[P]arents have to stop getting divorced for less than dire reasons. Many, if not most, of today’s 20- and 30-somethings are products of these divorces and thus have no role models. They may be looking for love, but they have no idea what to look for. Susan Gregory Thomas, author of In Spite of Everything, is a great example. Her parents split when she was twelve, and in an article about her book she laments the lack of guidance available to young people. “Why would we take counsel,” she asks, “from the very people who, in our view, flubbed it all up?”Changing both of these things won't accomplish anything. It's not true that men have no idea what to look for. They know what they want, they're just not finding it as easily anymore. And it's not being branded "a sexist pig" that turns men off to marriage, it is the guarantee of severe economic liability and the unacceptably high possibility of losing his house, his children, his savings, and reducing his future net income.
Second, we must retract the message Boomers sent young women about female empowerment. Indeed, it isn’t a coincidence that marriage rates have plummeted alongside America’s fascination with the feminist movement. Empowerment for women, as defined by feminists, neither liberates women nor brings couples together. It separates them. It focuses on women as perpetual victims of the Big Bad Male. Why would any man want to get married when he’s been branded a sexist pig at “hello”? In the span of just a few decades, women have managed to demote men from respected providers and protectors to being unnecessary, irrelevant, and downright expendable.
It is unconscionable to recommend marriage to any man under a legal regime in which he has no protection under the law and can be forced out of his own home by a single false charge. While this state of affairs is fair to neither individual men nor individual women, the lamentable fact is that very, very few women, even conservative, politically minded women who are correctly concerned about what low marriage rates will do to American society, are willing to speak out against Marriage 2.0 because they still wish to retain the legal benefits it affords married women in the event of divorce.
Marriage is extremely important for societal stability and survival. But the current legal form of marriage is evil and is not only deleterious to society, but to men, women, and children alike.
130 comments:
I think it goes beyond mere legal reform -- which is desperately needed. The culture itself has to change, and will, in order to adapt to the new economic and social realities.
Consider that marriage as we knew it is over, and kiss it goodbye. You can try to replicate the good parts of it, but the institution as it stood is gone with the ability of women to support themselves financially.
Our best bet now, in addition to pursuing legal reform, is to re-form marriage culturally. I see this happening when the two basic parts of the Manosphere recognize and acknowledge that while we as individual men have our individual interests (say, those-men-who-want-to-be-married-and-reproduce and those-men-who-want-to-get-pussy-and-go-their-own-way), those interests are neither mutually exclusive or incompatible. We can (and are starting to) cooperate to assist each other with our individual long-term interests.
Personal example: I'm an old married guy who wouldn't think of cheating on my wife. But I don't mind acting as wing-man for my single friends who need an assist. In addition I make a point to include my single friends in my family life, which invests them in lending me and my family support and aid in a time of crisis.
Some of these dudes will never be married and are scared off of the institution entirely -- but when they see one that works, it's amazing how willing they are to support it. Young men are thirsting for successful examples of marriage, and we married men have a duty to not only provide that example, if possible, but offer advice and guidance to these horny young dudes based on our personal experiences (and the Red Pill in general).
And every now and then, one of these Playas decides he's had enough and finds a woman he can stand to live with. Then it's our duty to teach him how to be a good Husband and Father without flaking at the first sign of trouble.
That's how I see the new cultural construction of non-serial monogamy: a core traditional family surrounded by singles of both genders, like free electrons bonding to an atom. As long as you, as Husband and Father, establish yourself as the one handling your business, then you can help lead these young men to either pursue a good wife or a series of bad girls, as they see fit.
The key will be to evaluate the relative success of children raised by this method with children raised by the serial-monogamous/one-parent family model. My theory is a complete family with extensions is going to provide a much greater benefit to the children than the monopolar model currently in vogue.
Young men are thirsting for successful examples of marriage, and we married men have a duty to not only provide that example, if possible, but offer advice and guidance to these horny young dudes based on our personal experiences (and the Red Pill in general).
I get some sense that, ever so slowly, some women are wanting to see example of good marriages as well. However, they seem unwilling to admit that they can't "have it all" and are still unwilling to admit that men certainly don't have it all either. How to show women that firmly standing behind her man and supporting him in what he does, as a man, is a very worthy and admiral place to be is beyond me. Most women simply don't want to hear this in any way, shape or form.
What are men looking for, then, that they're not finding?
I'm in an interesting situation, in that my wife, on paper, "has it all": a successful career, a high income, three beautiful, healthy kids, handsome husband, etc. etc. But she also understands -- implicitly -- that all of that depends utterly on my grace and efforts. When she gets a compliment in a professional or social situation, I am always the first reason she attributes her success to. She'll be the first to admit that without my active help and assistance, she'd be a crappy mom, a lousy employee, and an utterly miserable, unfulfilled bitch.
In other words, the only way she can live the feminist ideal of "having it all" is by cooperating with and acknowledging the necessity of having a man in her life to help her. That really grates on her feminist colleagues who ask her "how she manages it all" and she says, "only with the help of my big strong man. I couldn't do anything without his assistance.".
Every now and then she'll get a young, aggressively feminist woman who wants her to admit that she could have done it all without my help, and while its nice to have a man in your life, its unnecessary.
That's when she pulls the misguided young lady aside and lectures her on the idiocy of voluntarily being a single parent and the risks a woman takes with her child by doing so, and then points out how single mothers don't advance as fast or as far as married mothers in her industry, and then finishes it up with something along the lines of "and I've got a sure thing in the bedroom any time I want it. Any. Time. I. Want. It."
If the misguided young lady persists, my wife kindly asks her to name three successful feminists she knows of who are in long-term, happy heterosexual relationships.
Crickets.
So, ladies, that's the deal: you CAN have it all.
But if you want it all, you're going to need our help to get it. Otherwise, it's you and your girlfriends sucking down Chardonnay and spinach salads every Sunday brunch for the next forty years bitching about how long its been since you've gotten laid and secretly resenting every married woman with children you meet.
How to show women that firmly standing behind her man and supporting him in what he does, as a man, is a very worthy and admiral place to be is beyond me.
The key is to perform well without the obligatory griping afterwards. No contempt, no complaint, just smiles and positive attitude. You can't argue with contentment.
Also, this helps:
"But you could do anything you want!" "Yes, I am."
What are men looking for, then, that they're not finding?
Women who are willing to be as loyal and devoted to their husbands as they expect to be loyal and devoted to their wives.
What percentage of women getting married would still marry if faced with the same potential personal and financial risks that men do? I doubt it would reach 50 percent.
@Mrs. Pilgrim:
Loyalty, true commitment to a relationship, a place safe from rejection, judgement and emasculation, respect, honor, self-respect, integrity, reasonable self-esteem, and a sense of civility and duty. Plus a healthy and regularly-exercised libido.
We want a woman who is capable of providing comfort to us when needed, supporting us when needed, and watching our backs when needed. We want a woman who isn't judging us by some Romance Novel unrealistic expectation of what Mr. Right is like, and who will accept us for who we are without feeling the necessity of changing us. We want women in our lives who see our inner nobility and who in turn radiate their own sense of grace in ways we find inspirational and empowering.
But a trust fund and a healthy rack doesn't hurt.
Mrs. Pilgrim
We're looking for, to quote from Stingray, women who are"(un)willing to admit that men certainly don't have it all either." (AMEN, brother.)
The other thing that men are looking for but not finding are women who understand their SMV is not signaled by the last guy who made a pass at them but the last guy who was willing to devote time and energy to develope a relationship (cribbed from the comments on a recent post at HookingUpSmart).
I am not convinced that a society can be stable without the push for marriage of the more traditional sort. (Two people committed to each other for life.)
Even the idea of some marriages with single "electrons" looping around them misses the idea of forming the foundation for the future.
The one night stands and short term flings may feel good, but are like the grasshopper fiddling when work needs to be done. It is fun and a lot easier, but it doesn't prepare for the times when all of us are older and need the support of our children. You can't have that support if you never have children.
The current system is very messed up. Just this morning I was noting to my wife that while we hear about men who dumped their wives for a younger model, we don't personally know a single one. We do know at least 3 who left their husbands (or kicked him out).
That demonstrates that the problem is not what is commonly sold to us.
Can we have a form of marriage that differs radically from that in the past, yet provides for a stable society? I don't think so, but perhaps someone here can explain how we could. Term-limited contracts would never provide the stability needed.
@ R. Bradly:
Mayhap. Check out my post here: http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2011/12/marriage-30-31-311-32-33-34-and-beyond.html
Another less-commented point is that the all-too-rare loyal women may choose to spend that loyalty on marriages to idiots. Over the holidays I was struck at how many female friends and family members had chosen to marry "artistes" or computer game addicts who barely contributed any income and didn't help at all in child-rearing. These guys weren't PUAs, but I suspect their aloofness and/or assholery are somehow appealing (there may also be a martyr's complex at work). Traditionally-minded women need to figure out better targets for their loyalty, though I wonder if some of them thought they were "settling" the right way.
A bit confusing to follow (your article). I also think it splits things out far too much.
And calling something marriage doesn't make it marriage, no matter how "long term" the relationship is.
I am more pondering what will ultimately make for a stable society. I don't believe that anything short of 2 people committed to each other for live will do that.
"The key is to perform well without the obligatory griping afterwards. No contempt, no complaint, just smiles and positive attitude. You can't argue with contentment."
This works to a certain extent to the people around such a marriage (one might not be able to argue with contentment, but I am stunned at how some women look at a marriage like this and rationalize around it), but I often wonder about spreading the word further.
@ Der Han:
(AMEN, brother.)
Wow, thank you for the compliment, but that would have to be sister. ; )
Women who are willing to be as loyal and devoted to their husbands as they expect to be loyal and devoted to their wives.
Forgive my skepticism, but after watching so many guys skip over good-natured and loyal 5's in favor of bitchy and demanding 8's (not to say there aren't bitchy/demanding 5's and good-natured/loyal 8's, but you know what I mean)...I think you're crediting most young fellas with more sense than they have.
(But yes, the standing body of family law absolutely needs to be demolished and rebuilt. I don't disagree with that at all.)
Vox: "What percentage of women getting married would still marry if faced with the same potential personal and financial risks that men do? I doubt it would reach 50 percent."
This is the takeaway quote of the post/comments.
Vox, what's your take on Susan Walsh/Dalrock clash on frivolous divorce?
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/is-frivolous-divorce-overstated-in-the-manosphere/
"What percentage of women getting married would still marry if faced with the same potential personal and financial risks that men do?" - not a high percentage unless prenups were actually binding.
I'm curious, Ian, what is it you do (what is your "grace and effort") to ensure your "has it all" wife has it all?
What percentage of women getting married would still marry if faced with the same potential personal and financial risks that men do? I doubt it would reach 50 percent.
Research doesn't support this. Divorced men on average gain additional wealth by one third. Divorced women, with or without children, become poorer, by on average a fifth and remain that way for many years.
Research doesn't support this.
Incorrect. You've reached precisely the wrong conclusion. The inability of women to correctly judge their probable post-divorce financial status does not mean they would be willing to knowingly shoulder the burden of financially supporting an ex-husband or accept a high risk of losing their children.
In fact, the lower divorce rates in states where joint custody is assumed tends to indicate that women would be much less likely to risk marriage if they knew there was a 20+ percent change of losing their children in a divorce.
@RBradley, marriage as a couple with a bunch of singles orbiting singles around them IS the way marriage has always been. At one time, those singles were the couples' own kids, watching how things were done. Later, it was small towns or neighborhoods where everybody knew everyone.
In this day and age, most singles have no good examples to follow. Their own parents have divorced, maybe more than once, and the family has been torn apart,quality time (read: buying stuff) has replaced quantity time.
It's only natural for singles to be attracted to a stable married couple. They become mentors for the folks who have had none because their own parents have failed them.
@MrsPilgrim,
I want a woman who is not a drunk, is intelligent, does not have a high number, will happily be First Mate and not be bitter about it or constantly try to mutiny. I want a woman who doesn't think that shopping for frivolous crap is a sport she can "win".
And, yes, if I am going to "forsake all others" for her, I want her to be pleasing to look at, someone I WANT to have sex with. I want her to be closer to 8 than 5.
It seems that this is too much to ask.
DD
@ SarahsDaughter
As to what I do to help ensure my wife "has it all":
1) Wake up, bathe, dress, feed, and deliver the kids to school every morning.
2) fix everyone's lunches
3) cook every meal (my wife couldn't cook her way out of a refugee camp). I cooked professionally for 15 years. Last night we had pan-roasted chicken in a white-truffle cream sauce with grilled garlic asparagus and a bottle of Egri Bikaver (a Hungarian red -- cheap, bold, and delicious). Finished up with a pumpkin souffle made from the last of the leftover holiday pumpkins.
4) Do all the grocery shopping, clean-up, and the majority of the laundry.
5) Act as a charming dinner companion for business and social occasions
6) Assist her with business writing (I'm better at it than she is)
7) Handle all of the yardwork and home and auto repairs
8) Make a good enough income at my day job to take care of the family if she got hit by a bus
9) Attend school functions, teacher conferences, and scouts on behalf of her when she is unable to (and that's frequently).
10) Maintain cordial and friendly relations with her family, and act as a buffer with my own (she does this in return).
11) I do not watch any sports of any kind. Just not into it.
12) Write her expressive poetry about how I feel about her.
13) Leave work, drive across town and miss my entire lunch just to bring her her cell-phone when she forgets it.
14) Maintain a robust sexual relationship that includes a lot of date nights and weekend trips.
15) Sacrifice five days of my own vacation to help her prepare for a conference she's organizing.
There's 15. There's 15 more, if you need them. Or 1500. And lest you mistake all of those domestic activities for a a milquetoast beta, I also shoot competitively, work out frequently enough to require medical attention, and I work in porn.
She knows how good she has it. Especially when easily 70% of her female friends are single, miserable . . . and jealous.
Thanks, Ian. That's enough, I don't need to read anymore.
The closer a lie comes to the truth, the more evil it is.
The only thing that is going to save marriage is to get the government out of it. It kills two birds with one stone in that it solves the entire "gay marriage" non-issue and can prevent one-party rule in our courtrooms.
Everyone enters into a civil union that is rooted in a religious ceremony. Why does the government have a right to decide who is "married" and who isn't and who is entitled to what because of it? It makes as much sense as a bureaucrat deciding who and when someone can get baptized.
I've seen slutbag, cracksmoking camwhores get marital severance packages and greater custodial rights than their upstanding former spouses. Aided and abetted by a court system where even the worst of anything resembling a mother is given the benefit of the doubt over any party unfortunate enough to be labeled a father.
"Then it's our duty to teach him how to be a good Husband and Father without flaking at the first sign of trouble."
And how, exactly, will that cure the legal system that is designed to completely ruin the husband regardless of the reason for divorce, who is at fault, or how good a Husband and Father he was, or how he refused to flake out. The feminists have certainly brain-washed you.
What Do Men Want-?
A companion. Someone who is trustworthy. Someone who is willing to ride along thru the bad and good times. Not a follower nor a leader...Someone who can stand alongside and hold her own and/or back each other up...
Men want someone who knows themselves and is comfortable in their own skin. Someone who is capable of trust. Someone who can hold a confidence. Someone who can hold periods of indecision and confusion... Someone who can be quiet and not share everything to show how close/smart/helpful they are... Yes, someone who knows that a relationship goes both ways. Someone who provides that same confidence and trust as well as expects it in return.
All relationships are based on trust. Men get hammered for infidelity. Women seldom get a comment about their betrayals of trust...
I'm not a fan of gay marriage (I would prefer it be called a civil union) but if there's one good thing about this push it's that it does seem to have the effect of scrapping a lot of the antiquated laws that are so anti-male.
I'm married, but honestly, I don't know why many men would get married when the deck is so stacked against them. I am REALLY glad I got a prenup, and I encourage anyone I know, even if your not rich, to get one. It really evens out a lot of the inequality in modern marriage.
Also, the best point of the article is that many women know the system is unfair but don't speak out because it's fair in their favor. it's similar to Affirmative Action and racial preferences, even though African Americans know it's unfair, their perfectly happy benefiting from the injustice.
...[T]he lamentable fact is that very, very few women, even conservative, politically minded women who are correctly concerned about what low marriage rates will do to American society, are willing to speak out against Marriage 2.0 because they still wish to retain the legal benefits it affords married women in the event of divorce.
Well, count me out; screw the "legal benefits." I don't wish to bargain on those terms, and I'm ashamed to belong to the same sex as anyone who would. No-fault divorce belongs on a short list of 20th-c. bad ideas. (A long way below genocide; a rung or two up from nudism.)
I'm female, 60 years old, and have been married to the same man for 38 of those years.
I'm with R. Bradley Stevens. Marriage that is not a full life commitment, at least in principle, does not provide the stability a society needs and that children desperately need.
Equally important, it does not provide the combination of challenge and support that at its best helps the two adults mature to be the full people they can be.
Our marriage has not always been easy or delightful. We married quite young and frankly weren't ready for adult life alone, much less together. Were it not for our daughter I probably would indeed have left him out of despair, several times. Perhaps he would have left me at some point, too. I'm truly grateful we didn't. Not only did he challenge me to grow - when he finally matured (and yes, it took some time), the wonderful, strong and intimate man he grew into became the joy of my life each and every day.
What percentage of women getting married would still marry if faced with the same potential personal and financial risks that men do?
My husband left a high tech career for military service after we were married and already had a child, over my deep hesitation. I worked professionally in part because we lived in high expense areas - and not on military bases, either. I've earned more than him for about 2/3 of the years we've been together. We've always kept all our finances joint. Had we divorced while our daughter was a minor I would at a minimum have received no child support, certainly no alimony and quite possibly might have had to pay some alimony to him.
But that is truly not the point - although I empathize with the bitterness and anger many men feel over the shallow, shrill and bitter parody of feminism and its results in current divorce courts.
The real point is that both men and women deserve respect - and deserve the expectation that they will act as mature adults. I could live without my husband if I had to, at least financially and in day to day matters. He could live without me. Neither of us has any intention of doing so, now or in the future - as a choice, and because we promised to be faithful live-long companions. Our lives would be greatly diminished if we lost one another for whatever cause.
Had we lived two centuries ago, my economic contribution to our lives would have taken a different form, but it would have been there nonetheless. The difference is that today both my husband and I have been able to be educated and to contribute not only to our household but to the country and to society with all our gifts.
First Mate to your Captain? Not in our household. We're a team ... I often give way on things that matter a lot to him, he often gives way on things that matter a lot to me. It's quite achievable, but it takes work, humility and commitment to pull off.
All relationships are based on trust. Men get hammered for infidelity. Women seldom get a comment about their betrayals of trust...
That may be true today. But it hasn't been true over the course of most of history, during which the suspicion of adultery or sex outside of marriage could ruin a woman's life, while men's affairs were often tut-tutted. Moreover, until not all that many decades ago, all property in a marriage was assumed to be the husband's to control. Period.
What we have today stinks and needs changing. It won't change however until we also admit that there were justified grievances that fed the feminist movement. When I began my career working for the Dept. of Defense as a high tech civilian, it was still the case that any woman who became pregnant had to quit her job at the 4th month of that pregnancy.
Not go on sick leave. Lose the job permanently. The policy didn't change until just about the time I became pregnant myself.
I was denied opportunities to move into some technical areas in my first job because, as my boss put it, "women don't do well at those sorts of things and you might need to work extra hours". So I moved on to Silicon Valley in the early explosion of the high tech industry, where I worked as long and hard as needed to do the excellent work of which I was capable. And despite that boss' opinion, I managed to earn a PhD in an advanced area of computing and to lead a major research program thereafter.
I hear you guys. I really, really do. I'm disgusted with what I see of many women today. We need ways to live with one another in respect and fairness on all sides. Otherwise the pendulum will just keep swinging from one extreme to another - or our society will collapse through lack of sufficient stability and investment in the future.
A third and last comment (and thank you for allowing me to join the thread):
If it wasn't clear in my two comments above, let me be very explicit. Without the commitment and challenge my marriage posed, I would not have matured as a women. Nor did I achieve my career or anything else somehow apart from my husband.
Nor he from me.
I wish I'd had better role models for marriage. My parents divorced when I was 2. His parents stayed married and bickered every day from the time I met them until their deaths.
What we both did have were extended families, not only of young adults but of older couples who provided examples to follow (or, in some cases, to avoid LOL). FWIW
It would be VERY helpful to get rid of alimony altogether. I am a woman saying this. I also was ordered to pay spousal support to my husband, even though I had 100% custody of the kids and received no child support and my husband was criminally convicted by a jury of sexually assaulting me. In CA, it does not matter if you are man or woman, the risk is simply upon the person who has a job and makes more income. In this current "mancession" I imagine there are more and more divorces where the woman is the one with a job and has to pay the alimony. Whatever the case may be, no adult in society has the right to be supported by another in this day and age.
"What are men looking for, then, that they're not finding?"
I'd like to find a woman who will be on my side. Whether she agrees with me or not, I want my significant other to show public solidarity. We can discuss differences in private but I want her to have my back like I have hers.
Oh yeah, I'd also like a legal system that is not stacked against me from the jump.
Andy Johnson said...
What Do Men Want-?
A companion. Someone who is trustworthy. Someone who is willing to ride along thru the bad and good times. Not a follower nor a leader...Someone who can stand alongside and hold her own and/or back each other up...
Men want someone who knows themselves and is comfortable in their own skin. Someone who is capable of trust. Someone who can hold a confidence. Someone who can hold periods of indecision and confusion... Someone who can be quiet and not share everything to show how close/smart/helpful they are... Yes, someone who knows that a relationship goes both ways. Someone who provides that same confidence and trust as well as expects it in return.
I've been happily married for 28 years, but my first thought when reading this list was that you'd be more likely to find those qualities in a dog than most wives.
Women, such as Mrs Pilgrim, who seems a nice, decent person, really don't get it, but look at it this way.
1) Women know looks matter to guys. So keeping their looks up to snuff is a way of showing respect to her partner. Too many women think that once they get hitched, they can let themselves go. This is disrespectful of the relationship and a demonstration they don't really value their man.
2) Most Men AND women who are "naturally" 5s can make themselves 7s by working at it, by taking the effort. Men can increase their "value" by "game" (for lack of a better word), improving themselves from 5s to 7s (or even higher) in the eyes of potential mates.
Women can do this too. They just don't think they should be arsed. The 5s have their own version of what some call "bitter beta game" that says whomever they develop a LTR with should "accept them for what they are." Well when men do this, women naturally and accurately retort that they shouldn't be surprised then if they end up bitter and lonely.
Well, the same is true for girls. As the one commenter put it so pithily, men don't "have it all" either and women won't give them it all unless they're up-to-snuff (though sometimes women's standards for what constitutes "up-to-snuff" are appalling, thus the constant "smart women, stupid choices" "I married an arsehole" episodes of afternoon talk-show programs aimed at largely female audiences. Of course it's somehow always the man's fault that women choose l0zors).
But that's another thing most men would probably like from most women, but probably won't get: willingness to accept responsibility for their own choices, bad as well as good. But then as partly implied in this post, men have become worse at this too under the new regime.
But if women devoted half the attention and effort to improving themselves, making themselves 7s if they're naturally 5s, that they put into "fixing" the heart-stopping-but-arseholly-loser they attach themselves to, and then making better choices for LTRs, it would be win-win.
But of course laws and social customs also have to return to something close to reasonable. We do tend to forget that the past wasn't entirely reasonable either, though it was in many ways socially better all around.
I wonder if Elizabeth Warren thinks the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should require vast legal and financial disclosures to men who plan to marry in advance of the marriage with a cooling off period?
because they still wish to retain the legal benefits it affords married women in the event of divorce.
Yes. Another factor seems to be the assumption, among many women, that without a punitive regime of laws and policies concerning domestic relations, divorce, and support, that men will engage in bad behavior. So men need to be treated unfairly to prevent them from treating women unfairly.
"[The mainstream media's] account of child support is likewise distorted. Advertised as providing for children who have been 'abandoned' by their fathers, child support is in reality the financial engine driving divorce, offering generous windfalls to mothers who break their vows, while criminalizing fathers with debts most have done nothing to incur and that are far beyond their means."
Thus writes Stephen Baskerville.
http://stephenbaskerville.net/articles-bydate.htm
Check out his book,
Taken Into Custody
(The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family).
Excerpts here:
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/06/witch-hunts-in-contemporary-america-is.html
…What we confront here is a bureaucratic machine of a kind that has never before been seen in the United States or the other English-speaking democracies. … The implications reach far beyond fathers and even beyond the family itself, for forcibly severing the intimate bond between parents and their children threatens the liberties of all of us.
…child support is no longer primarily a method for requiring men to take responsibility for the offspring they have sired and then abandoned, as most people are led to believe. Overwhelmingly it is now a regime whereby "a father is forced to finance the filching of his own children."
… The growth of this machinery has been accompanied by a huge propaganda campaign that has served to justify punitive measures against citizens who are not convicted of any crime. "is there a species on the planet who is more unjustly maligned than fathers?" writes columnist Naomi Lakritz. "Fathers are abusers, bullies, deadbeats, molesters, and all-around sexist clods who have a lot of gall wanting a relationship with their children once the intital moment of conception is over."
… The regime of involuntary divorce, forcible removal of children, coerced child support, and knowingly false accusations is now warping our entire legal system, undermining and overturning principles of common law that have protected individual rights for centuries. The presumption of innocence has been inverted
… Far from simple violations of particular constitutional clauses, these practices and powers are undermining constitutional government in its most fundamental principles. The power to take children from their parents for no reason is arbitrary government at its most intrusive, since it invades and obliterates all of private life. Yet we have created a governmental machinery that exists for no other purpose.
Until women reject the idea of victimhood preached by feminists, politicians stop the self righteous, self moralizing class warfare passing discriminatory laws and judges practice what Thomas Jefferson said, "Equal rights for all, special privileges for none", then and only then will society become functionally normal. To openly give preference is to blatantly discriminate as all privileges always come at the expense of another's rights or equal treatment.
We didn't get here overnight, these insults to liberty and freedom occurred gradually over a period of time. The tipping point IMO was the federal VAWA that State and local politicians and judges abused to manipulate the law to give preference to one gender and using children as human shields to extort and enslave. They extended the concept of "protected class" to privilege females to elevate accusations to the level of truth without scrutiny of the facts or even casting a critical eye on the motives of those who might falsely accuse for material gain. When an accuser has the potential to benefit by the exclusive use of property and seize a portion of another's income a reasonable motive is established for a false accusation. All of these preferences were inflicted upon society under the guise of abuse by the few and the net result was to restrict the liberty and freedoms of the many.
When Society rejects the Socialist model of marriage as embraced by the courts and politicians, then we shall have an end to dysfunctional marriage.
The comments here only scratch the surface of the problem.
Everyone needs to read the Misandry Bubble, which is the definitive essay on this topic.
at 20 years old today you have a good chance of living 60 more years at least..not the 10-20 of our ancestors.
the expectation of lifelong marriage is silly..also people don't even mature until they get to their 30's today. Just the reality of todays world where everything is unstable
Ma'am, I tip my hat to you- as you mentioned?
Anonymous said...
I'm female, 60 years old, and have been married to the same man for 38 of those years...
...First Mate to your Captain? Not in our household. We're a team ... I often give way on things that matter a lot to him, he often gives way on things that matter a lot to me. It's quite achievable, but it takes work, humility and commitment to pull off.
December 30, 2011 12:54 PM
My first wife was “my own true love”- yep, like Gone With The Wind. She was also my business partner and my best friend. We had seven years before a stroke carried her away.
My second wife was also my very best friend. 25 years, and her heart just up and stopped. Life's a Son of a Bitch, sometimes- but the point is, you are a team. “You & me Against the World.”
It is not easy- you marry a human being with flaws & faults & problems. But you work together. At least in public- you can fight all you want to in private.
I am an old man- somehow that big young fast strong dude I used to see turned into my grandfather. But I know this- you-- husband & wife, girlfriend & boyfriend- work as a team.
-30-
"Then it's our duty to teach him how to be a good Husband and Father without flaking at the first sign of trouble."
What a stupid, ignorant comment.
It is WOMEN who do this, because the laws enable women to PROFIT by doing this.
The notion that men are the problem is just about the stupidist idea around, and why the Republican Party is now just as dumb as the Homocrats.
Insisting that men are the problem is about the same as insisting that the Earth is flat.
For some reason these single feminist women say they don't need men -- unless it's other women's husbands paying taxes to pay for the welfare their fatherless children might need some day.
Gentlemen, this is the BEST time to be a man!
Men can work easy jobs, while getting casual, no-strings sex, while women go off and work at dreary corporate jobs because they think they have a 'career'.
That is way better than when a man had to marry and work himself into an early grave to be a provider for another human just because she had a uterus (which itself is about to be commoditized once it is mass-produced in laboratories in China).
Feminism liberated MEN, not women.
Equality is a bitch, bitches :).
Societies where women get custody have very high divorce rates.
Societies where MEN get custody have very low divorce rates.
This clearly proves that fathers are the parent who are more likely to put children ahead of themselves. The mother is the more selfish parent, particularly in this day and age of misandry.
If you want to make divorce go away, make father custody the default option.
Conservatives are too cowardly to do this, of course. Their focus on a non-issue like gay marriage is merely their way to avoid dealing with the main problem.
A team still has to have an ultimate leader. Someone always has to make the final choice if both parties disagree.
Life expectancy was far more than 30 or 40 for many, so the idea you can't live in a long-term relationship for many years is bunk.
Instead, it is more of a justification for flakiness on people's parts. Don't hold me accountable, I am young. Phoey on that idea.
Interesting response to my call for a trusting, honest relationship. Yes, a dog will trust you and never tell your secrets. But if a wife cannot keep her mouth shut then how can she be trusted-? How many careers have been torpedoed because someone was sharing the family concerns about career, promotions, transfer, outside offers and opportunities-?
If a spouse cannot trust their spouse to be quiet, if nothing else, then how can he ever discuss work and possible events, opportunities and consequences-?
Yes, I do wish to discuss a transfer to London or move to a competitor. If those discussions get passed around half-baked, then they will vanish... and maybe I'll be standing on the sidewalk with a box of personal affects waiting for a ride home. Same goes for a wife/spouse who is being considered for a transfer or a two-year stint overseas before being invited to join the C-Suite... It's not the 1950's but the social side of a career is still important... Loose Lips can sink a career... Spend too much time in the home office doing plans for a merger or acquisition and the word gets out... Hiring a new developer and seeing a new idea come alive and the word gets out while marketing plans and roll-out budgets are being made... *POOF* there goes all the investment and if company is public-fines, lawyers, and SEC investigations can follow...
A spouse who cannot be trusted is not an equal partner... whether man or women... The relationship is skewed by necessity... Watch a relationship where two partners work the room and make everyone feel comfortable, cared for and welcomed...and you'll see the coming CEO and new board member...
Women want equality-then earn it. Not just by being proficient. Be a self confident confidant person who can be trusted to handle projects discretely then you will see equality in pay and promotion. Character counts... Spouses who betray their spouse by careless talk do nobody any good.
Sex is available almost everywhere for both men and women. There are talented and enthusiastic amateurs as well as professionals of varying skill and price. This is not news. Sex in the workplace is a ticking time bomb. Everyone knows that and if not then they deserve the surprise.
Marriage is a partnership. Partners both for children, retirement comfort and companionship. Partnerships do not work well when one is more equal than another. If one cannot turn to the other for advice, counsel, or comfort then it is not a partnership. Then, YES-Anonymous, a dog is a good companion...at least the dog can be trusted to be quiet and always be happy to see you...
If you don't know of what I speak, then I feel sympathy for the men whose lives you ruin.
Prenup, Baby!
Vox - "What percentage of women getting married would still marry if faced with the same potential personal and financial risks that men do? I doubt it would reach 50 percent."
I think you're wrong here. Studies show that romantic love inhibits long-term thinking. Men and women "in love" simply are not thinking a nasty divorce will happen to them, so the possible consequences weigh less in their decision to marry or not. Especially when they're young.
"In fact, the lower divorce rates in states where joint custody is assumed tends to indicate that women would be much less likely to risk marriage if they knew there was a 20+ percent change of losing their children in a divorce. "
You're mixing apples and oranges here. Do those states have lower *marriage* rates or just lower divorce rates? Are women in states with default shared or joint custody less interested in marriage? I doubt it.
SarahsDaughter:
The closer a lie comes to the truth, the more evil it is.
You couldn't possibly know enough to make that assumption.
Unless...
I didn't make an assumption, Markku, I made a statement. Based off of his "you can have it all" assertion.
Reversing roles so that your high income producing wife can succeed is still farming your wife out to the highest bidder, something that in many people's eyes is still a disgrace. The children naturally go to the lowest bidder (anyone outside of mom/dad at home full time and educating at home is the lowest bidder). The "best" is sacrificed for the money. Outside of the children and what is best for them, this example is a lie to other women and men. This woman takes the place of a male provider in the workplace. And one who would likely be more successful in the position (unless, of course her job is to be the cum catcher in his porn industry - in that case...).
There is no doubt that if my husband's full time job was to be keeper of our home - the daily duties, he would kick my ass at it. Also, no doubt that he would kick my ass at any profession I would chose. All of the busy work in a home is just that. The heart of a home is where women excel when they are allowed/expected to be. I'm quite confident that my husband would prepare our meals delicious and on time, however, the mere contemplation of coming home to my doting husband brings a vile gag reflex in my being. This is an example that can not be readily duplicated or mentored no matter how much Ian blathers on about it. Obviously there are exceptions/snowflakes but I would venture to guess most women would (if they're honest) rather be the woman that greets her husband after a long day's work, and the arm candy at a convention, than be the "has it all" woman - thus, the lie.
There's not much we (women like myself, Stingray, etc.) can do to convince feminists/"I am not a feminist but my career comes first before my nature" - women that we do, in fact, have it all. Proverbs 31. Please, tell me if I'm wrong, but reading the 15 things this man does is so far away from "being respected at the city gates," I laughed. Not a milquetoast beta...no, my husband's first reaction was, "so, he's a woman."
"In fact, the lower divorce rates in states where joint custody is assumed tends to indicate that women would be much less likely to risk marriage if they knew there was a 20+ percent change of losing their children in a divorce."
Actually joint custody seems to increase marriage rate and has no effect on rates of divorce.
SD,
I doubt your husband would do at well raising your children. I know some claim that, but women seem to have many innate things that help with child rearing that men don't. I also suspect that most women would not find a Mr. Mom as sexy as one out earning a living.
Some would certainly agree with this of course.
Someone (m or f) who steals your life hasn't suddenly turned nasty, they are born that way and will never change, it's what and who they are and were before you met them.
Remember, the law currently only enables people to do bad things legally to their families, but no-one actually is forced to do this.
But looking at some of the plastic people demands here that grade women by looks etc, you're on a sure loser here... good looks can almost always be bought(there is an entire industry devoted to this problem...), but the core personality is immutable.
Caveat emptor...!
"so, he's a woman."
How about Nate, is that true of him?
@SD,
You make some good points with respect to your last post. Here is a link to this bloggers initial post. This will give you an idea where this person is coming from...I dunno if this once again part of a redefining of masculinity trend that has been rehashed over and over again...
http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2011/12/moment-of-appreciation-for-good-wives.html
"so, he's a woman."
How about Nate, is that true of him? - Markku
From what I know, it is equally true that Nate farms his wife out to the highest bidder. I don't think he'd disagree with that. If your wife is working, you're a moron if she isn't maximizing her income potential. Just be honest about it.
Is he a woman? When he's done "writing expressive poetry to his wife letting her know how he feels," he can come on and answer for himself.
@Anon:
He's linked his blog himself, his wordy, pathetic excuse for a man, trying to redefine marriage, and oh so popular (sarc) blog. Again barfing in my mouth a little reading that dribble.
"I doubt your husband would do at well raising your children." - R. Bradley
I don't in the least. The raising of our children is not what I was referring to. It was the day to day chores that can easily be done by a housekeeper or our older children. When it comes to teaching and bringing up those children, he's very much a part of the equation of our success. If it had to be his primary focus, he'd succeed as well at that as he does his career.
What should be most appealing about our divided roles to men is that he has full faith and confidence in all of my decision making within the home. He concerns himself with his career, major purchases, some maintenance around the home (though since he's military, that is another area he needs to have confidence in me), and the Spiritual guidance of our family. The fact that he has not had to concern himself with the trivial day to day issues, when he'll have sex, or any emotional drama, frees up his mind to focus exclusively on his profession which equates to more success, more financial success, and thus more of my time freed up. Women who aren't fully embracing this model are the ones truly missing out on "having it all."
writing expressive poetry to his wife letting her know how he feels
That item does give pause.
Mrs. Pilgrim, you have it backwards. It is the young women who pass over average men.
@SD, my husband didn't "farm me out" for my career.
Nor does my career include porn.
In addition to being nasty and untrue, your characterization of married women like me - career professional, married for many years, mother - misses the point.
Some evidence, please, that any man could do my job as well as I do? There's a *reason* I lead a team of PhDs in valuable research, and it's not because there are no men in my field.
Choose the life you want and I wish you joy and success in it. But stop the snide characterizations of those who choose otherwise. Among other things, you are not exactly portraying the Gospel in all that lovely a light by using such language against those whom you do not know and whose situation you have no clue about.
Oh, and did I mention above that my husband, too, was career military?
Pfeh.
Anon,
No, I'm sure you are the ONLY person that could do your job. You are so special. It is a must that your children sacrifice in order to have the world be blessed by your highly exclusive Career - that can ONLY be done by a woman like you. You're right. What was I thinking. I meant everyone EXCEPT you. I'm sure the Military even recognized your brilliance and made sure your husband remained in one place in order to not disrupt continuity in your most importantest job...crap, sorry, CAREER.
Stop the snide characterizations? You've got to be kidding me. You are the very person I make them for. You are the exact problem with this society and the breakdown of the American family and the LIE of feminism. You are welcome to go somewhere else and spew your bullshit and not be called on it. There are thousands of places that will bow at the alter of YOU.
Well, @SD, let's see.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who could do my job. My current employer searched for 9 months before hiring me - I'm sure there were other good candidates they spoke with, and I know a few they didn't speak with who certainly could do my job well.
Nonetheless, you have so deep an emotional investment in seeing men as more capable than women in all areas except those you've carved out as safe for women to claim that you .... misrepresent a much more complex reality in this - not 18th or 15th century, but this - world.
Military moves - yes. Balancing a career with family and my husband's military assignments wasn't easy. That's why I postponed earning my PhD until he was retired and settled in one place. I would have loved to have done so earlier; he really wanted to do the difficult task he embraced in his military career; that was one big part of my lfie where I gave way.
He's given way to me in other things.
It's what adult partners do.
My child is married happily and livin with a man she loves and who loves her. They are just starting the long process of being two strong, mutually interdependent by choice for life partners themselves.
As far as spewing and bullshit goes, I'll gently suggest once again that you do your cause no favors by the tone you adopt. I suspect we actually have a lot in common. I too am deeply concerned about the state of our society, about the key role that the breakdown of the family is playing in that state, and about a pendulum that has unhelpfully swung from the things I experienced in my youth to the mess we have today.
The answer is not to swing the pendulum back to the other extreme again. The answer is to reaffirm the core truths in tradition and to live them in light of the challenges and opportunities of today. There are a range of ways to have a healthy, lifelong marriage and to raise healthy productive and spiritually sound kids. If what works for you is to assert every more shrilly that YOU area TRUE woman - and therefore inferior to all men - go for it. Don't expect me or most modern women to follow you there.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to do what I do while also working where and as I can to counter the shallow, shrill voices on both ends of the spectrum.
Bah - typos. PIMF
You can gently suggest all you want, (push up the eyeglasses you're staring down at me from), my tone is quite essential. And no, dear, we have nothing in common.
Your husband is retired military and your child is grown. In what way do you find your example to even be relevant to what is being discussed here?
The answer IS to swing the pendulum back. Historical success is essential to recognize. Attempting to redefine roles and create a new model that has already proven itself flawed and dangerous to children is asinine.
If what works for you is to assert every more shrilly that YOU area TRUE woman - and therefore inferior to all men - go for it.
Where are you getting this from? Sarah's Daughter never said any such thing.
Your husband is retired military and your child is grown. In what way do you find your example to even be relevant to what is being discussed here?
In what way is it not relevant?
I suggest from personal experience over 38 years of successful, happy marriage to a strong and respected man that there is a model for marriage in which both men and women can be respected, strong and act as partners. It is a model that demurs from extremes on both the shallow, shrill feminist cult of victimhood and from a rejection of women and respect for independent women on the other hand.
I offer one example - there are many, they differ in details - that respects both men and women, that calls for respect between them. An example that included jointly raising a child to adulthood and marriage of her own.
And you are suggesting this is not relevant to the topic of this thread?
Where are you getting this from?
From comments like:
Reversing roles so that your high income producing wife can succeed is still farming your wife out to the highest bidder ... This woman takes the place of a male provider in the workplace. And one who would likely be more successful in the position (unless, of course her job is to be the cum catcher in his porn industry - in that case...).
There is no doubt that if my husband's full time job was to be keeper of our home - the daily duties, he would kick my ass at it. Also, no doubt that he would kick my ass at any profession I would chose. All of the busy work in a home is just that. The heart of a home is where women excel when they are allowed/expected to be.
Meh, I didn't actually assert it but I will now, I believe it.
Females might someday get it through their heads that a true woman does not desire to replicate a man, she embraces what it is to be a woman. Striving to compete with men has only proven that yes, in deed, statistically men will out perform them. While the men are being men and the women are attempting to be, who maintains the qualities God desired the female to have? Long before I would waste money in a college trying to “find myself” or work in a job that “fulfills me,” I want to strengthen and maximize the nature God made uniquely mine. How beautiful is it when you meet a true servant? I chose long ago to sit at the feet of wise women to learn. They focused on serving God, their husbands, their friends, and those in need. They gave an example to their children of what it means to be in submission and to edify their husbands. They maintained relationships with extended family, considered them, wrote letters, sent birthday greetings, etc. They bring warmth, grace and calm to every room they walk into. They do their husbands well when they are adored by all. You know these ladies, they dress to the 9’s when they're out at the grocery store, beautifully representing the high value they have for themselves and for their husbands. They keep up their hair, stay fit and healthy. Their time is best spent at the side of their husbands, they're visually best friends and you can see in his eyes that he can't get enough of her. When She dies, we naturally assume her husband will die shortly after. The two completely became one.
Not some god awful two headed monster running full speed in competition and selfishness.
If you find my tone to be shrill, it is nothing compared to the horrendous treatment that feminists doled out to these keepers of the home with their snide "Becky Homecky" comments. The tongue lashing these woman received for not exhibiting the "girl power" of the last 30 years deserves to be met with an equal tongue lashing. I'm not even good at it yet. I still want to rip the eyes out of pathetic excuses for women that dare think a SHAM is somehow not enough. I'm still learning the calm.
The porn reference that Dr. Genius is referring to has to do directly with what Ian says he does for work.
I don't care that you're offended that I desire to be what is a "true woman." I don't respect or desire to emulate any career/independent/"call it what ever you want" women. The women I respect and thus want to be are the women I described above. And there isn't enough TIME in life to succeed at this AND have a career where you serve another man outside your husband. Something is not tended to properly. The divorce rate backs up my assertion.
If you find my tone to be shrill, it is nothing compared to the horrendous treatment that feminists doled out to these keepers of the home with their snide "Becky Homecky" comments.
Agreed, 100%. That sort of shallow, egocentric and ignorant dismissal of the value of a homemaker is more than offputting - it is as disrespectful of women as the equivalent shrill putdowns and ridicule of men are. And both are often served up by the same people in the name of 'feminism'.
That is not what I am talking about or advocating.
Nor - and this is an important point - have I sought to compete with men as men in my career. What I have done is to seek to do the best job I can in roles that I have the God-given talent, interest and training top fulfill well. Some of those roles are in the workplace and sometimes my co-workers, or those who are also under consideration for a job, are male. Sometimes not.
But my focus is on what I do, not what they are.
As I mentioned, I worked outside the home for a variety of reasons including economic ones but I postponed a dearly-held goal of mine, one for which I am well suited, for many years to allow him to pursue his own prized calling. I don't resent that one bit. He's a) my beloved, b) really good at what *he* does and c) one of us had to give way, if we were to live together and in harmony with one another.
I promised him, and God, and the community that witness our vows nearly 38 years ago that we would indeed live together through better and worse. He promised me the same, in from of the same witnesses.
So I made the choice to wait. And he in turn honors, loves, respects and supports me every day - including in what I am doing now in the workplace.
Its sounds as if you haven't come to know long-time married couples who truly are One together, in mutual love, respect and admiration, and in which it happens to be the case that the woman has a career outside of the home. I'm sorry for that - and sorry that there are not as many examples as I wish of this.
But it can be done. It is *one* attainable option, one model for marriage that differs both from the traditions based on agricultural societies in which many women died in childbirth, on the one hand, and from the empty, destructive and desperate lives so many are living in our society today.
PS: Time is an interesting thing. I've found that when I'm on the right path, there's enough time to do what is needed when it's needed. Realizing that was one factor that allowed me to wait patiently to do my doctoral work - even though I had no assurance whatsoever that, having waiting, I would ever in fact have a chance to do so.
That was my path and I am firmly convinced, as is my husband, that it was the path intended for me. I honor and respect your choice as well. If your marriage has half the richness, warmth, mutual support and sheer joy that ours does has developed over long years together, you will be blessed indeed. ;-)
Come to think of it, I wish the same for all who seek an alternative to the hollow husk of relationships that is on display on TV, in movies and around us all these days.
Sigh. More typos. But honest and heartfelt contents.
I don't care that you're offended that I desire to be what is a "true woman." I don't respect or desire to emulate any career/independent/"call it what ever you want" women.
I have no problem with your desires. Why should I? I assume you're an adult who's made her own choices and lives by them.
On the other hand, it's quite obvious that you *do* have a problem with women whose choice is not the same as your own.
The women I respect and thus want to be are the women I described above. And there isn't enough TIME in life to succeed at this AND have a career where you serve another man outside your husband. Something is not tended to properly.
And there isn't enough TIME in life to succeed at this AND have a career where you serve another man outside your husband. Something is not tended to properly.
I don't "serve" "another man" in my career. You seem to think that a career is an alternate marriage. That's not what workplace relationships are about.
And not all bosses are men. ;-)
Insofar as serving within marriage, my husband and I each serve the other. And it is not primarily time that enables us to do so, but rather daily commitment of priorities and a conscious choice to love, honor, respect, cherish and enjoy one another.
I don't meant to insert myself into Sarah's Daughter and Anonymous's conversation, but I need to ask this. SD, do you think yourself inferior to all men? I didn't and still don't get that from what anonymous quoted. I would say that SD believes men and women to be different and is not afraid to embrace that.
(throws up hands)
OK, my browser editor is doing delayed and funky things. I hope those comments are more or less readable.
Best wishes -
Anonymous 60 and female etc.
Stingray, no, of course not. You're right in what I'm attempting to say, we (men and women) are different and that is what should be embraced, not these failed attempts to be the same. That is what has been so destructive.
When talking about differences it is useful to distinguish universals from averages, and the variability of traits in individuals of the same sex.
There certainly are some universal differences between men and women. For instance, my pelvis and shoulder assemblies are, like those of all women, optimized for bearing, holding and nursing infants. My husband’s and those of other men are not – they are optimized for certain kinds of thrusting and bearing strength.
But other traits are less clear cut. One example: orienting/moving through the space around us. *On average* men tend to favor a so-called absolute frame of spatial reference. They mentally organize space as if they were looking at a map from above, oriented to north/south/east/west. (At least in Western societies they do. There are some interesting exceptions in a variety of traditional/tribal societies still among us.) *On average* women tend to favor a so-called relative frame of spatial reference. They mentally tend to organize space as a series of landmarks as viewed from the perspective of (i.e. relative to) the speaker or person moving.
These differences are why commercial GPS units give *both* a top down map view oriented to compass directions *and* display landmarks + give narrative, step-by-step directions.
*On average* men whose testosterone levels have declined in later middle and old age more easily adopt a relative frame of spatial reference. You might think that would demonstrate that these are inherent in the sexes. But there are some very strong counterexamples. For instance, women pilots, including women who fly military combat jets well, also prefer absolute frames of reference despite having perfectly normal hormonal levels and in some cases having born children.
We are just scratching the surface to understand how much of this is learned, perhaps at a very early age, influenced by environmental factors or hardwired from birth. But we do know that there is no one who is simultaneously good at all the possible cognitive, physical and other skills found across humanity. For instance, the rapid instinctual physical responses required of an outstanding fighter pilot are rare – and require brain organization that’s a bit different from people who are especially fluent in verbal communications.
Work with brain-injured military has demonstrated beyond doubt that human brains can reorganize in adulthood in very profound ways. So we really just do not know what is “innate” even in an individual person.
(cont'd below)
(cont'd)
I happen to be good at certain kinds of abstractions used in computer science. My husband is good at certain kinds of applied math. Both of us have male and female colleagues who are also good in these areas.
My brother, on the other hand, is an ironworker. He used to walk the beams high up on skyscrapers being built. He now leads a crew that does the demanding, delicate work of dismantling and renovating nuclear power plants. Neither my husband nor I could do any of those jobs. I personally lack the exquisite balance required, not to mention the physical strength etc.
My father had an amazing sense for wood and other building materials. He was also an excellent marksman and an accomplished woodsman/hunter. His hands and his eye for the living properties of wood resulted in beautiful objects the creation of which is quite beyond me, or my siblings.
On the other hand, he passed down something to us – genetically or through teaching - because each one of my siblings and I are decent shots. ;-)
So:
Most of the time it’s more accurate to speak of averages across the sexes, while keeping in mind the great variation among individuals and how little we really know about nature vs. nurture.
Otherwise we will find ourselves making ridiculous claims such as those advanced into the early 20th century such as, “Women have the mentality of children & should not be allowed to vote or admitted to universities lest their delicate constitutions be overtaxed.”
Or, "men are not capable by nature of monogamy".
Women have the mentality of children & should not be allowed to vote
I can tell you are new here, because that is the view shared by both the majority of men and women here, who came when the previous forum branched into this one.
Including me and Vox, of course.
How sad - for you - if true.
It would mean you're missing out on an awful lot of wonderful, varied, delightful possibilities for life. ;-)
It would mean you're missing out on an awful lot of wonderful, varied, delightful possibilities for life. ;-)
Remember, when you make a choice about voting, you make a choice about the effect caused by the average of a very large group, namely all women of a nation. But when you make a choice about a spouse, the choice is about a single individual. Outliers matter in the latter but not the former.
I am new here, so please flesh that out a bit.
Are you saying that *on average* women lack the ?cognitive ability? ?responsibility? ?stability? ?nature? or ???? to be entrusted with voting?
On what basis would you advance whatever claim it is that you're making?
asked honestly
Perhaps at this point someone is wondering how this fact is compatible with the usual charge of snowflaking.
The charge is only appropriate when the discussion is about averages, and a particular commenter possibly being an outlier is completely irrelevant even if true.
LOL .... have fun playing your game. ;-)
But - if and when you want to get serious, there really is a good alternative to all that. And alternative that brings a lifetime of satisfaction, respect, admiration and mutual support.
Best regards,
anonymous, 60, and female etc.
Are you saying that *on average* women lack the ?cognitive ability? ?responsibility? ?stability? ?nature? or ???? to be entrusted with voting?
Responsibility, and the ability or willingness to think about the effects of their choices as a whole, and not only in relation to themselves. Plus, women can be easily charmed by handsome and sociopathic politicians.
ROTFLOL
Actually, ROTFLMAO ;-)
If at some point you want to discuss the issue with actual words, I'll point out that this is not the right place for it. I don't mean to say that you should, that is up to you.
But the way to approach this if you do is to send email to Vox, and if it is interesting and/or amusing enough, you'll probably get your own thread at Vox Popoli.
Note: This doesn't have anything to do with me. Just helping a newcomer out.
Thanks. I followed Glenn Reynolds' like to this thread because of the marriage issue, specifically.
OTOH the wider issues about our society are also of pressing concern to me. OTOH I already blog elsewhere at a busy and moderated site. Plus I have a variety of offline responsibilities including [smile] a day job.
I'll consider it.
My only concern here is that I won't end up as a contributing factor to derailing this forum. So, it's all the same to me, apart from that.
Understood.
the most commented thread so far! nice!
it is time for the west to return to marriage 1.0.
and for us in the east, it's about time we realize that following the footsteps of the west regarding marriage is a terrible idea.
it is time for the west to return to marriage 1.0.
Impossible. As soon as women get the right to vote, Marriage 1.0 ends within mere decades.
Marriage 1.0 and democracy are simply not compatible with each other for more than a generation or two.
On what basis would you advance whatever claim it is that you're making?
On a vast amount of direct experience with women, having bedded dozens of them myself.
Markku is actually being kind. Women are no more suitable for having the right to vote than children are.
Women voting immediately turns a democracy into a feminist police state, where the bottom 80% of men are either enslaved or criminalized just for being men.
Stingray, no, of course not. You're right in what I'm attempting to say, we (men and women) are different and that is what should be embraced, not these failed attempts to be the same. That is what has been so destructive.
Thanks. Obviously, this is how I feel as well. I try to find the humor in the fact that so many women immediately go for the word "inferior" in these conversations. Though, I admit to mostly being frustrated by it. As Vox told me a while ago (forgive me for misquoting, Vox. Can't remember the exact wording) people will demean and criticize that which they don't understand. Out of fear(?) they will belittle the stance they don't understand to rationalize their own decisions.
On what basis would you advance whatever claim it is that you're making?
Their voting record. You're a PhD, look up the relevant studies, they have been done. Where women vote, debt and major legal changes that have a deleterious effect on society soon follow.
In fact, the entire point of expanding the franchise to women, and to younger men, was because their vote is so easily manipulated. That is why women's suffrage was included in Mussolini's Facist Manifesto.
Like many scientists, your knowledge of history appears to be scanty.
Impossible. As soon as women get the right to vote, Marriage 1.0 ends within mere decades.
Impossible? You are clearly not very well-informed then. Women's votes have already been rendered largely irrelevant throughout the entire European Union; for example, Greece and Italy have unelected governments. Of course, men's votes are too.
But female voting is no less easily rolled back than everyone voting. Don't make the common mistake of confusing voting with freedom.
Just backed over this to see what happened, and thought I'd offer a few corrections:
I'm a real man. I write poetry. I write prose. Sometimes my wife, whom I love and who is a dear friend to me, not to mention the mother of my children, figures prominently in that work. That diminishes neither my masculinity or my commitment to the Red Pill. I don't need peer pressure to tell me how to run my marriage.
I "farm my wife out" because unlike a lot of Manosphere fellas, I'm not a hard-core Christian trying to recreate the biblical times. I'm a post-industrial Pagan who sees benefit to women in the workforce. That includes my brilliant wife. She's a star in her field and she makes the world a better place. I'm better than her than some domestic duties, and my kids like me. Since for a large part of our marriage I was a freelance writer, I was a SAHD for many years. And since freelance writing is a slow way to starve to death, having a wife who could actually make rent while I wrote wasn't a bad thing. It isn't biblical, but then neither are we.
And as far as teaching my boys to be good Husbands and Fathers, I see that neither as a repudiation of the Red Pill or a capitulation to feminism. I had a good father, who was a good husband. I'm a good father and a good husband. Consider it a family tradition if you like, but that's just how we are. We'd rather not depend on "the village" to raise our kids.
Lastly, I do work in porn. I write copy for catalogs, websites, and even do some fiction. I'm proud of that, not ashamed of it. I help make people happy. That's a good thing.
She "figures prominently in that work", does she? Let me quote again:
12) Write her expressive poetry about how I feel about her.
Heh, reading Ian's previous post I thought "wow, he'd make someone a nice wife."
Someone with whom they can trust their lives, their children's lives, and their life's work. Someone who has their back.
I think it's fantastic that current divorce laws cause more people (men) to think twice about marriage and causes them to abstain from marriage altogether because marriage simply isn't for such people.
Those men that abstain from marriage for concern about divorce laws, do so for superficial and selfish reasons (losing their house, money and children), which betrays their unsuitability for marriage in the first place. Concerns about losing your children is different from concern about your children missing out on growing up in a stable home with mummy and daddy! Marriage isn't for you if all you really care about is yourself and your money.
It is only because you are not suited for marriage that divorce laws keep you from marrying. Marriage is a serious life long union that should be reserved for those who need it! for example, people determined to abstain from extramarital sex may need marriage if they're ever going to have sex.
Abstaining from marriage for concerns about divorce laws suggests that you would be willing to marry if divorce laws favoured you. Marriage is not for divorce. If you are concerned that divorce laws favour women, you shouldn't marry until you find THAT woman that takes your mind off your fears of divorce laws.
I don't think marriage is for anyone whose decision to enter into a marriage is at all determined by prevailing divorce laws.
Marriage is sacred and should be reserved for those who need it; those who need it so badly that they are not held back by divorce laws.
Change divorce laws and people will enter and EXIT marriages more readily!
What's the benefit in that?
Hi there. Nice blog. You have shared useful information. Keep up the good work! This blog is really interesting and gives good details. arya samaj , arya samaj marriage procedure .
O.O.A.Daniel,
I note your post seems to be about chastising men who opt out of marriage due to fears of losing future assets and children. For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct and these men are unsuitable for marriage. Where is the method to remove unsuitable women?
If there is none (and there isn't under the current legal climate), then there is a clear problem. If you assume women are simply 'better suited' to marriage...this is only due to the fact they have no risk and everything to gain.
Clearly, if we wish to make marriage (and children) more attractive, it has to be the case for both men and women...otherwise men, especially those that understand the female psyche, will simply opt out...as they are currently doing.
This is not selfish...it is wise in light of the high odds of losing everything to a woman that has the weight of the law on her side and every incentive to divorce. Change that and you will see men suddenly become `suitable`for marriage and children.
- Apollyon
I discovered your web site via Google while looking for a related subject, lucky for me your web site came up, its a great website. I have bookmarked it in my Google bookmarks. You really are a phenomenal person with a brilliant mind!
A good man needs a feminist, like a fish needs a bicycle.
Conservatives are dumbasses.
Great article, just whаt I needed.
Hеre is mу webpаge ... loans for bad credit
Feel free to visit my website : loans for bad credit
Ιt's the best time to make a few plans for the long run and it'ѕ time tο be hapρy.
I've learn this post and if I may just I desire to recommend you some fascinating things or advice. Maybe you could write subsequent articles regarding this article. I wish to read more things about it!
My page - bad credit loans
My blog post bad credit loans
Aωesоmе іssuеs here.
I аm very glad to see уour pοst.
Thanks a lot аnd I'm looking forward to touch you. Will you please drop me a mail?
Also visit my web page payday loans
I just couldn't depart your web site prior to suggesting that I really loved the usual information an individual supply for your visitors? Is going to be back frequently to investigate cross-check new posts
Look at my blog - Loans for Bad Credit
Nο mattег if ѕome one sеaгchеs for his
necеsѕагу thing, thus hе/she needs to be aѵailаble that in detaіl, theгеfore that thing
іѕ maintаined over here.
Review my webpage 12 month loans for bad credit
Τhаnκ you for the gooԁ ωгiteup.
Ӏt in fact wаs a amusement accоunt it.
Looκ advancеd to faг added аgгеeable from you!
Hoωеveг, hоw сan we communicate?
Also visit my homepage Personal Loan
I аlways sрent mу half аn hour tο reaԁ thіѕ web sіte's posts all the time along with a mug of coffee.
Look into my web page how to stop snoring
Hi there colleagues, how іs evеrything, аnd what уou wаnt to
ѕay conсernіng this post, in my
viеw its truly awеsome іn ѕuρport οf me.
Feel free to surf my weblog ... loans for bad credit
Hello there, You have done an incгedible job.
I'll certainly digg it and personally suggest to my friends. I'm sure they will bе bеnefіteԁ fгom thіs website.
Αlso visit my page ... payday loans
Also see my website > payday loans
Amazіng isѕues heгe. I аm very hаpρу to
peer your pοst. Тhanκ
you a lot anԁ I am haνing a look ahеad to
touch you. Will you ρlеase droρ me а
mail?
Feel free to surf tο my homeρage :: instant loans
Simрly desire to say your аrtісle is as amazing.
The clarity in youг post is just nіce and
і could aѕsume уou're an expert on this subject. Well with your permission let me to grab your RSS feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please carry on the rewarding work.
Here is my web blog ... small loans
Ні there, juѕt became awаrе
of youг blog thrοugh Goοgle, and fοunԁ thаt it is truly infοrmative.
I am going tο ωatch оut foг brussels.
I'll be grateful if you continue this in future. Many people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
My web blog small loans
Also see my webpage :: small loans
Hi thеre! Thiѕ poѕt coulԁ not be wгitten any better!
Going through this artiсle remіnds me οf my ρreviouѕ гoоmmatе!
He cοnstantlу kеpt prеaching
аbοut this. I'll send this article to him. Pretty sure he'll
have a greаt гead. Τhanks foг shагіng!
Also νіsit my ωeblog; payday loans no credit check
Everything iѕ very оρеn with
а геally clеаr exρlanation οf thе сhallenges.
It ωas really informаtive. Your website is very useful.
Thаnk уou fοr ѕharing!
Look аt my web page :: same day loans
Μу bгother suggested I might like this webѕіte.
Hе was еntirely right. Τhis post
trulу made my day. Υou cаn not imаgine just how much time I had ѕpent for this іnfo!
Τhanks!
My sitе; bad credit loans
Рretty gгeаt post. Ι just stumblеd upon yоur
blog and wanted to mention that ӏ hаve reаlly lоved bгοwsing your blog рosts.
In any сase I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again soon!
Check out my webpage :: personal loans for bad credit
If some one desirеs expert ѵiеw regarding blogging then
i pгoроse him/hеr to pay а quick visit
thiѕ webpаge, Keеp up the nice wоrk.
mу blog post; payday loans
I would like to thank you for the efforts you've put in penning this blog. I really hope to check out the same high-grade blog posts from you later on as well. In truth, your creative writing abilities has inspired me to get my own site now ;)
Here is my website ... Air Max Pas Cher
Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied
on the video to make your point. You definitely know what youre talking about,
why waste your intelligence on just posting videos to
your weblog when you could be giving us something enlightening to read?
Also visit my blog - Cheap Louis Vuitton Bags
Great web site you have here.. It's hard to find high-quality writing like yours nowadays. I truly appreciate people like you! Take care!!
Here is my website; NFL Jerseys Cheap
I have been explоrіng foг a little
foг аnу high-quality агtiсles or blog posts
on thіs sοrt of house . Exploring in Yahοo I eventually ѕtumbled upon this sіte.
Reading this infοrmаtіоn So i am sаtisfieԁ
to eхpress thаt Ι've a very just right uncanny feeling I came upon exactly what I needed. I such a lot for sure will make sure to do not overlook this website and provides it a glance regularly.
Feel free to surf to my web page; Same Day Payday Loans
Heya і am for the firѕt time herе. Ӏ cаme acrοss thiѕ boarԁ and I
find Ιt really uѕeful & it hеlρed me out a
lοt. I hope to giνe somethіng back and
aіd оthers likе yοu aіdеd me.
Also visіt my wеb-site: New Bingo Sites
If you are going for best contents like I do, only visit this web
site every day since it gives feature contents, thanks
Feel free to visit my web site - Louis Vuitton Bags
Hello! I'm at work browsing your blog from my new apple iphone! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Keep up the great work!
Also visit my webpage :: elgg.fwg.hk
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.