independent volition'.

Imagine a person like Prince Andrew; he had his whole life perfectly set for him. Son of Queen Elizabeth, had royal status in the family, one of the richest Brits, immense social respect for being a war hero, won several other titles, owned the most luxurious homes around the world, etc.

If human beings were really fundamentally rational, then such a person would have become a symbol of heroism, kindness, etc. Yet he was one of the worst child predators on the planet.

He is emblematic of the idea that if humans are given a perfect life ahead of them, they'll destroy all of it to assert to themselves that they are free.

In the end, the underground man mocks the reader, saying that he is truly free and he is everything that we as readers don't dare to do. Of course, I think he is full of horseshit. I genuinely enjoyed reading this novel, and many instances, such as the underground man cussing at himself or insulting his friends, were genuinely funny. Most of the time in our lives, we are not as spiteful as the underground man, but can we really ignore the fact that we have underground men all around us who will always prove that independent volition will triumph over reason and goodness?

A stock buyback is a practice in which a public company purchases its own stock using its own cash from the open market.

I’d argue in this article that stock buyback is not just a simple market mechanism that profits shareholders short term, but it is the engine which drives the corporations into saving billions of dollars in taxes in the long term. The money that could have gone to the government to improve healthcare, education and other social programmes, would now go to a handful of stockholders such as Vanguard, BlackRock, etc.

How do the buybacks work?

Let’s suppose a trillion dollar company such as Apple gained a big profit after releasing a new iPhone, now the company has a few options about how they would use this profit:- 

1. Reinvest it into business (R&D, setting up new factories, etc).
2. Improve worker wages and conditions to encourage and reward productivity (which would also attract new talent and further increase the productivity).
3. Pay down debt.
4. Give it back to shareholders

Most of the time, the company spends the maximum profit on giving back to the shareholders. There are two ways of sharing this profit with them:-

1. Paying dividends- This is direct cash payments to every shareholder as per their stock. The problem for shareholders here was that this instantly triggered high capital gains that would be taxed.
2. Using stock buybacks- Here is the real magic, when Apple buys its own stocks back, the total number of shares decreases and the total company valuation (including the profits) would be now divided among much less shares. E.g- If the company valuation is $100 and there are only 10 shares, each share is worth $10. Now if the company buys its own shares and the number of shares is left to only 5, the company valuation (including profits) stay the same but because the number of shares is reduced by half, the valuation of each stock becomes double.

The stock buyback artificially increases the stock prices, increasing the Earning Per Share (EPS). This becomes a major issue. Apart from the injustice to the workers who made the iPhone and got no compensation, there are several other reasons why stock buybacks are a completely unethical practice. We must look at the history of why it was banned and why it came into existence again to analyse the issue properly.

Why was it banned?

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, followed by the 1929 stock market crash, was the major Act passed by the US that made stock buybacks an unethical market manipulation fraud.
The ban existed primarily because of two reasons:-

1. It violated the natural supply and demand order by inflating the prices by creating an artificial reduction in the supply of shares.
2. The stock buyback could be a bulletproof way to cover up poor operational performance by masking it with rising stock prices. This means that even if the company is doing terribly in the market, the shareholders of the company would still enjoy profits, meaning that the primary driving force wouldn’t be the market performance but how much the prices of stocks can be increased. The corporate insiders know exactly when the stock buyback plan will take place because of insider knowledge, which allows the executive to time the market to benefit themselves.

Why the ban was removed
The shift happened in 1982 when the Reagan administration was flirting with the idea of an unfettered free market. John Shad, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) at the time, was extremely vocal about the idea that there should be no government intervention in the market at all.
However, the SEC introduced Rule 10b-18, which states that the company cannot buy more than 25% of its stock’s average daily trading volume. Other guidelines were that companies cannot buy their stock in the very beginning or the very end of the trading day. As long as companies followed these guidelines, the SEC would not charge them with fraud or market manipulation.

How the stock buyback became the biggest engine for corporate tax exemption
Now that we understand the basics and the history of stock buybacks, we’ll understand how the stock buyback strategy proved to be the greatest asset for big corporations to effectively pay almost 0% corporate tax.
Apart from the fact that the artificial inflation of stock prices that profited the shareholders is not taxable at all, there are a few very notorious and clever tax loopholes that we’ll discuss now.

The Irish Double:-
This was a complicated but sophisticated tax avoidance strategy used by tech giants like Apple, Google, etc.
Suppose Apple released a new iPhone and sold it in London for $1000 to a customer. Now that $1000 dollar wouldn’t be brought back to Apple California because the IRS would instantly hit that with a tax. So what Apple used to do was route that $1000 to Apple Sales International (ASI), which was located in Ireland. This office handles all the sales except for North and South America. 
Now the $1000 wouldn’t be left to the office in Ireland because Ireland would tax it (although far less than California or any other place). So Apple would make a shell company, AOI (Apple Operations International), in some tax haven like Bermuda (where the corporate tax rate is absolute 0%). 
Now, Apple had already transferred the iPhone’s complete legal rights of software, design, and brand to this shell company in Bermuda.

Now, because the complete intellectual property of iPhone is owned by the shell company in Bermuda, the shell company would charge an insanely high ‘Royalty fee’ to the company in Ireland, so the Irish company owned by Apple would send the money to Bermuda. E.g- The Irish company would send $995 out of $1000 of iPhone sales to Bermuda as a ‘Royalty fee’. The Irish government would now tax only the remaining $5.

So this is how giant corporations such as Apple would pay near 0% corporate tax. The American government would think, “This is an Irish company, so we cannot tax them,” the Irish government would think, “This company is using products of a company in Bermuda, so we cannot tax the royalty fee, it is on the Bermuda government now”. The Bermuda government had 0% corporate tax. This way, for years, Apple was able to pay less than 1% tax (as low as 0.005% in some years).

Now you might ask, how does the Apple in California reroute that money from its Bermuda counterpart to use it for their profits (such as paying dividends, building campuses in Silicon Valley, etc)? Yes, they cannot transfer that $995 to the US bank accounts because the IRS would instantly slam it with a 35% corporate tax.
The answer is through Wall Street. Apple can easily go to Wall Street and say, “Can we borrow 10 billion USD?” 
Apple cannot access the 200+ billion dollar offshore profits in Bermuda, but Wall Street knows that it exists. So Wall Street would see the 200+ billion dollars offshore and say, “Sure, we can lend you 10 billion dollars with an extremely low interest rate.”

Here is where the stock buyback proved to be lethal, Apple would borrow 10 billion and use it to buy its own stocks and profit its shareholders, while not touching the actual profits sitting in tax havens such as Bermuda.
Without stock buybacks, it would be almost impossible for Apple to reroute the money sitting in Bermuda until 2017.
This became so prevalent that the offshore wealth accumulation by big tech corporations and pharma companies became nearly 2.5 trillion dollars, and they refused to bring it back to the US. Hence, in 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed, and the US government, desperate for that 2.5 trillion dollars, offered a one-time massive discount.

Instead of taxing the offshore profits at 35%, they’d tax them at 15.5%. Big corporations instantly saw this as their advantage and rerouted trillions of dollars back home, paying just 15.5% of one-time corporate tax. This obviously creates giant deficits in the government budget, and this always causes the government to squeeze the working class with high regressive taxes that include high taxes on groceries, rents, etc., which hit particularly hard to lower-income groups. If some average working-class members tried to manipulate their financial records or even miscalculated their taxes, they’d have to serve prison time for ‘tax evasion,’ albeit trillion-dollar corporations can easily get away with trillions of dollars, claiming it to be ‘legal’ and simply a market mechanic.

The Stock backdating:-
In 2004, at the University of Iowa, Professor Lie was researching whether corporate executives were experts at predicting the market. He studied years of public stock prices and reports of thousands of companies.

When he was mapping out the data of the exact days the CEO was handed their stock options, he made a shocking discovery that would stun the entire financial world. 
Before getting to that, I’d explain a few basic concepts to my reader to get a better grip of the situation.

Usually, the CEO of a company can buy his own company shares in two ways:-

1. Buying the stock just like any regular investor (Where he’d pay the stock price as dictated on that very day).
2. Getting a bonus from the board of directors when they are impressed with the CEO's performance. This bonus is usually never in cash due to tax concerns and other reasons, but in the form of a coupon, which allows the CEO to purchase the stock at a fixed price (This is called ‘strike price’, usually it is set to the stock price the day the stock option was granted). This coupon that I’m talking about is called a ‘stock option.’

Let's say under a CEO, the company performed really well, and to reward them, the board grants stock options to the CEO where he/she can now purchase 5 stocks of their company at a fixed price of $20 each stock (this fixed price is on the day of grant). Now the CEO has to wait until the stock price increases to something like $30 or $35, that time they would use their stock options to buy the same amount of stock for the fixed strike price (Meaning if the CEO uses their stock options that has a strike price of $20, even if the company stock now after 5 years is $35, they can still purchase the 5 stocks at $20 each).
So this is how they will make a profit in the long run: the CEO has to wait or somehow know when the stock price is going to be the highest to make a maximum profit.
Now that we have covered the basics, we can move forward.

Professor Lie noticed a pattern that every time a company gave a CEO stock options to buy stocks at a fixed rate, that turned out to be the exact date when the stock prices of that company were at their lowest. E.g- He noticed that every time a CEO of some ‘x’ company was granted stock options, it was $10 per stock on that very day, which was the company’s lowest performance.
This wasn’t his main area of focus in this research, but this intrigued him a lot, mainly because he knew that the stock market was unpredictable and it is purely a luck game whether the CEO is granted stock options on the very date when the company stock was at the lowest (Even figuring out whether it is the lowest today is impossible).

He started running advanced mathematical computer algorithms to analyse the probability of these CEOs picking the cheapest day of their stock option bonuses. The probability was roughly 1 in a billion. So it is mathematically impossible.
Professor Lie was perplexed. He then discovered that the CEOs aren’t predicting the future but looking backward; this was called ‘stock backdating’.

Stock backdating is a fraudulent and unethical practice done by executives where they would create fake stock options out of thin air and make it such that those stock options (fake ones) were granted on the day when the stock price was at its lowest.
E.g- Let's say a CEO has been granted stock options on December 15th, where the strike price is fixed at $50. Now, instead of doing it ethically, the CEO waited till the end of the month review and discovered that the stock price was at its lowest on October 15th, just $10. They will then summon their most trusted corporate lawyers and make a fake stock option that is set on October 15th, which was when the stock price was just $10, so that will become the strike price. 
Many times, these corporate lawyers would make it look legit by creating stories about how a board meeting happened on October 15th and how the CEO was granted this very stock option that day.

The CEO will then exercise his stock options, on which he’d save massive amounts of money (If the stock price today is $50 and the strike price is set at $10, the CEO will just pay $10 and get the stock worth $50). This practice, as crooked as it looks, becomes even more horrendous when you take into account the stock buybacks that happen afterwards. The CEO, who has just exercised his stock options and gained massive profits, will now wait for the time when a stock buyback will be agreed upon by the board of directors. Once the buyback scheme is set, the company will use its treasury for the stock buybacks and will delete its own stocks to artificially inflate the Earnings per Share (EPS). So essentially, the $50 stock that the CEO bought for $10 by backdating will now become $70 or more, making the CEO extremely wealthy.
They can easily contact Wall Street and cash out on their ultra-inflated stock after paying just a little amount of capital gains tax; however, instead of that, they’d keep hold of that stock and use it as collateral to buy yachts, houses, etc.

The opportunity cost here is bizarre; every rupee that is spent on buybacks can easily be spent on productive inputs such as innovation, R&D, wage increment, etc. However, that money will now go completely into the pockets of shareholders.
This is the real culprit behind wage stagnation from the 1980s: the workers who made the product aren't receiving any compensation for their productivity, and the revenue generated from their hard work is going upwards into the pockets of shareholders. 

In both these examples, we saw how stock buybacks effectively make a joke out of the tax system and inflate damages from financial crimes such as backdating. In a healthy capitalist framework, the stock options are purposely made such that they become valuable only if the company’s performance has improved. However, the buybacks and backdating cocktail completely rig this setup and make the system such that the CEO can gain 7 times the profit despite producing 0 executive performance and taking 0 risk. This mechanism violates the principle of the free market itself because the profit of the CEO can become completely independent from the performance of the company in the market.

Even in India, where low employment, low wages, low innovation, etc., are major problems, we have still allowed stock buybacks, so the board has no incentive to improve these things if they can easily enrich themselves and use the buybacks as a magic wand to undo all wrong financial decisions. The stock buybacks, in all their essence, must be banned in order to promote a healthy market.

Sources:-

Why stock buybacks were banned:- The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Pub.L. 73–291, 48 Stat. 881). Specifically, Section 9(a)(2) and Section 10(b) 

Why the ban was removed:- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-18 

To better understand stock buybacks:- Lazonick, W. (2014). "Profits Without Prosperity: How Stock Buybacks Empty out the Corporate Economy." Harvard Business Review 

2.5 Trillion dollar offshore cash stockpile:- https://www.fairshareonline.org/content/study-offshore-corporate-cash-stockpile-25-trillion#:~:text=Collectively%2C%20multinationals%20reported%20booking%20%242.5,%24718%20billion%20in%20dodged%20taxes.

Tax cuts and Jobs act (2017) which gave a massive discount:- Andrews, Wilson; Parlapiano, Alicia (December 15, 2017). "What's in the Final Republican Tax Bill". The New York Times. Retrieved July 15, 2019. 

Professor’s lie’s research on uncovering stock backdating:- Lie, E. (2005). "On the timing of CEO stock option awards." Management Science, 51(5), 802-812 

The best way to eradicate patriarchy and the misogynistic institutions is to empower the women so much that they get complete authority to refuse sex and having kids

Once that happens, a lot of good for nothing worthless incels will die out on their own. In order for our civilisation to progress, we must leave the incels behind and force a choice upon them:-

1. Either adopt and cope with the fact that you are not in any way, shape or form superior to any other gender

2. Let your rotten lineage die with you being the last one in it.

We must start playing this elimination game where any worthless behaviour should be addressed like this.

Incels have always died throughout the history, he whose behaviour or status or conduct had deemed to be unfit for raising children was always rejected by the society esspecially the women which made them hate the opposite sex even more until this self inducing ecochamber finally finished them off. This behaviour or conduct was defined differently in all societies, however, the main idea was thus that men always had to be capable and honourable in order to afford the luxury to reproduce. Hence in many ancient (or even many of the modern tribal civilisations), women were seen as sacred because the deep reverence of society and the malss comes from the acknowledgement that reproduction is a luxury and women are mystical creatures who can give birth. This natural order of things was ruined by the patriarchal society

The patriarchal institutions, when they started growing stronger, was deeply aware of this natural order and to prevent this from happening, the patriarchal institution introduced concepts such as arrange marriages. The arrange marriages served a very important purpose and that was to limit the sexual freedom of a women, this was to make sure that women stay oppressed and undeserving incel lineages get a guarrente that they no matter their personal conduct, as long as they are respecting the patriarchal norms, they shall get a woman who is obliged to give them sex and carry forward their gene.

This is why we see that the patriarchal institutions are the most appealing to those who know that their behaviour and conduct is so unfit that they rank in the lower most for mate desirability, hence in order to protect their future lineage, they support patriarchal institutions.

Hence, patriarchy ensures them that they'd still get sex and have the luxury of getting children. Hence, in order to dismantle it, we must hand over the reproductive choice in the hands of women. Birth control, abortion, etc are a bare minimum for it but we need something more radical in India such as the 4B movement of South Korea where the young women made strict rules of no sex, no dating, no marriage, no childbirth.

We must create a narrative in the minds of men that:-

1. Sex is luxury- Men must earn respect and attraction of women. In order to do that, men must integrate good virtue and a conduct that makes the women feel safe around them.

2. Having children is luxury- The fact is, it is completely on the women which male she wants to have children with. Men cannot force it, if you felt bad reading this then cope but it is what it is. If no women selects them then they must admit that they don't have the necessasry good conduct and must either self reflect and improve or accept that they would never get children

3. Marriage is a luxury- It is completely on the women whether they want to spend their lives with this man or not, if she doesn't want to, then you cannot force it out of her