Beyond the Marriage Strike: Entering the Era of Post-Marriage Consciousness

Post image for Beyond the Marriage Strike: Entering the Era of Post-Marriage Consciousness

by zed on October 24, 2010

Now, I start this essay knowing that there is a fairly well-known MRA who will attack me for having the audacity to say what I am about to say. A lot of people seem to very hung up on this term “marriage strike” and are betting on it to produce social change of the type they wish to see.

However, being attacked, insulted, and called names for daring to give voice to ideas which go against the grain of conventional social wisdom is something I have had to grow quite used to over the past 4 decades or so.

While the idea of a marriage strike is a cute sound bite, I think it has several major problems both as a metaphor for what is happening culturally and as a strategy. The first and biggest problem for the MRA side of the issue is that it implies that the changes in patterns of marriage that we are seeing today are temporary, and that sooner or later all these so-called “marriage strikers” will “go back to work.”  I don’t think that is true, and that the changes in mass behavior are permanent and just the beginning of a major cultural-level shift in behavior reflecting the shift in values over the past 50 years.

In a classic strike situation management has a variety of strategies to break the union and break the strike. They can employ goons (White Knights) to go in and break the heads of the strikers. They can find scabs (manginas) to do the jobs that the strikers are not doing. Or they can stage a lockout and refuse to employ strikers in hopes that they can starve them into capitulation.

This last strategy is the one women are currently using – claiming it is them, not men, who are avoiding marriage. All this conveniently ignores the caterwauling of women over the past 40 years that men were “Peter Pans who can’t make a committment” and the fact that there are no Groomzillas nor Groom Magazines gracing the racks by the checkout stand.  There is currently a “Project Husband” – a classic attention-seeker who has the date set and the wedding planned and only needs the small detail of a groom – but no “Project Wife.”  And, we even have a woman marrying herself – complete with photos in a flowing white dress, a wedding planner, and a banquet hall for a marriage celebration with 30 friends –  but no men engaging in such surreal antics.  Every time I think women have reached the absolute peak of narcissism, beyond which it is simply not possible to go, some woman shows up and proves me wrong.  The woman with the life-size wedding cake in her own likeness was the previous high-water mark, but at least she did have a groom.

The entire idea of a strike is that it accepts the status quo as legitimate and as the only option. Faced with falling demand for their product, US women have fallen back on the time-honored method of protectionism – passing IMBRA, the International Marriage Broker Regulation act, using their worn, but still effective, method of painting all men as abusers. Imagine what sort of condition Firestone Tires would be in today if, instead of addressing their quality problem, they had gotten huffy and said “Well, NOT ALL our tires are ‘like that.’ Not every one will fail on you and kill you and/or your family.  YOU just HAVE TO find the ones that won’t.”

“I’ll take chapter 11 for $1,000, Alex.”

One of the biggest problems with even trying to discuss the issues turns out to be a religious problem. I don’t mean “religion” as in a particular religion like Christianity, Judaism, or Islam (although it is related) – but “religious”in the sense that we have TRUE BELIEVERS and non-believers. Many of the issues we deal with fall into this category. As Words Twice commented on my recent essay on self-reliance when it comes to self-defense:

“Many casual gun owners have a religious devotion to their pet gun de jour or some piece of gear and trying to explain to them that their conventional wisdom and cherished beliefs are often mistaken is usually more trouble than it is worth.”

Believers BELIEVE, and it the very persistence of this belief in the face of contrary evidence or argument against it which distinguishes a religious belief from other kinds of beliefs. There are TRUE BELIEVERS and non-believers. The TRUE BELIEVER has a mirror category – the TRUE DIS BELIEVER – whose faith that what the believers believe is wrong is every bit as strong as the faith of the believers.  For example, I am a TRUE DIS BELIEVER in all the tenets of feminism.  I reject it completely, and the depth of my faith is every bit as deep as that of the most committed feminist.

Now, this next bit is going to involve a bit of adroit handling. I’m going to give an example of a TRUE BELIEVER to make a point – NOT to either attack him or hold him up for ridicule. As EW says on his site – Comment with honor.

There is a blog called “Rebellion University” (I like it already) where the blogger discusses another blogger’s musings on the phenomenon of a “Marriage Strike.” he says

“I have been married for 24 years. My marriage almost ended 3 times and had serious disagreements on several other occasions. I would not characterize it as a happy marriage now. But I am still convinced that marriage is an excellent institution that I recommend enthusiastically. A good marriage adds to the quality of life for any man. If my marriage ends badly tomorrow I have no doubt that I would be seeking another committed marriage before long and hoping for a better outcome.”

This person is a TRUE BELIEVER. Despite his own personal experience, he is “still convinced that marriage is an excellent institution that I recommend enthusiastically.” And, if his current excursion into the land of marital bliss “ends badly tomorrow I have no doubt that I would be seeking another committed marriage before long and hoping for a better outcome.”

God bless him, and God love him. And I mean that sincerely, it is not a snark.

All I can say here is that I, personally, would and do choose different strategies. At some point in my experience, if what I have been doing has not worked out, then instead of doing the same thing and hoping for a better outcome, I do something different.

I am a marriage non-believer. I do not believe in Marriage 2.0, and I mostly do not believe in my countrywomen. I pretty much agree with Mr. Price about “Stop Looking For a Wife: You Won’t Find One.” The difference between him and me is that I never actually looked for one, because I never was a Marriage True Believer. Probably the strongest point in favor of the institution that I ever reached was “marriage skeptic.” I saw a lot of gruesome marriages as I was growing up, and I watched my older brother’s marriage crash and burn before I was out of high school. My older sister’s marriage crashed and burned a few years later. Like the safety films they used to show us in high school with names like “Wheels of Tragedy” which showed ghastly car wrecks from driving recklessly, I looked at the carnage from brutal divorces that I was seeing all around me, and decided not to engage in high risk behavior.

As a result, I tend to not be as negative toward either marriage or women as men who have been through the meat grinder of family courts, but rather take more of a “none for me, thanks” position.

The tired old NAWALT dodge is wasted on guys like me – “There are still lots of good women out there, YOU JUST HAVE TO go out and find them.”

Um, sorry, no, actually, I don’t “have to.” There are a lot of laws that require me to do things – file tax returns, pay taxes, get a license to drive plus a license for every vehicle I intend to drive on public streets. But, there are no laws that say I “have to” go out, sort through all the turds for as long as it takes to find my tootsie roll (HT: Anakim Niceguy, aka Jaded Guy), stand at the foot of her tower pleading “Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair”, court her, lay my worldly goods at her feet, and wait with bated breath while she rules on my “worthiness.”

As novaseeker has observed, people not marrying does not mean that they are not pairing up – at least for the few years it takes to produce one or more offspring. With marriage going down and cohabitation going up, the response of the White Knights has been to extend what were formerly marital prerogatives for women and obligations for men to cohabiting relationships. This is a singularly bad strategy for women because it forces the commitment-phobes to end an otherwise satisfying relationship before she gains legal claim on his assets and his work.

Now, the owners of the means of (re)production are counting on the fact that men need women so badly that all women have to do is wait men out and men will come around. And, I think the term “marriage strike” lends itself to this kind of thinking. After all, a striker’s bills go on whether he is working or not. Eventually he will run out of food, and the heat and lights will be cut off and he will have to take whatever he is offered or starve.

But, what if he doesn’t? What if he decides to up and move somewhere else where the availablity of work and working conditions are better? What if he has been frugal enough that he looks at his fiscal situation and decides that he can just retire?

Women and marriage are getting a whole lot of very bad PR right now. From Bill’s article, to how Bridezillas are portrayed, to the amount of hostility and violence expressed by not just women,but young girls as well, toward males of all ages. “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them.”

But, bad PR is nothing new. As I said, growing up I saw a lot of gruesome marriages. The mother of one friend of mine was referred to as “the meanest woman in 4 counties.” For the last 15 years of my friend’s father’s life, his wife thought he was deaf because he never acknowledged hearing anything she said. Everyone in those 4 counties knew that he could hear just fine, and in 15 years NOT ONE PERSON TOLD HER!!! Everyone knew what a truly toxic person she was, but her husband stuck with her because he was a marriage true believer and kept hoping for a better outcome.

Not surprisingly, my friend never married.

I was moved from the “marriage skeptic” camp to the “marriage non-believer” camp by a number of experiences – including one with my doctor. More than 30 years ago, when I was in for one of my yearly physicals, he asked me if I was married. I said no, I wasn’t, and he replied “Every night, and every morning, get down on your knees AND THANK GOD that is the case!!!!!

At the time he was going through his 2nd gruesome divorce and was showing major signs of anxiety disorders – nervous ticks, picking and pulling at his hair (he looked like a cancer patient), and that death-camp look on his face.

I got a real chuckle through the years out of being able to respond to the question “Why aren’t you married” completely truthfully with “Doctor’s orders.”

I never actually took him literally and prayed to god twice a day, but over and over again over the years I had MANY occasions to look up and say “Thank you god that I am not married to a woman like that.” One of them is married to a member of my family, so I get a regular dose of “so, that is what living hell really looks like.” One of the benefits she thinks she gets from marriage is the right to use her husband’s family as a captive audience to listen to her complaints, mostly about him. Close to 30 years ago when they were first married she used to call me up to have someone to listen to her complain about him. And, the #1 thing she wanted to complain about was that he wanted to have sex with her. (Shades of Mary Winker!!) AND FOR ME TO AGREE WITH HER ABOUT HOW AWFUL THAT WAS!!! I had to really stomp on her repeatedly to drive home a few points -

  1. That is the deal of marriage. I’m sure that every morning at 5:00am when he had to roll out of bed to go to work so he could support her and she didn’t have to work, that there were some mornings when he didn’t feel jumping-up-and-down enthusiastic about doing it. But, he did it because that was the deal he made and he was going to live up to it.
  2. That, as a man, I had a LOT more sympathy for his position than hers,
  3. That she was betraying her husband about as severely as it is possible to betray someone by not just spreading around details about their husband and wife relationship, but that she was trying to so with a member of his own family and that blood always will be thicker than water, and
  4. That I was NOT going to listen to this, and that every time she tried I would tear her a new one so not to EVER bring the subject up to me again!

Nearly 30 years have gone by and I still absolutely loathe this woman. I’m sure I could have forgiven her over the years if she had figured out the error of her ways, mended them, and repented – but she never did. Thirty years later she is still the kind of woman who would use her husband’s family as a captive audience – thoroughly exploiting the social graces which we have that she doesn’t – to listen to her bitch about our family member – if we would allow her to, which we don’t.

THANK YOU GOD THAT I AM NOT MARRIED TO A WOMAN LIKE THAT!!!

And, at this point, I have to say “Thank you, feminism.” See, just about the time that I was entering the most vulnerable years for a young man to possibly get trapped into a marriage with a woman like I have just described, women started telling me that they needed me no more than a fish needed a bicycle, and that marriage was “oppression” for women. And, I listened to them and believed them. And right then I started organizing my thinking and my beliefs so that I could make women in general, and any particular woman, equally as irrelevant to me.  Thus, when I would meet a woman who kept a sign on her bedroom door that said something like “I am a high performance woman!  I go from zero to BITCH in 0.2 seconds.  Caution, the bitch switch sticks!” or “It’s all about me, DEAL WITH IT!, I could just go “OK.  C’ya, bye.”  (real examples which completed the job of moving me to the true non-believer camp)

So, now I’m about as hard core a non-believer as it is possible to be. If I met a woman tomorrow who was better looking than Jennifer Anniston AND Haley Barrry combined, cooked better than Julia Child, and knew more sex positions than Xaviera Hollander, I would still have a voice in my brain going “Run, Forrest, RUN!!!”

So, I, personally, am not on a “marriage strike”, because I have no intention of ever “going back to work” of marriage.  Personally, I have entered a state of mind where I do not see marriage as necessary, or in most cases even desirable.  It was a very useful institution in the past, but it has been completely demolished by women, white knights, and manginas over the past 50 years – just as the rubble of many ancient cites lie in mute testament to the structures which once stood there.  I am completely and totally in a state of post-marriage consciousness and my only question is not “when?” or even “whether”, but “what comes next.”

And, I believe that instead of being concerned about any sort of marriage strike, and particularly not believing that all women have to do is wait men out and they will “go back to work”, I think what marriage True Believers need to be concerned about is the loss of the faithful. Once a man stops believing in marriage, and in the women who are his potential mates, there is absolutely nothing going on in this culture to encourage him to start believing again.

{ 121 comments… read them below or add one }

Philip October 24, 2010 at 05:42

All I have to do, is wait for him, LOL, a classic line from a woman or He’ill come for me, My perfect man will fined me. WTF. Won’t women do anything for them self’s?
Marriage today is like a broke down and battered 50yr old truck that has had a bad paint job and been sold as new….. It is far, far, too, much, WORK

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 72 Thumb down 0
rob October 24, 2010 at 05:47

Nice piece, Zed.

Although, I wonder if sometimes one of the problems with the “marriage strike” is that we, the true dis-believers, have not put forth an adequate alternative… yet. Most people think of it as “a strike” and about one day “going back to work” because there is very little exposure to alternative ways of structuring society. Obviously, if men and women stop bumping uglies with eachother, the human race will not carry on.

I guess I kinda see it like we are refusing to travel cross-country by horse & wagon because we’re saying that sucks… but we haven’t yet put forth our ideas of automobiles and interstates and airplanes and heavier than air flight. The population is standing there scratching their heads going, “Huh? Travel across the country without a horse and wagon? Are you frickin’ nuts?” – They just don’t have a concept of different ways to do things.

Marriage is a terminally ill institution. It will not rise up from its death bed. It has been injected with far too many toxic “medications” over the past 150 years trying to “fix it” that the end result became a terminally poisoned victim waiting for the innevitable. Father custody to mother custody, no-fault divorce, VAWA, government intrustion into the home, loss of rights to one’s labour, loss of rights over those you are responsible for – with out a countering of diminished responsibility… on and on, there have been so many “adjustments” to marriage over time that marriage is nothing like it was originally intended to be. Why fight to save it then? What are you saving? Certainly not marriage in the sense it was intended to be, but rather a heavily bastardized version of it.

Marriage is terminally ill and ought to be taken out behind the shed and put down.

We need to start right from scratch again. We need to rebuild a new system of interacting with eachother as an alternative to marriage. Surrogacy, for example, can be used in ways to create a similar kind of “father custody” as existed before the 1860′s, while leaving women completely out in the cold as far as their lifetime meal-ticket goes… commoditize female sexual reproduction ($20,000 to $80,000 depending on where you go), create a situation where men have 100% father custody of their children for those men who choose to be fathers… things like this seem to me to be “the liferaft” that us men ought to be building from the ripped up deck planks and smashed furniture of this sinking Titanic.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 74 Thumb down 1
gatorayd October 24, 2010 at 05:53

Pretty much exactly how I feel about it mate.

It’s a shame though – I’m only twenty years of age, haha.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 55 Thumb down 0
Herbal Essence October 24, 2010 at 06:05

I agree with every word, but I still think there is a fly in the ointment of post-marriage consciousness.
A lot of men want to have children and a family. That requires a willing wombman. And after the baby is born, I don’t think anyone can argue kids are better off in two-parent households. (I realize this fact has not stopped millions of women from birthing thug babies on their own, or tearing children away from their fathers in divorce. But I think family-minded men aspire to better outcomes.)
Yes there are alternatives to marriage for baby production, such as surrogate wombs in Asia and adoption. And once the baby is born, close extended family can provide much of the same development support as a two-parent household. But those options are probably going to be cold comfort for a man who wants children.
Personally, I’ve never wanted kids. And my interest in marriage went away several years ago. So post-marriage consciousness is easy for me. But for many other men, it’s not such a quick pill to swallow. And I don’t know that the “Marriage True Believer” label applies to an upstanding man who dearly wants to raise a family. These men get my respect, but unfortunately I don’t have any good solutions for their predicament.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 4
IurnMan83 October 24, 2010 at 06:06

Excellent article, Zed. I can honestly say that Marriage 2.0 has been the downfall of most American men. This big attitude by women about marriage is going to be what kills it for them, though, as women don’t realize that with a truly independent man, attempting to force them into something they don’t want is a futile as shooting your own foot to win a race. I’ve dealt with some psycho women in my past and they have that mentality. I can’t say I’m an un-believer in all marriage, but I’m hugely skeptical and it would take a woman willing to submit to legal protections in my favor to get me to even consider a sort of modern Marriage 1.0. It is, however, unlikely that this will happen, as most if not all Western women have bought into those feminist lies that cripple our nation.

Peace out!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0
zed October 24, 2010 at 06:07

Although, I wonder if sometimes one of the problems with the “marriage strike” is that we, the true dis-believers, have not put forth an adequate alternative… yet.

I guess I kinda see it like we are refusing to travel cross-country by horse & wagon because we’re saying that sucks… but we haven’t yet put forth our ideas of automobiles and interstates and airplanes and heavier than air flight.

I think Game, and things like surrogacy, are the alternatives which are emerging even as we speak. It’s interesting that you choose the horse & wagon metaphor because that is what I have been using as an example of total cultural change.

I think we need to keep in mind that historically cultural change has happened very slowly. In the current instant information/entertainment age when most people have and are Droids, it is easy to forget that.

As an example, even though the automobile really began to make an impact in the early 1900s, even as late as the 1950s in the rural US there were still horse tanks in the middle of towns and a few people still came to town in horse drawn wagons. Even today, one decade into the 21st century, there are still a lot of Amish enclaves around who use horses and buggies as their exclusive means of transportation.

One point I keep trying to make is that the innovators can come up with strategies which work for themselves and apply them regardless of what the population at large does. The fact that most people still used horses and wagons did not in any way prevent other people from buying and using automobiles.

Personally, I think Game is the equivalent of the automobile – why buy the horse and buggy if you can pull into thousands of outlets, whip out your credit card, and get your hose drained for a small fee? Even married men have to use Game to get sex, so why not avoid the risk of getting trapped into a marriage to the meanest woman in 4 counties and not being able to “next” her?

The Contrarian Expatriate October 24, 2010 at 06:53

Many in the men’s rights movement have embraced the term “Marriage Strike” to describe men’s increased refusal to be duped into an arrangement that is socially, legally, and financially against their self-interests.

But the term is not a good one. A strike implies a refusal to work or perform for want of improved conditions. Implicit in the concept of strike is personal sacrifice on the part of the strikers who agree to do without the benefits of thing they are striking against. This is the fatal flaw of the term marriage strike.

American men are not sacrificing anything by forgoing marriage, although some think they are. To reject marriage is to insulate yourself from state-sponsored wealth transfer, lower standards of living due to higher expenses, and social emasculation due to women having more comparative power in a marriage.

Some cite the benefits of marriage to be companionship, sex, and the ability to raise children. All of these can be had as a bachelor, potentially in better quality. Marriage dooms you to an aging, waist-growing, individual female. Being unmarried permits you the freedom to seek sex and companionship from any woman you choose while having the resources to attract them.

I do concede that children ought to be raised with a mother and father present, but one can still do this in a live-in partnership arrangement without the oppressive collar of marriage around one’s neck. Men can also choose to adopt or take in foster children if the feel the pangs of paternal instinct. So don’t feel compelled to marry just because you want to have children.

Words have power, and the words marriage strike imply to women that wives are valuable when they are actually a detriment. It is better to calmly and passively proclaim that you choose to be a free, affluent, and happy real man unfazed by the beneficial marriage myth.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 2
intp October 24, 2010 at 07:02

Marriage, in its current form, is a disaster. At best you have 2 roomates working outside the home full-time. No one is home full-time to manage the household and mind the children. And that’s the best scenario society can manage today.

For marriage to work again (1) someone would have to remain HOME full-time; (2) the TV would have to go (terrible influence); and (3) divorce made unprofitable. Until those 3 conditions are in place why bother?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 63 Thumb down 1
Solomon II October 24, 2010 at 07:28

QUOTE: Um, sorry, no, actually, I don’t “have to.” There are a lot of laws that require me to do things…

I’m so sick and tired of women telling me I “have to” start meeting better women or “have to” start looking for a wife in better places. When I retort “Actually, I don’t have to do anything I don’t want to do” the shaming language comes forth. It’s like its my duty to take a 30 year old single mother off the market simply because I’m a man.

QUOTE: So, I, personally, am not on a “marriage strike”, because I have no intention of ever “going back to work” of marriage.

Beautifully said. This is probably one of the best articles I’ve ever read on the marriage strike. It’s not really a strike, it’s a boycott. I can boycott marriage and use a similar product (cohabitation) with all of the upside and none of the downside. It’s like boycotting Tylenol and using Advil instead. I don’t ever have to go back because the alternative works just as well.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 64 Thumb down 1
intp October 24, 2010 at 07:30

In the spirit of Halloween, I present the Marriage Zombies. They walk to the alter to get married. But don’t realize the institution of marriage is dead.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 1
demirogue October 24, 2010 at 07:35

@ intp

Many men could support a family on their own. I am one of them yet you don’t see me out there trying to commit suicide aka marriage. Personally, I know 21 men in real life who could do the same yet haven’t. Why is that?

My faith in women to be loyal and faithful has diminished quite a lot over the years especially as their narcissistic personality disorders are encouraged ever more. Until they’re brought down from their lofty heights and their delusions are kept in check plus the outrageous laws tilted towards them are tossed out, then I don’t see my views changing anytime soon. They both go hand in hand and until they’re dealt with, not only marriage but any sort of relationship commitment will continue to go the way of the dinosaur.

Again, if 21 men who’s combined wealth is in the millions yet have never been married and have no children are not taking the plunge, then that should be a wake up call to many.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 60 Thumb down 1
Frank October 24, 2010 at 07:37

We really should be able to vote on articles, this one in particular deserves thousands of thumbs up.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 1
Snark October 24, 2010 at 07:43

Awesome piece, zed.

And although I’m a young guy still, I’m very much of the non-believer camp. It is not a question of ‘when’. I’m even a cohabitation non-believer, because, as you have said, all the problems with marriage have simply been extended to that. I have one foot on the camp of non-believer regarding any relationship whatsoever with a woman who is not a family member.

And, you’re right. It’s not a strike – I think the phrase ‘marriage strike’ is misleading, although it is catchy, and useful, because everyone knows what you mean when you say it. But yes. It’s not a bump in the road. It’s the end of the road. Women have blown it permanently. This isn’t something they can recover from if they suddenly act on their best behaviour.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 68 Thumb down 1
intp October 24, 2010 at 07:45

zed,

Your last 2 paragraphs really captures the kernel of where men are at. Marriage, as a life step for men, has vanished into history.

It’s like asking men to wear powdered wigs. WTF? They’ll openly laugh in your face.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 2
Fender Cyborg October 24, 2010 at 07:59

That was a beautiful article, Zed. That was a nice headbutt to all the true believers out there.

-Fender Cyborg

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
Troll King October 24, 2010 at 08:14

Now, the owners of the means of (re)production are counting on the fact that men need women so badly that all women have to do is wait men out and men will come around. And, I think the term “marriage strike” lends itself to this kind of thinking. After all, a striker’s bills go on whether he is working or not. Eventually he will run out of food, and the heat and lights will be cut off and he will have to take whatever he is offered or starve

Great article man, but I am not sure of some things here, specifically the above quote.

Now I obviously come froma different generation than you zed, I haven’t even been on this planet for 30 yrs, and a different generation from many men who post here. And I want to say I really respect what you guys do and your wisdom, so let me give you some of mine.

I believe there is a upper limit in how much bullshit men will take from women. This is why guys hit 25 or 28 or 30 or 32 or 35 and become ‘peter pans’ while women go, “where is my husband appliance on demand?” To use myself and some friends of mine as a example.

In HS I had a lot of female attention but was brought up with feminist ideals and a warped perspective on women. I got a double dose of tradtionalism(religious family, mom is a feminist and super religious and is basically a non ordained priest) and feminism. It was a mind fuck to be sure and I rebelled because I went home day in and out to a empty house and I guess a part of me thought why should I do what I am told when I get nothing in return and the only time I am told anything is by people who aren’t even around anyways..

Now looking back at HS alone I could have racked up some real numbers in the sex dept but I didn’t, or not compared to other guys I knew/know. I was a ‘bad boy’ with a heart of gold who got laid a lot but had no real idea about what women were and how they acted. Quite simply, I placed them on a pedestal. Now by 22 I had fallen in love and not out of love just in love again and again and I had some relationships that lasted longer than some marriages I have known. I fell in love and dated my HS crush who was a cheerleader and a few years later it felt like my fucking soul had been ripped out. I bent over backwards for her and did everything and got nothing but some blowjobs in return….to long to list but a few things are getting her intouch with her long lost dad, dealing with her meth head brother, making sure she saw her grandma in time before her death, saved her life from two car wrecks…literally pulled her out of a car on fire in a ditch.

By 24 I had dated several foreign women and thought the difference was because of culture shock but something else was going on too. I don’t know how many times I sat there and talked to some college guys and we all looked at each other and said, “WTF, WTF, what is wrong with all these women? I get them wanting to be with a footballer but wtf is up with them all thinking they are samantha from SATC?” and especially, “wtf, why do they say one thing and do another or say they want nice guys and then chase after thugs…I really want to be nice.”

Now by this time I had dropped my punk rocker attire due to getting a job and realizing you don’t really want piercings and chains when you work as a butcher in a 40 degree room on a bonesaw all day long. I also had just gotten fed up with constantly being harassed by cops for no reason so I decided to go stealth and cut my hair, wear collard shirts and jeans and just tried to look like all other average joes and still the cops fuck with me. Now I don’t want to ramble too much but basically what happened at this point is that I knew so much more about women from experience and stopped acting like a bad ass….guess where that got me?

Now in and out of HS I racked up a pretty high number but no where near as high as some of my buds…I haven’t fucked anywhere close to hundreds of women and one thing I noticed about them is that they were chasing the same thing….love. The difference between me and them is they got really good at getting into the gates only to find that there is nothing behind them, I kept getting through the gates only to figure that something was wrong with me and I kept trying to change myself before saying fuck it. But we both had the same experience in many ways, we thought if we could get behind that gate(pass shit tests) that we would get the greatest thing in the world only to find out it’s hollow and meaningless. A lot of guys are still thinking that if they open the correct gate they will get the prize, but the trick is that it doesn’t exist.

Now back to this upper limit. It is probably different for every guy but it’s no secret to me that most guys don’t remarry or if they do they don’t do it again after the second divorce. Where are all the guys married five or seven times? Hell, LTRs are basically defacto marriage and going through a dozen of those, even if short, will make you jaded.

At the same time how many times do you think a man will put up with shit tests and failed attempts at pick up(because they faithfully listen and believe what women say)? In my experience the nerdiest guys that can’t get laid give up much faster than guys who have tasted the drug and haven’t yet figured out that it poisons you.

This is getting long and ranty but I remember time and again, before I even found out about MGTOW and MRAs, talking to women and men and saying this, ” WTF is the point of it? Every time I think I know what the rules of the game are women up and either tilt the playing field or completely change the rules or entire game….why even play?” Only to see guys agree to one degree or another and watch women smile in their coy way showing they understand something and aren’t going to share it with you and then giggle and tell me to ‘man up’ one way or another…yknow, the NAWALT excuse or the just put yourself out there line of reasoning at which I go, for what? To be torn down again? Now I know this is called a shit test.

Now in some ways I think the manosphere or mrm is kinda like advertisers. A social trend emerges and takes hold and then five years later advertisers figure it out and start using it only to realize it’s a dying trend and the new one is already on the street.

Now maybe it’s my personality type but all the guys I met working stock told me time and again that marriage is bullshit, that you can’t cheat on a gf and my gf is just trying to control me and so on and so on but I finally learned my lesson and I know I am not the only one. There were a lot of signals, like a divorced dude named blue(our nickname for him) who ran over his foot with a pallet jack carrying a huge pallet of cans and crushed his foot only to say, “damn, no insurance better turn myself in for back CS and get that free jail house healthcare.”

A good 2/3rds of my generation grew up without a father one way or another, those that did watched their mothers dominate and their female peers propped up while we were torn down.

You say that men will eventually give into women but I don’t think so, they are getting even more desperate. Look at all the fuss lately over porn and how women have to compete with porn images and how it supposedly messes men up. I just posted a link about it from psychology today to r/mensrights.

Men, of my generation, grow up in a vacuum of affection/love/sex/touch….I mean, shit I have probably been punched or slapped more times than hugged. I have had more shaming language aimed at me than positive words or feedback. Women are getting desperate because they in one way or another know what I know…women have lost their power over men. They only have two types of power, social and sexual. Social power is more insidious in many ways, think religious shaming of men for not being husband enough.

Women are the ones craving affection and attention, while men are the ones left to dream about such a thing and therefore put women on a pedestal. Boys and men grow up mostly alone, I used to turn on the TV to drown out the silence in the house. Now growing up alone is good and bad, the bad being a huge vector for male suicide and the good is that you learn to take care of yourself in one way or another.

Now look at what I just wrote. There are fewer adult men than women and a good, IDK just a guess, 80% of somewhat desirable(meaning husband material, a good or decent job, smart but other words a beta or lower) men have either turned defacto pimp or simply said fuck it and try to get laid every weekend only to get laid once every four months and so many others prefer porn to real women, no bitching and shaming, or video games. I have seen other mras post about this and I don’t have the sources but would like them if anyone has them, but several have said that there aer over a million missing men from the census??? Just think of the ripple effects of that alone.

Hell, several years back there were some article written by women for women talking about dumping guys over how they prefer video games to sex with their gfs or how women can no longer get guys to dump their male friends….remember the whole fuss over bromance? Gayifying male friendships so men will spend more time on women, interesting strategy and they even did some judd apatow like comedies to try and sell it and it all just flopped.

One reason they try to keep men separate and competing against each other is because they know that if men band together in a common cause we are unstoppable. Consider the creation of america. Men who wouldn’t be found in the same social circles all of a sudden banded together for one reason, the king forced them to house or quarter soldiers. they all had to deal with red coats beating on their sons, and harassing their women and then suddenly men who came from every walk of life joined together in a pissed off mob…well, not all the loyalists went to canada…and eventually created America. To be honest I am kinda surprised the divorce and abuse industries haven’t created the same effect yet. Doctors and bikers end up getting ass raped in the same fashion, when or if they band together for common cause it will be bloody and a revolution.

Men aern’t going to be the ones to give in this situation. Women may continue to snare the weak willed or ignorant but the majority of men will not budge. Simply put, men aren’t losing in this deal.

Now what options do women have? They have the government and that’s about it. Where will this go? Once the tax funded meal ticket dries up what are women going to do? Will they evaluate themselves or blame someone else? All genocide start with a group being deemed the undesirables and then they are demonized further and then killed. What I think will happen is three basic scenarios.

1.Men continue to withdraw and this will have major effects at all levels, already is. The government collapses and anarchy ensues.

2.The same as above but instead of collapse the power vacuum is filled with a charismatic leader who furthers the totalitarian nature of our state and starts rounding up and killing the undesirables.

3.The people in charge don’t let 1 and 2 happen, so instead they create a huge war to kill off the societal ‘dead beats’ while forcing the rest into slave labor.

Now these are vague and could go many different ways. Instead of a femifascist dictator we could end up with a theocracy or maybe enough men get pissed and without understanding the mechanisms behind it they introduce something similiar to a taliban form of patriarchy…the possibilities are many and the question remains what will actually happen. BUt I am sure guys aern’t going to give up video games and porn for a bitchy girl that only gives out after doing the dishes and cooking and being her lil bitch or domestic dog. I also don’t think most women aer going to ‘go back to traditional roles’ but they may market themselves that way so they don’t starve but I don’t think men will take pity on women at that point.

Damn, this has gotten long but to finish let me point out one of the most puzzling aspects of feminist shaming language. It’s the NAWALT shame as I will call it for now on.

The reasoning goes like this:

OMG, so you were hurt by a woman. not all women are like that, don’t blame all women for one being bad. Now wtf, maybe not all apples in the bunch are rotten but the majority are. If everyman I know or meet has met at least one psycho chick then that means there are a shit ton of psycho chicks out there. Now the same can’t be said of women because of hypergamy and their collective ability to chase after the same small subset of abusive guys. Anyways, sorry for the rantish long post and great article.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 78 Thumb down 10
greyghost October 24, 2010 at 08:28

This is an interesting way to see the reality of the situation. The whole article made sense to me. To me it give the reason behind MGTOW, game/PUA,celibacy etc.
The Dirty Little Secret behind the whole thing is that men are very emotional and compassionate. Men are full of empathy and have understanding beyond themselves. Men have honor and principles and a sense of pride that pushes them to not live off another mans labor. Chivalry itself was an honor code amungst men. It really had nothing to do with women. The feminist knew and know this. They have been banking on it and it is such a powerful truth that western society is being destroyed by it slowly but surely. (that is why the feminist spend all of the effort convincing every one how bad men are. the truth isn’t so)
Mgtow and variations of game allow a man to live with his human and emotions without destroying him. Nice guys can be shown a way to survive in a world of evil and still be “nice guys” (betas) as they naturally are.
Infact looking at what I just wrote marriage is a male institution. Men made marriage. Only a beta male can make the institution of marriage and build civilization from it with the order and stability. Looks like the women fucked it up for themselves and everybody else.
Thanks for the article zed. I feel we are all blessed to be in a position to help define and guide men and masculinity in the future.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 1
zed October 24, 2010 at 08:33

You say that men will eventually give into women but I don’t think so,

Read what I said again, TK. I am in fact saying that men won’t give in to women, but that women (and manginas, and White Knights, and Marriage True Believers) continue to think that men will and thus continue to refuse to address men’s legitimate concerns.

And, boy, are they in for a rude shock when they figure out that it ain’t gonna happen. They will have stranded themselves without a life raft. Read up a little bit on the history of Easter Island and see if there are not a lot of parallels between what happened there and what we live in today.

I say, let’s stop calling it a “Marriage Strike” because that by itself is enabling them to persist in their denial. Guys like you are simply not going to “go back to work” and bail all these entitled princess single moms out of their debt – particularly considering that the Mancession hasn’t abated a bit.

Omega Man October 24, 2010 at 08:44

Marriage as an institution for most of the population was a temporary thing, lasting a relatively brief period of time-

http://gameforomegas.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/the-rise-and-ongoing-fall-of-beta-society/

Whether marriage is good or bad for any specific man and woman, it’s not a relationship that the powers that be regard as being desirable for social stability, so they don’t support it.

Society as a whole is going where black people have been for a long time- fewer marriages, more illegitimacy, matriarchal families.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3
Indomitable Thoughts October 24, 2010 at 08:55

I’m not sure what hell is worse- being stuck in an awful marriage, or not being able to.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 16
Troll King October 24, 2010 at 08:56

Zed, you are correct. I missed a line or two or something..

Anyways, again good article. I think I was conflating the ideas of economic necessity and responsibilities and rights. Women see it as mens responsibility to cater to them and comparing it to rights and a pay check threw me off a little. I am going to post this around.

Here is the porn link I was talking about:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201010/how-i-recovered-porn-related-erectile-dysfunction

It is just one link I have seen lately. There seems to be a feminist upsurge in restricting porn. Several years back it was the push for female centric porn or feminist porn = good and male oriented porn=bad…today they are worried about the effects on womens emotions as men prefer visual stimulus and women can’t keep up with the digital hotties. At the same time they are anxious because feminism is losing relevence and mens rights are gaining momentum so they are constantly trying to reappropriate and colonize mens rights. Now they are focusing on how porn culture causes girls to supposedly be sexualized at earlier ages while also telling men that porn will harm them in a attempt to take more sexual power away from men and put it in womens controlling hands. What they don’t seem to realize or maybe they do IDK, is that this situation is of their making. Men who got fucked in the recession are looking around and dropping feminist oriented stuff while women have to compete with their daughters and women realize that the only asset for getting male attention is sexualization…so women sexualize their daughters and men withdraw and women try to control men while simultaneously pushing them farther towards the fringe while still blaming men and their demands just don’t stop.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 3
zed October 24, 2010 at 09:04

Now they are focusing on how porn culture causes girls to supposedly be sexualized at earlier ages while also telling men that porn will harm them in a attempt to take more sexual power away from men and put it in womens controlling hands.

But, wait! “Erectile dysfunction” is GOOD in most women’s minds, don’cha’know? After all – “all sex is rape”, and “we live in a rape culture”, and wanting to have sex with his own wife is all the reason a woman needs to “Mary Winklerize” or “Lorena Bobbitize” her husband (to rousing applause by women everywhere), and lots of women absolutely hate Viagra because they thought that unpleasant necessity of their marriage was over.

Women are constantly going on and on about how stupid men are for being attracted to them, and I have, over time, found my ability to disagree completely eroded away.

Dalrock October 24, 2010 at 09:35

I think the elephant in the middle of the room is that men (white men in the US at least) haven’t gone on strike. The data simply proves otherwise. This doesn’t mean there isn’t a strike brewing, there is data which suggests that might be the case. But for now, the women carping about never having found someone to marry them by 35 are a distinct minority (15% of white women in the US). Think about that. 85% of today’s 35 year old white women in the US have been down the aisle at least once. All of these carping books and essays by ball busting feminists who couldn’t attract a man to save their lives are just so much BS. And the marriages per 1,000 metric simply doesn’t tell the story many think it does, as I showed in my recent post on the same topic.

The tired old NAWALT dodge is wasted on guys like me – “There are still lots of good women out there, YOU JUST HAVE TO go out and find them.”

You are absolutely right. You don’t have to do anything. You don’t owe it to society or any woman to marry them. Period. This is the first battle we have to win, helping men change the way they frame this. I say this as a father of a son and an advocate of marriage.

But this doesn’t mean the only option is to either marry a harpy or forgo marriage altogether. The vast majority of men still choose to marry. I see this as a disaster, not because I think men should be on strike but because it means they aren’t being picky enough. In fact, they are acting downright needy, marrying the first semblance of a pretty woman who agrees to marry them. This is the real front lines in the culture war in my opinion. Not marry or not, but maybe marry, but with eyes wide open and only if the woman brings something truly special to the table. As frustrating as the term NAWLT can be, the truth is that just like men not all women are the same. Some like grerp and Hestia have honor. Many others don’t. Denying that is giving up our best chance not only to improve the lives of men (and honorable women) today but also to change the culture for the future.

The men’s movement called a marriage strike, and almost no (white) men showed up. Our focus should be on helping men like your former Dr, your friend’s father, and your relative avoid marrying women who don’t deserve the honor. At the same time, we need to make sure that men like you who have decided marriage isn’t a deal you want (to any woman) are accepted as having made a perfectly rational choice. And until/unless marriage is brought back to a moral institution, I would (and have) also argue that no one is in a position to tell you this isn’t a moral choice as well.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 8
MenZo October 24, 2010 at 09:40

@ Zed

You are the man. No joke. We need to get you your own radio show or something.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Rebel October 24, 2010 at 09:40

A well thought out article, as usual.

The “marriage strike” is, really a misnomer. I knew it deep inside me the very first time I read that expression. For lack of a more appropriate word, I would tend to use “commited bachelorhood”.

Although this is still a misnomer, it think it responds more accurately to the present situation than the previous name.

Ideally, a term should be found that eliminates completely the very idea of marriage (hence the word bachelorhood).

Feminists have defined marriage as slavery. Well, they were right, except that it is men who are being the slaves.

Some mention has been made on this threat about shaming language.
When it comes to that, there is one universal answer that fits all situations: it is twofold… first, the middle finger, then the two magic words that break the spell : “fuck you”. Repeat as necessary.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
zed October 24, 2010 at 09:43

Ideally, a term should be found that eliminates completely the very idea of marriage (hence the word bachelorhood).

Men Going THEIR OWN WAY

Or, simply “Free Man.”

woggy October 24, 2010 at 09:48

Nice work zed.

I’ve been married for 26 years. 24 of those years were happy; fortunately, those were the most recent 24(and counting).
However, I’m not offended by your essay in the least.

I fully realize that I’m working at dizzying heights without a net, and had I been more informed of the legal disadvantage of marriage for men “way back when”, I’d have been too scared to enter in to any sort of relationship with a woman.

I too thank God for all of the miserable women I encountered during those years just before I was of so-called “marrying age”. They taught me what to be wary of in a woman.
Many women caught my eye, once I was old enough. Most reminded me of Mrs. Miserable So and So, once they began talking.
Thank God for the imparted wisdom gained by being exposed to those miserable hags when I was a teenager.
When you’re working without a net, you need a partner-not a competitor.
Not many “partners” are out there.

I’m still trying to figure out how to convince my three unmarried daughters -all raised to be “help meets” (partners)- that they should certainly not insist that the men must risk all they have to “find them”.
I’ll keep working.

You do the same.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
alpha October 24, 2010 at 09:48

Women say:All I have to do, is wait for him, He’ill come for me, My perfect man will find me

I hear a Spider say:Someday, some fly is going to enter my parlour

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
novsaeeker October 24, 2010 at 09:51

Even married men have to use Game to get sex, so why not avoid the risk of getting trapped into a marriage to the meanest woman in 4 counties and not being able to “next” her?

Indeed, zed, this is one of the main questions raised by Game.

It’s all well and good for married guys like Dave and Athol and Dalrock and so on to advocate the use of Game in marriages, but why bother getting married at all if you are good at Game? I mean what is the real advantage of being married if you have the ability to constantly pull attractive women? Companionship? Maybe, but it seems like that’s conditioned upon maintaining good Game. Children? Sure, but that can be done outside marriage, too, and often is done so even if you start out married anyway. Stability? How stable is current marriage when it must rely on something like Game in order to succeed anyway?

Game is the main destabilizer of this generation. It’s like acid, really. The more men who learn even a bit of it and deploy it in their lives, the faster this whole construct comes crashing down, I think.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 3
Bob Smith October 24, 2010 at 09:56

Surrogacy is no panacea. Never forget that sperm creates strict liability. It is only a matter of time before a surrogate wins a lawsuit against the sperm donor, demanding (a) she keeps the child, and (b) gets child support from him. This is an inevitable consequence of the kind of reasoning that leads to courts ruling that statutory rape doesn’t bar recovery for child support. It will destroy surrogacy as a viable institution, but why should women care? They see surrogacy as eliminating competition. The average woman doesn’t care about the long-term consequences of her preferred policies, and if she does think about them figures men will shoulder their burden, as they have always done.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4
zed October 24, 2010 at 10:23

It’s all well and good for married guys like Dave and Athol and Dalrock and so on to advocate the use of Game in marriages, but why bother getting married at all if you are good at Game? I mean what is the real advantage of being married if you have the ability to constantly pull attractive women?

Great points and insight, as always, novaseeker. Allow me to stand on the back of a giant and take those points a bit further.

What is the real advantage of being married if you have to constantly “pull” your own wife? Doesn’t that just kind of turn her into a hookup with additional legal obligations? Doesn’t that by itself kind of re-define what a “marriage” actually is?

What happens if the guy gets sick, or hurt in an accident, or something else happens and he goes off his Game? Oops, grease on the wire and down he goes – like woggy said. No net. It happened to my old man. For many years he practiced “protector/provider/patriarch Game.” Then he got sick – heart attack, then stroke, then cancer. It was “payback time” for my mother. While she did it with class and finesse, she still did it.

This is what I have meant when I say that a lot of married people make marriage sound a lot like a colostomy bag – if you don’t constantly maintain it, you will get sick.

Game is the main destabilizer of this generation.

As feminism was to yours and mine. As a detached, non-participant (now), observer to this whole debacle, I can view it as nothing more than escalation in the perpetual arms race of the battle of the sexes / gender war. I always maintained in the face of all those fools trumpeting “The End of Men” that it was way too soon to be counting men out. Men have adapted to every environment on the face of the planet, and I always believed that it would only be a matter of time until men came up with a counter-move to feminism’s attempt to get us in a full Nelson. And, I also predicted that women would hate what men came up with as much as men hated feminism.

jozin October 24, 2010 at 10:24

Interesting article. But I see one problem here. If the marriage and original patriarchy is not preserved (as cannot be in form it is now) we eventually end up as north american indians – in reservations (in the best case scenario).
We can create a brutal totality, purely matrilinear society or a polygynous society but all these forms are highly unproductive. And as long as there will exist any more productive society (and so more advanced in any way) anywhere in the world, they will conquer us and do whatever they want…

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5
Gunn October 24, 2010 at 10:41

On the subject of game and marriage:

One of Roissy’s excellent paradigms is the idea that a beta male is equivalent to a fat woman. Just as we are physically repulsed by, or completely overlook, fat women, so women do the same for beta men.

Game in marriage isn’t really about continually ‘pulling’ your wife; its the male equivalent of not allowing yourself to get fat.

Of course, in today’s marriage 2.0 women can (and do) get fat because they have no marital obligations on them (they can always leave and take the bulk of the assets with them). But, if you can imagine a ‘fair’ marriage where neither men nor women had obligations to the other, how many men would stick by a woman who ballooned into a walrus?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
Dalrock October 24, 2010 at 10:44

Novaseeker and Zed,

I’m in general agreement about your arguments that marriage based solely on the man’s game is a very questionable institution. If you are so great with game, why bother with marriage? This is where I might very slightly part company with the men who really know game (Hawaiian Libertarian and Athol Kay). They are right that knowing game will help your marriage. Actually knowing it will help you have better options for marriage and also give you a better context on whether marriage is even a good choice for you or not. But if marriage only means both sides stick together while they are feeling the urge, why marry? I don’t think this is really their argument though. I think what they are really saying is now that you are married, how do you make the best of it?

BTW Zed, I have a longer comment above which was originally in moderation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Keyster October 24, 2010 at 10:45

“Marriage is an important part of getting ahead: lets people know you’re not a homo; married guy seems more stable; people see the ring, they think at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch; ladies see the ring, they know immediately you must have some cash or your cock must work.”

This was Alec Baldwin talking to his subordinate (Matt Damon) in “The Departed”. I mentioned this before but I don’t think it gets mentioned enough still. Young men can get laid anytime, but they’re under intense social pressure from OTHER MEN to get married. The older superiors EXPECT a man to be if not married, virgously persuing it. It’s part of the corporate ascension “package” that you comply. Otherwise you don’t “fit in” with the other boys in the junior executive club.

For a man to be single in the corporate world he might as well have a sign on his back that says, “I’m a loser or possibly a fag or other kind of deviant.” It’s EXTREME social pressure that young men feel. To “MAN-UP” and get married and have kids. Otherwise he’ll be excluded from key company dinner parties and other “couples” events. This “patriarchal” expectation is still very much alive and plays very hard in the under current of corporate circles.

Married (w/children) bosses ARE NOT comfortable with single men who are subordinates. They want to see STABILITY, COMMITMENT and RELIABILITY from the men in their group. The single guy is not to be entirely trusted. He has nothing to lose. The older he gets, the worse he “looks” as a promotion candidate.

Young men need to chart their life course where this dynamic is not likely to be a factor; such as a skilled tradesmen. In the corporate (office culture)
world the single male is a pariah. If he doesn’t, and chooses to remain single, he should expect to not advance much beyond middle management positions.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
Tim October 24, 2010 at 10:47

Superb article, Zed, as is evidenced by the familiar faces we haven’t seen here in awhile, like Contrarian Expatriate. I’m in the same boat as you, Zed. I was brought up Catholic, my parents are still married, but all around me all I saw were imploded marriages, and I am referring specifically to those of my cohort, the so-called Generation X. My sister’s marriage ended, most likely due to the fact she is a radical feminist. Several of my friends were married, only to have their wives leave them. Usually after a child is born it seems standard protocol for the wife to initiate divorce, so I suppose it is true -once acquisition of resources are achieved (offspring, child support) it is time for the woman to say good bye. Legals fees plus child support as we all know will put a man out probably a quarter of a million dollars over the course of his life. So with that knowledge I simply never wanted to get hitched.

As far as the term, ‘marriage strike’, yes I agree that it is not very effective. Women just copy and appropriate these terms; I believe now there is a term for women called ‘Women going their own way’ – WGTOW.

Marriage strike however, isn’t so bad, because we all know women, the vast majority of them, still romanticize ‘marriage’. They still dream of wedding ceremonies and long flowing dresses; this cannot be denied.

So in this sense, ‘marriage strike’ is effective. But it does have a weakness. Perhaps one day soon women will stop romanticizing notions of weddings and marriage – then the term ‘marriage strike’ will be rendered useless.

On balance, what is really happening is a mass withdrawal of males. Porous borders, international travel -this is all part of the new order, as is the end of marriage and the nation state. This is, as F. Roger Devlin says, a ‘female sexual utopia’ -not male. Remember that novel by Jean M Auel -’Clan of the Cave Bear’? This is the female utopia – a prehistoric world before the rise of patriarchy.

If this is what they want, gents, then I say let’s give it to them. Perhaps I am a little misanthropic, but I am already doing what Zed alluded to. I have a few girlfriends that I rotate, and never give them more than what they ask for. One of them has demanded marriage, and I balked. Tough shit. So in a cruel but delicious irony, women have fucked themselves. Am I being misogynistic? Not really, not if the cost of marriage is a quarter of a million dollars and the male being demoted from head of the family to supervised visitation. They want Clan of the Cave Bear? Very well, let’s give it to them. Give them so much of it they choke on it. Game them, wine them, dine them, but then at the moment of truth…wait for it…..

Dump them and move on to fresher meat.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 2
greyghost October 24, 2010 at 11:10

How stable is current marriage when it must rely on something like Game in order to succeed anyway?

Game is the main destabilizer of this generation. It’s like acid, really. The more men who learn even a bit of it and deploy it in their lives, the faster this whole construct comes crashing down, I think.

I like it novasaeeker, just what I had in mind. The time for getting married and having children together is gone for ever. As said before there is no wife to be found. That will be the norm. With that reality staring at each man MGTOW is the only option other than submitting to slavery the other option. Game is a skill used to control mens emotions. without game a man can be controled by his goodness and desire to please. Trollkings rant was dead on, how many young men have fallen in love and tradition and married
empty shells of women. Women know this and fill the void with hatred of men and compaint about everything. The guys didn’t know any better or felt that was the thing to do. There is really no good reason for any man to marry now days.
MGTOW combined with game and traditional masculine self reliance will free men from slavery. Once free the beaste has nothing to feed it. Men know something is up but are so naturally inclined to be family men it kills them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2
zed October 24, 2010 at 11:16

For a man to be single in the corporate world he might as well have a sign on his back that says, “I’m a loser or possibly a fag or other kind of deviant.” It’s EXTREME social pressure that young men feel. To “MAN-UP” and get married and have kids. Otherwise he’ll be excluded from key company dinner parties and other “couples” events. This “patriarchal” expectation is still very much alive and plays very hard in the under current of corporate circles.

Yes and no. It does remain somewhat true for those guys who choose the time honored slog up the corporate (or military) ladder. But, now they have to do so competing against women who have an express escalator to the top via affirmative action.

The 3 guys who started Facebook are all billionaires in their 20s. I’m pretty sure none of them are “married.” Twenty years ago there were 3 people between me and the CEO of one of the multi-nationals. I, as a single man, had something they needed. They didn’t have to like me, all they had to do was pay me. Of course they tried to break me, and I eventually left. But there was a weird circular logic which happened. The very resistance I had to their attempt to slap the Golden Handcuffs on me, which meant that I did not buy or buy in to their requirements that I acquire the very expensive accouterments supposedly required for a man in my position, meant that when I left I could take more than 6 years of “early retirement” and spend that time as a full-time MRA – at least the time I didn’t spend fishing or traveling, that is.

“Prove that I am not a homo?” Please. The fastest way these days to guarantee that they can’t fire me without giving me enough to retire on is to claim that I am gay.

The point I’m having fun making here is that once a man stops accepting their rules as valid and thinking he “has to” play by them, they lose all ability to control his life.

novsaeeker October 24, 2010 at 11:21

What is the real advantage of being married if you have to constantly “pull” your own wife? Doesn’t that just kind of turn her into a hookup with additional legal obligations? Doesn’t that by itself kind of re-define what a “marriage” actually is?

Exactly. That’s the main issue.

I don’t think this is really their argument though. I think what they are really saying is now that you are married, how do you make the best of it?

Okay, that’s probably true, actually, and it is different.

In the corporate (office culture)
world the single male is a pariah. If he doesn’t, and chooses to remain single, he should expect to not advance much beyond middle management positions.

This is changing, and is somewhat dependent on industry and corporate-specific culture. In my F200 company I would say that 60-70% of upper management is married, and the number is coming down as each generation ages into retirement. There are, in particular, a number of 40+ divorced guys who are not remarried, as well as younger guys in the 30s who are being aggressively promoted and are not married as well. I don’t think that happened 20 years ago, but it’s happening now, I think, because of different choices men are making. It’s true that the standard “preferred set” is a wife and kids, because it’s thought that this makes you “stable” (i.e., more of a wage slave to the company), but there are now quite a few exceptions to this .

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
Gx1080 October 24, 2010 at 11:23

The only successful marriage on my mother’s side is the one of my parents.

I have 4 uncles.

So yeah.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
greenlander October 24, 2010 at 11:36

Awesome article, Zed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Keyster October 24, 2010 at 11:52

Thanks Zed. I was interested in your take, on the “social pressure” element of this.
Of course there are exceptions to this such as the Facebook boys, Bill Gates, etc. and even yourself, but I’m talking the reality of the average bloke here. If he works in a department comprised of equally competent individuals and the married boss is ask to reduce head count, the care-free single guy will be the easiest decision on his conscious. Happens time and again.

“Prove that I am not a homo?” Please.

Again, I’m talking about the subtle social under-current in most corporate cultures. Not a blatantly “out and proud” gay man, but the more subversive DOUBT as to whether a single man is gay or not. This is not the case though, as much as the “WHAT A LOSER!” scenerio. Currently there are no Affirmative Action policies for gays, but that hasn’t stopped many more open liberally minded companies to adopt them, as a “feel good” thing. Trust me though, openly gay men DON’T do well in most corporate cultures. They’re ALWAYS on the super secret “hit list”.

So what’s prompting young men to marry, even with all the evidence presented before them that its a HUGE risk? Social pressure. Fitting in among work mates and his “social sphere of influence”. It can’t be under estimated as a “fact on the ground”.

Single women (especially lesbians) on the other hand are sought after because to an employer they won’t take maternity leave and socially they’re just fully realizing their independence and empowerment as a woman, dedicated and striving for advancement. That’s the dichotomy of what the “marriage strike” guy faces. All young men should know this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
SingleDad October 24, 2010 at 12:22

Excellent piece Zed, thanks.

Just alittle about pensions. The rules regarding what women recieve after divorce has been heavily legislated by feminist goons for years so on divorce, you have to use a complex formula that heavily favors women.

Employing single men is cheaper with regard to retirment liabitity than married men because men die younger and are less likely to claim retirement benefits and a wife has rights to recieve retirment benefits after her spouse dies. With single men,the retirement liabilty ends when they die.

Many women live to ripe old ages collecting 2 or 3 retirements from their dead or divorced spouses, including social security.

The main reason I will not ever consider re-marriage is because it would mean delaying my retirement by 10-20 years and that will not happen. As I said to my mother, when your younger the women in marriage spend your money before you make it and dump you when it’s gone.

At my age, they marry you for your retirment, that is the brass ring.

I am retiring early, with little debt and traveling to non-feminized parts of the world.

Let the hags work into their old age. This is what I see happeing with many divorced baby boom women. They must continue working.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
Elusive Wapiti October 24, 2010 at 12:30

(I split up this comment to avoid getting slammed in the moderation queue. Below is Part I)

A fine article Zed, even if I am troubled by some of the conclusions.

First, you are right, the ‘marriage strike’ is a poor term to describe what is going on. For, as you and Nova have both pointed out, marriage is still going on. It is called cohabitation. And the trend of the law seems to be to capture that behavior and award women with all the benefits previously assigned only to marriage. If there were a true ‘marriage strike’ going on, there would be none of this cohabitation stuff; yet as we know cohabitation rates have skyrocketed in tandem with the decrease in rates of both marriage and divorce.

Some women are avoiding marriage…but only temporarily, until they reach their mid-thirties, when their biological clocks starts stomping like Marisa Tomei. Their avoidance also appears transparent in its means-to-an-end focus: the lack of a man in their lives is felt only when they realize that pursuit of material acquisition and Dolce Gabbana is simply chasing after the wind and is meaningless. Then they decide they require a man to inseminate them and foot their bills. Thus their frustration when he doesn’t magically appear to provide sperm on demand–after all, they are accustomed to a life of having a surplus of male attention–to fulfill their childhood dreams and biological inclination and training (viz all the baby dolls marketed to little girls) to care for a baby.

I am a marriage true believer. That is evident in my behavior, for after I had been nuked by my PEW, worked over hard in the divorce to the tune of nearly half a million dollars over an 18-yr time span, and after flirting seriously with adoption and/or surrogacy to fulfill my calling for a family, I spent four years searching the Western US for a Believing woman to be my wife. Yes, I am a true believer, but only (a) in the sense that marriage is the bedrock of a complex and free society, and (b) the Believing man must marry in the sight of God and the community if he is to enjoy sexual activity with a woman. I do not think that the mandate to marry applies to any other man and, despite my firm belief in (a), counsel my non-Believing brothers to avoid any sort of domestic set-up with women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
Elusive Wapiti October 24, 2010 at 12:31

Part II:

Marriage/shacking up is only a viable option for Believers (clarification: I do not believe it necessary or sufficient to be legally married to be married in the eyes of God), or only very wealthy/very poor men (the only groups that can afford to get married). Consequently, fertility rates have plummeted, as men and women delay childbirth until their late 20s or 30s and have fewer children overall. The culture that does not reproduce itself signs its own death warrant. That is where this culture is right now, the culture that freed women from the need to keep their sexuality in check and severed men’s investment with their children.

This culture needs to die. We men are presented with two non-mutex options that will hasten its already-in-progress demise:

1. Believing men seek Marriage 1.0 with Believing women, reproduce early and often, and make Believing little progeny. Over time, Marriage 1.0 will make a comeback.

2. Non-believing men must studiously avoid situations where feminist-infected wom(en) and/or the State can lay claim to the fruits of your labors. Unfortunately, as some here have suggested, the femmatrix is getting quite good at finding ways to latch on to the property of men; the only sure-fire way to avoid the ‘noid is to eschew feminist women entirely and endeavor to generate as little tax revenue as possible. This is a very radical option that very few men have the discipline to do. For those that do not, there are a spectrum of options available, to include permanently expatting to a more patriarchal culture.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
Elusive Wapiti October 24, 2010 at 12:35

Part III:

Troll wrote:

There seems to be a feminist upsurge in restricting porn. Several years back it was the push for female centric porn or feminist porn = good and male oriented porn=bad…today they are worried about the effects on womens emotions as men prefer visual stimulus and women can’t keep up with the digital hotties. At the same time they are anxious because feminism is losing relevence and mens rights are gaining momentum so they are constantly trying to reappropriate and colonize mens rights. Now they are focusing on how porn culture causes girls to supposedly be sexualized at earlier ages while also telling men that porn will harm them

I agree, and unfortunately, this is another area where the socons will be the femmatrix’s useful idiots.

Porn hurts both men and women, and inhibits both sexes from forming and maintaining useful relationships. This is true. And unfortunately, socons will vote unwisely to suppress the freedom of men to inflict harm upon themselves through porn (note the similarities between the fembot anti-porn crusade and Prohibition) thinking it will make things better. It won’t, it’ll just drive the only legitimate sexual outlet for single marriage-avoiding men underground into the black market. Resulting in, of course, more criminals for the femmarxist state to harass and pursue.

The unfortunate part is that, rather than recognize that it is women’s unfettered sexuality that is responsible for the race-to-the-bottom sexualization of young girls–training them to ride the alpha carousel for attention–I’m willing to bet that no steps will be taken whatsoever to contain women’s destructive behavior and instead men’s sexuality will be suppressed instead.

Nova wrote:

What is the real advantage of being married if you have to constantly “pull” your own wife?

There’s no advantage whatsoever. But then again, under Marriage 1.0, the wife had an affirmative duty to shag her husband and only her husband. Just like he had a duty to look after her needs and cover her. Anything else is a breach of the Marriage 1.0 social contract.

Her desires really had (and have) nothing to do with it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
Elusive Wapiti October 24, 2010 at 12:44

Sorry all, the comment that I attributed to Novaseeker above should have been attributed to Zed instead.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
zed October 24, 2010 at 12:45

I’m talking the reality of the average bloke here.

I know, Keyster. And, I’m not trying to minimize how stuck some guys are feeling these days. I spent plenty of years in that same stuck place myself.

I wrote a fairly long reply to you, full of my usual pulpit-pounding rhetoric, and the server glitched and I lost it. I always take that as a sign that what I was getting ready to say was not the right thing to say.

I cycle in and out of this so-called movement, and each hiatus seems to take a little longer to get over, partially because so many threads take the turn down the blind alley of perpetual argument. One thing I have learned over the years is that every man will come to his own conclusions, and that some are TRUE BELIEVERS as strongly as I am, but in different things and there is nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by the futile effort on either or both of our parts to change the other’s mind.

When I felt stuck, no one could talk me out of feeling like I was in that stuck place.

Then one day, a man older and wiser than I was, looked me straight in the eye and said –
“There ain’t no way out, but out.”

And then, it all became clear to me.

ElectricAngel October 24, 2010 at 12:49

Whether marriage is good or bad for any specific man and woman, it’s not a relationship that the powers that be regard as being desirable for social stability, so they don’t support it.

Omega Man,

Have to disagree. Marriage, like churches, professional societies, etc., is an intermediating institution between the individual and the State. The State has pursued the destruction of all intermediary institutions so that an atomized populace can only stand alone against its power. This is the reason that the Godfather movies are so popular: as the Feds gained more and more power, the notion that “the family” could withstand it attracted all Americans. The powers that be know very well that atomized, demoralized men (and ultimately women) make the best serfs, and Marriage 2.0 is their effort in this regard. I have urged younger men not to marry, but the time for rebuilding that and other institutions on a male-friendly basis will come. For now, withdrawal of consent will cause it, and the State, to ultimately collapse: neither institution “turns a profit,” as Marriage 1.0 did for most of civilization.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
CashingOut October 24, 2010 at 13:17

I can agree with this. I once heard someone say that they were not in a marriage strike, because the idea of striking implies negotiation, and negotiation implies that there are terms that can be met that can end the strike, and as the author of this article said and was concluded, in this situation, there are no “terms” to be met: nonmarriage in the US today is just a better state of life than marriage, period. Going on a marriage strike would be like coal miners going on strike by being plumbers, getting paid more and not having to breathe toxic waste all the time, and then returning to the mines when told they won incrementally better masks. If being a plumber is a quantitively better deal, there’s really very little that mine operators can offer in the way of coal mining improvements to “break” the strike.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
Lovekraft October 24, 2010 at 13:18

I have tried for a long time to use reason to bring my SO over to my side and see how badly the marriage deck is stacked against me, notably alimony, division of assets in no-fault divorce, and the encouragement to file false DV claims.

After finally showing her that marriage at present puts the cards in her hand and that it is she who has to prove I will be dealt with fairly, the debate is shifting. But as with most women, when you think you have them pegged, be sure that sooner or later, they’ll find a way to flip things.

God, how hard does it have to be to simply set out our roles and expectations clearly? Feminism has empowered women, with little greater awareness of how this has created a massive unbalance. It’s not like we MRAs are trying to stick all women back in the kitchen. No, it’s just more a matter of sticking to what works – and having two bosses in the household is harder than traditional roles, IMO.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
CashingOut October 24, 2010 at 13:31

No, it’s just more a matter of sticking to what works – and having two bosses in the household is harder than traditional roles, IMO.

No, it’s untenable. Saying that having two bosses is harder than the traditional marriage structure implies that there is something about feminist ideas of marriage that are difficult to pull off, but worth it in the end. Feminist ideas of marriage can’t be pluued off, and have no benefit.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
SingleDad October 24, 2010 at 13:54

I was reflecting on the retirement issue. It occurs to me that retiring early is a transfer of money from women to men.

Since the bulk of the workforce is now female, and my retirement is really funded by the next generation. All these independent carrier women will be the majority of those paying the bill for me to relax on the beach….nice.

Early retirement for single men equals wealth transfer from women to men…makes all the more sweet.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2
Eric October 24, 2010 at 14:05

Good article. I would say that I qualify more as a ‘marriage boycotter’ rather than a striker; I only date foreign women and would no aversion to marrying one in the future. Though as far as Anglo-American women are concerned, there is neither marriage nor even dating in either my future or theirs.

A marriage strike against Anglo-American women isn’t even something that needs much organization or direction. Anglo women, and especially American ones, aren’t worth the committment of marriage; or for that matter, even of relationships. American women practically support the abortion industry and psychiatric pharmacuetical companies singlehandedly. Any man who marries one has a mathematical probability —according to statistics— of losing his children and his livelihood in a divorce. The last census showed over half of US children were living in single-parent homes and less than a third with both their biological parents. In spite of the fact that their failures as women are so widespread as to be statistically measurable; they still think themselves superior to men and treat decent men as though they were utterly expendable.

On top of this, Amero-bitches lead the world by far in chronic obesity, so their sex appeal sucks as much as their character does.

Overall, it would seem that a strike— at least here in North America– owes most of its appeal to the sheer instinct of self-defense operating in any sane man. The white knights and manginas are, from my experience with them, men who are living in deep states of psychological denial. They want desperately to believe that anything they can do could at all possibly transform these utterly egocentric, self-entitled Anglobitches into the romantic fairy-tale princessess they grew up reading about. No matter that they always get thanked for their empathy and self-sacrifice by being dumped for some scumbag; they still believe somehow, if they only try harder, the next one will be different….

The reality is, it’s only going to be different for these guys if they spend more time outside the US meeting some real women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
Keyster October 24, 2010 at 14:22

“There ain’t no way out, but out.”

I understand.
You bleeding edge/early pioneer types are sacrificed into oblivian, but you light a torch that hopefully can be carried forward and strike a chord when the timing is better; if it ever will be.

Taking some satisfaction in knowing what you know and adjusting your life strategy accordingly, is a small victory many men can hope to attain. Reality can be hard to accept, but I’ll take it over denial any day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
keith October 24, 2010 at 14:35

Marriage is much more like agreeing to drink the kool-aid on a daily basis. I believe that the best thing to call a single man is a “man” which is so much better than an “appliance.” My impression is that much of the discussion is really about repairing a male reality twisted by feminists and the feminine. Without the feminine words like “alpha” no longer have a use. Since we immediately migrate from being a commodity with a product description. I think most men view an “alpha” position more as a responsibility than a power construct. As funny as it may seem, anyone who thinks it’s a mans world should check to see if the toilet in their home has an elongated bowl as standard equipment.

As far as what’s next….without marriage the child support industry will eventually die off. Men will be free to choose different forms of family, (surrogacy can be had for as little as 20,000 in some villages in India) Check out the movie “Gigantic”. It’s about a man (not an appliance) adopting a daughter from China. I think many will start to opt out of urban living and go rural, more freedom. For the most part there will be and is a growing segment of the population (men) just not interested in government meddling in their lives. I think in the next couple of years we will see a major ambush of government forces on our soil , like a reverse Waco carried out by an underground militia.

As far as women go, some appliances will continue to plug into the grid, but the numbers will continue to decrease. Freedom for men is just on the horizon and becoming ever closer. Marriage is nothing more than a documenting binding you to abuse. First by a partner then by a bureaucracy. What man needs that??

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
piercedhead October 24, 2010 at 15:38

I wrote a fairly long reply to you, full of my usual pulpit-pounding rhetoric, and the server glitched and I lost it. I always take that as a sign that what I was getting ready to say was not the right thing to say.
-zed

Funny, I do exactly the same thing. I’ve never been able to convince myself that it is anything other than superstition. But I do recall feeling relieved at the post failing, so I suppose there must have been a sense of dissatisfaction eating away at me, and I grabbed the first excuse that presented itself. Anyhow, interesting that someone else does it as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Herbal Essence October 24, 2010 at 15:39

Keyster-
“Young men…chooses to remain single, he should expect to not advance much beyond middle management positions.”

I think this is probably the case in some industries. My industry tends to give people a little more leeway on being “different.” There’s lots of single guys who are in very high positions in my industry.
But it is absolutely true that young men are on the “first to get laid off” list. I’ve also been on the slack picker-upper list at both agencies i’ve worked for because i’m single. So if some Daddy or Mommy has issues and can’t get their work done, I’m expected to do it without reciprocation because I’m single. Has happened my whole career. I wouldn’t so much mind except that I’m expected to subsidize working parents, and am treated like a pariah if i say “WTF?” And yes, I have gotten the “You’ll understand when you have kids” heaping bag of shit from my boss.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
Herbal Essence October 24, 2010 at 15:43

I have been poking around a dating site the last few months, and one thing that has surprised me is how many women say “I’ll probably never get married.” These are not necessarily ugly stupid women either.
Now it could be they’re fine saying this now, when they’re hot and can get men to do things for them. Or they’re just saying it for some BS grrl powrr posturing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Keyster October 24, 2010 at 15:53

I think this is probably the case in some industries. My industry tends to give people a little more leeway on being “different.”

My experience comes from the high tech design and manufacturing arena. It was once a fairly conservative yet macho environment. Competition was always fierce, so it had to be. Now that hardware performance has peaked and been relegated to commodity status, things kind of plod along. As more women and feminist men infiltrated the ranks in the 90′s, I witnessed the demise of the working man; feelings replaced competence and productivity. You’re now measured by how much people like you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Herbal Essence October 24, 2010 at 16:12

Keyster-”You’re now measured by how much people like you.”

I hear you, and I hate the political gamesmanship that modern jobs require of their employees. It kills productivity, innovation, and meritocracy.

Advertising has always been a hotbed of politics and we’re now infested with feminists & manginas, but people don’t really look down on you if you’re not married. There’s a lot of unmarried/divorced dudes in high positions around the industry. But, as I said, single men are taken advantage of sometimes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
ReaderLon October 24, 2010 at 17:45

Here is zed’s article with a picture: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39793033/ns/world_news-weird_news/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
fondueguy October 24, 2010 at 17:49

“That is the deal of marriage. I’m sure that every morning at 5:00am when he had to roll out of bed to go to work so he could support her and she didn’t have to work, that there were some mornings when he didn’t feel jumping-up-and-down enthusiastic about doing it. But, he did it because that was the deal he made and he was going to live up to it.”

I hugely disagree with that comparison. A more appropriate comparison to her denying h’m sex would be him denying her intimacy, warmth, or a conversation. Sex is just a basic healthy part of any romantic relationship. If they were from wealthy families and didn’t do any work they should both expect those things.

IMO a man is deluding himself if he in the most remote way see his work equivalent to her sex. Based on agreements for most marriages the wife denies the husband sex outside of marriage (and vise versa) so once again it should therefore be seen as basic obligation in a marriage. The only equivalent to his work/labour is her work/labour.

To ever think that sex is a gift In marriage… ya with the same woman over and over, while she ages, and while you must turn down every other woman. Outside bargaining terms its just basic and important to a warm relationship.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Epoche* October 24, 2010 at 17:50

Elusive Wapiti October 24, 2010 at 12:31
This culture needs to die.
——————-
make no mistake, this culture will die on its own. We really cannot base an economy on consuming capital to push old people in wheelchairs and subsidize single parent households. There is no written history for matriarchal societies achieving anything but stone age technology, largely because they hadnt developed the ability to write. The whole thing will collapse on its own weight, like it or not there is nothing you can do about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
fondueguy October 24, 2010 at 18:10

Wile I had to critique that one part, even before I finished reading the article I must say this article really cut through to the point.

The big flaw in alot of those who strike is that their BSing themselves. They talk about a strike and act like they don’t need marriage but they are largely just hoping the other side will change.

Man I really like the philosophy in this article. A question which you get to is what will things be like when many men trully stop believing in marriage then start defining things on their own terms.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
novaseeker October 24, 2010 at 18:46

This is a great discussion, everyone. Good work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
nothingbutthetruth October 24, 2010 at 19:11

Amazing piece, Zed, as usual.

The part about the husband pretending to be deaf is hillarious.

But I kind of like “marriage strike”. Not because it is accurate (it is not: “freedom from marriage” would be better) but because it is not. It is like going undercover. When you are in a war, it is better to fool the enemy about your position.

When women hear “marriage strike”, they imagine lots of men heroically resisting their own irresistible urges to marry a woman only to get a better deal, the way workers resisting their urges to have a wage to feed their family during a strike.

They imagine that, when they become thirty-somethings, they will accept some men’s demands and they will get a stampede of men trying to get them to the altar. Haha. They are in for a rude awakening. When they are aware to the real situation, it can be too late. This means another free man.

Meanwhile, let’s feed their rationalization hamster. Marriage strike, Peter Pan, man-child. Say yes. Agree with them. And then go to a life free of stress and drama.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
zed October 24, 2010 at 19:22

I’ve never been able to convince myself that it is anything other than superstition.

Actually, it’s probably more rationalization than anything else. I’ll get the muse on me, pound out something which is fueled by feeling passionately about some issue, then when I am satisfied with it and feel “done”, I hit the send button. If it bounces, I am already “done” with the subject and can never say again with the right tone and nuance what I said the first time. Most of the time I just forget it, but if I do write another try, it generally has about half the energy the first one did and often sounds lame enough that then I really do just forget it. No post is ever worth writing 3 times.

greyghost October 24, 2010 at 19:24

Tough spot we are in, huh fellas? The good solid beta male in me wants to believe in marriage. The beta father that loves his kids and have a safe stable society wants to believe in marriage. I’ll bet the farm the men here belived in marriage wanted to believe in marriage and a few still do.
The responsible father in me. The beta male in me that built civilization knows better. No man here will ever enjoy marriage 1.0. It doesn’t exist. The more I study this and think about it I realise completely that it is gone. It has been replaced with shaming,lies and religious duty.
Best find something else to motivate you young beta man. How do you teach a beta man to walk away from a crying woman for the good of civilization. He’ll make a nuclear bomb,he’ll be a kamikazi pilot and fly into an aircraft carrier for civilization. But that guy can’t be taught to walk away. MRM needs to show the way for a beta to walk away and maybe meet the mans emotional and human needs along the way.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader October 24, 2010 at 20:06

I’m with fondueguy. If a woman is using sex as a doggie treat, to elicit the behavior she wants, then she’s just manipulating and using her man plain and simple. Here’s my analogy: how many women would be angry and hurt if their man refused to acknowledge them as a couple in public? What if he did so on a regular basis?

Women want the social verification of being recognized as part of a couple. They get that as a general rule. Men want the private verification of regular sex. Do they get it? Meh…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
K.K. October 24, 2010 at 20:09

Keyster’s comment re THE DEPARTED resonated with me…

You know what might help MGTOWs, (at least to get more women, if they wanted to)…a ring, on the finger meant for the wedding ring. (Perhaps with the letters MGTOW engraved on it.)

Women see it, they’re hooked. But the ring in itself means nothing.
Or it can mean something; it can mean whatever you want it to…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
fondueguy October 24, 2010 at 20:12

“When women hear “marriage strike”, they imagine lots of men heroically resisting their own irresistible urges to marry a woman only to get a better deal, the way workers resisting their urges to have a wage to feed their family during a strike.”

Ha, clever! Let people believe its about have standards and bringing marriage up.

We know women still probably wont like it but your saying its something they can better handle. I think its also good for many men. Some can only question marriage in steps.

I’d have to say I’m torn on that idea.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Anonymous October 24, 2010 at 20:29

Excellent article. It sums up the ruse Marriage has become.

However: “Game, and things like surrogacy, are the alternatives which are emerging even as we speak. ”

I don’t think Game is an alternative per se. Game is merely the restoration self determination, the perfection of masculinity and a projection of male power that has been missing of late. Game optimizes selection cues that have evolved over thousands/millions of years. Game is a strategy that encourages a mindset and maximizes your options, but it is not in itself an “alternative”.

I would be so bold to offer that, if we take the long view, marriage is a temporary social anomoly inconsistant with human nature. The transition we appear to be experiencing is drifting into better alignment with our own inate human tendancies. Perhaps we are just experiencing a natural reluctance and fear of change causing us to clamor for a revival of a marriage like institution to take its place.

A viable alternative would be livable and workable for both men and women. A “win-win”. I would point out that these “new” realities of modern relationships are not new at all. Studies clearly show that Human physiology does not reward pair bonds (in either gender) after 3-5 years together. This too is a result of tousands if not millions of years of human evolution. It is the flawed expectations of traditional marriage that compel people to foster unrealistic notionss of “happily ever after” from long term cohabitation in marriage. Despite ample evidence of the folly of this expectation, the popular perception still persists.

Most innovations come as a result of necessity where the incentive is high as is the reward. A viable alternative would eliminate or greatly reduce some of modern marriage’s greatest drawbacks by including:

An effective arrangement to raise offspring
The equalization of post relationship custody expectations
The elimination of income and asset penalties upon men
De-incentivizing false accusation claims (Rape, child abuse, DV, etc. )
The acceptance of natural attraction loss between mates

Simple bachelorhood accomplishes most of these objectives for men, particularly if they have no interest in having children. However I suspect many men would want the option of having children were they not deprived of access to their children in order to extort more money from them.

The remaining challenge is child rearing. It would be naive to assume a simple fix. For an arrangement to work it would support a woman at home during formative years, allow equal and ongoing influence from a father, and not penalize either party for participating. I wish I had an answer, but am confident one will eventually emerge.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Anonymous October 24, 2010 at 21:57

The good ole days

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvBTaA-s9QU&feature=related

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
fmz October 25, 2010 at 01:26

Having to ‘game’ the wife is absolute proof of how totally defunct and completely farked marriage really has become.

As for a ‘strike’ or ‘boycott’ of marriage, that too is a load of guff. That whole perspective is playing on their terms.

l am throwing it all out the window. Forgetting it all. It means nothing. l wont define, explain, complain, blame, dialogue, argue, intellectualise, psycho-babble anything to them about it. Or most other things.

Not a thing. l play dumb. Feign ignorance. Make out like a blithely unaware happy dolt, dilly-dallying thru life. Larfing. Lots. Making like Peter Pan. Thinking happy thoughts. Speaking about happy things. Not getting on their self-pitying ‘woe-is-me’ level. That is their want. l will not try to out-sufferance Woman. That is impossible. Dont worry. Be happy.

Taking anything and everything they say about it on any level as a heads-up on what they’re up to and how they think. Letting them show their hand. Making a passing mental note of where their triggers and buttons are. Its in everything they throw. Especially the psycho-babble fest of emotive appeals. Most particularly anything negative or fearful.

Avoiding and evading them when that shiat comes fowarth. Ultimately they have no power over me at all. l must give it to them. Thru engagement. By surrendering. This they know to their very core. Most, if not all women have a deep and abiding fear, loathing and hatred of BEING IGNORED.

In fact, forget ALL that nonsense. Simply abandon the figurative barren dust bowl.

Move on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Lavazza October 25, 2010 at 02:11

Anonymous Reader: Yeah, not acknowledging a woman as your partner in social situations is really a nuclear weapon. Handling it correctly gives great rewards. Being afraid to use it all will have the man killed. It is better to err on the over use side.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire October 25, 2010 at 02:13

Elusive Wapiti

Porn hurts both men and women, and inhibits both sexes from forming and maintaining useful relationships.

Useful to whom or what? God? DNA? Fuck that shit.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5
Ragnar October 25, 2010 at 02:19

Rob.: We need to start right from scratch again. We need to rebuild a new system of interacting with eachother as an alternative to marriage. Surrogacy, for example, can be used in ways to create a similar kind of “father custody” as existed before the 1860?s, while leaving women completely out in the cold as far as their lifetime meal-ticket goes… commoditize female sexual reproduction ($20,000 to $80,000 depending on where you go), create a situation where men have 100% father custody of their children for those men who choose to be fathers…

Sounds like a good strategy to me, but only a half solution.

In order to recreate a well-functioning society we must reestablish the family as the basic unit of society and assure that government doesn’t interfere in private//family matters.

This, of course, can only happen with females removed from political influence. A civilised society with female poltical influence is a pipe dream for communists.
Whether it’s possible for the near future or not isn’t important. What’s important is that some men get together and form what they want.
We can’t herd men, at least not free and independent men, but we can get the same free and independent men together on a local basis and form societies that work for their way of living.
This again means that we’ll have to stop the idea of giving freedom to all men everywhere. All we can do is to make ‘contracts’ between a group of men who work for the same goal.
So forget the ‘globe’ and work for your ‘nation’!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Ragnar October 25, 2010 at 02:29

E.W.
This culture needs to die. We men are presented with two non-mutex options that will hasten its already-in-progress demise:

1. Believing men seek Marriage 1.0 with Believing women, reproduce early and often, and make Believing little progeny. Over time, Marriage 1.0 will make a comeback.

2. Non-believing men must studiously avoid situations where feminist-infected wom(en) and/or the State can lay claim to the fruits of your labors. Unfortunately, as some here have suggested, the femmatrix is getting quite good at finding ways to latch on to the property of men; the only sure-fire way to avoid the ‘noid is to eschew feminist women entirely and endeavor to generate as little tax revenue as possible. This is a very radical option that very few men have the discipline to do. For those that do not, there are a spectrum of options available, to include permanently expatting to a more patriarchal culture.

Very good E.W. it needs to be repeated again.
So whether men marry and create families or not it is men who make civilisations.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Xpat October 25, 2010 at 04:18

And, we even have a woman marrying herself – complete with photos in a flowing white dress, a wedding planner, and a banquet hall for a marriage celebration with 30 friends – but no men engaging in such surreal antics.

I get the larger point, but don’t forget this guy:
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/816601-man-marries-pillow

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Traveller October 25, 2010 at 04:39

Good article.
After almost 100 comments, what could I add? :-)

Do not focalize too much on the word “strike”, it is just a communication device, a marketing brand. It shows we have some will power and some capability to stand to our ideals.

Probably it is better the strategy of not facing feminists direcly, because it was already said too much times, they do not grasp logic, facts and numbers. So it is useless reason with them, just pretend to agree with them and do anything for them, “I do not marry because it is a patriarchal stuff, or a slavery as you feminists have always correctly pointed”. Throw at them their same phrases.

Anyway there is also doubt on how much of them really feel this need, with the government being their substitute husband.

After the marriage strike, it must arrive the relationship strike, if they pass the divorce laws even for simple partners, and the reproduction strike.

It would be nice a military strike, and a job strike, or better reassessing of values so bosses who prefer married men will know perfectly how we loathe them and the job is just a money generator and no passion is involved. And review every job in term of less possible tax payment.

—-

If you have problem of connection or submission of texts, and you plan to write long stuff, write it locally with your preferred word processor and after, just copy and paste the whole inside the web page.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
zed October 25, 2010 at 05:31

IMO a man is deluding himself if he in the most remote way see his work equivalent to her sex. Based on agreements for most marriages the wife denies the husband sex outside of marriage (and vise versa) so once again it should therefore be seen as basic obligation in a marriage. The only equivalent to his work/labour is her work/labour.

An interesting perspective. And, I think a good indicator of how much social beliefs have changed over the years. It’s a bit like using the word “sunrise” which by itself is nothing but a label, but to people who have had the experience evokes memories of an entire complex experience.

The first part of what I was getting at was the idea of a contract. Normally we think of contracts as binding on all parties involved. If I rent an apartment from you and we make a contract that I pay you $500/month rent, no part of contract adds the clause “if I feel like it that month.” It is something we agreed upon, and how I feeee-yuhl at a particular moment is irrelevant.

The second part is the notion of implied consent. If I take a job, most states consider that I have given implied consent to be bound by the policies of my employer. That often includes having to submit to drug testing on demand if the company requires it. By accepting the job, and accepting compensation from the company, I have given implied consent to provide samples for drug testing any time the company asks. The same is true of driving. Most, if not all states, take the position that by driving on public thoroughfares you have given implied consent to be tested for alcohol any time a law officer asks.

When someone sits down at a poker table, they are assumed to have agreed to be bound by the rules of poker – that a royal flush beats 4 of a kind, beats a full house, beats 3 of a kind, beats a pair, beats high card. No one gets to sit down, look at their hand, and decide that for this hand they want a pair of 10s to be high hand. That’s just not the way it works.

The entire history of feminism is that women clamored to be admitted to male institutions, and men let them thinking women understood the rules and by joining in were agreeing to be bound by them. Men were, of course, being fools at this time, and showing that they really did not understand women. They expected women to come in and work as hard under the same conditions as men did. They did not expect women to come in, and no sooner than they gained access start screaming “This place is not WOMAN FRIENDLY!” Of course it wasn’t, that was why men kept telling women they wouldn’t like it.

So, the incursion was 2-stage – 1) force their way into male institutions by insinuating they would be bound by the same rules and understanding of implied consent men were, 2) then the moment they were in start throwing a hissy fit demanding that men change the rules to women’s specifications to be more like the homes women just deserted in droves – “Work-life balance.”

Remember that this was 30 years ago and most people were still thinking Marriage 1.0 even if in reality we were somewhere closer to Marriage 1.2 or 1.5. When a man or woman entered a marriage, they were entering a contract, and by entering it were giving implied consent to be bound by its terms. In those days, there were still rather strong role expectations – the man would be responsible for protecting and providing for the family’s financial needs, and the woman would be responsible for taking care of the emotional needs, the man’s sexual needs, and providing sustenance for the family.

My point was that she was more than willing to take advantage of his honor to live up to his half of the bargain, but wanted to sit down at the table and change the rules however they suited her at that moment in time. In terms of marriage, this guy got stiffed in the bargain as badly as any man I have ever seen except those men whose wives have thrown them into the meat grinder of the family court system. Bait and switch to the max.

Now, this guy is an honorable man who still feels bound to keep his half of the contract, despite the fact that she has never lived up to any part of hers.

For me, it was like seeing an advertisement for Jaguar automobiles on TV, then going to the dealer and seeing a lot filled with used junk pickup trucks (as someone said above). Thus I formed my idea of what “marriage” really is, and how women acted once they were married, not from all the hype, but from the marriages I have seen around me.

She isn’t the meanest woman in 4 counties, but I think she is the stupidest and most self-centered woman in 4 counties. It is a real ordeal to spend an hour with her, much less an entire life. Just shoot me.

Another example of her incredible narcissism came a few years later when her car broke down just before Christmas and he went out and got her a very nice used SUV. She totally ruined my Christmas by following me around all day sliming me with her whining that he didn’t get her ANYTHING for Christmas. Never worked a day of their marriage, never contributed a nickel to maintaining the household, never cooked anything that didn’t come out of plastic bag into the microwave, nearly new SUV in the driveway, and she was such a victim because he didn’t give her ANYTHING for Christmas.

THANK YOU GOD THAT I AM NOT MARRIED TO A WOMAN LIKE THAT!!!

djc October 25, 2010 at 06:45

I think I take it further. Forget marriage, I don’t even want a relationship any more. I find my life much more enjoyable without the PITA that most women are.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
Zammo October 25, 2010 at 08:29

While we might get a bit hung up on the semantics of the word “strike”, it’s fairly clear that we have something of a consensus that men are far more circumspect about marriage in general. We also must not forget Dalrock’s point about the statistics. Men and women are delaying marriage, not necessarily avoiding it completely.

The real death blow to our society – perhaps even our civilization – will be private, effective, and convenient birth control for men. Give men reproductive control and watch the changes to society accelerate to light speed.

I strongly suspect that government influence is being used to suppress research into male birth control. After all, Big Brother guvmint needs beta proles and women (even feminists) need alpha sperm.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
universe October 25, 2010 at 09:15

I’ve entered this thread much too late in the game to have any of my comments silently thumb critiqued en masse. But I’ll write them regardless.

What is to become of Western civilization where a certain number of both sexes look upon marriage as either a changeable game or as a liability? When reproduction wanes so does the culture. The answer, to some, may be through immigration.

From the 1960s to the present, feminism led the divide parade with the herd-speak of pronouncing marriage as slavery to females with men viewed as chattel owners, and eventually as immaterial. Various other means of fulfillment were experimented with. Simple co-habitation, de-stigmatizing single motherhood, open female homosexual relations, in-vitro fertilization, and re-structuring current terms of marrige and divorce to advantage females. In short, tax-funded feminism weakened a whole host of nations by convincing some of the most gullible and vulnerable that men weren’t really desirable or necessary but manageable through legislation designed to protect females.

For those committed to bringing down cultural constructs (and nations), their gambit worked – some men have responded to the feminist inspired re-tooling of the marriage contract by refusing to enter its current terms. What could be more disastrous to a culture than by shaping an expensive enmity between its natural allies which results in diminishing populations. Simply leaving the culture and its marriage terms without even trying to make some changes to both will set to further hastening a culture’s decline.

Yet, all is not lost. Importing cheap labour from other nations to replace our population decline is still an option. It won’t be the same country but, hey, some of us may still receive our pensions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
Richard October 25, 2010 at 09:52

Porn is porn is porn.

Porn is irrelevant. It is nonsense. Ignore it.

People who blame porn for sexual disorders ???

Ask yourself this:

Do movies that show people eating lead to eating disorders?

Why are movies that show people KILLING rated pg-13 and not XXXXXX?

Sex is a natural biological function – like eating, breathing, breast-feeding, going to the bathroom etc…

I have never understood why people make such a huge fuss over it (porn).

I am guessing that this is something deeply ingrained in our culture that is partially responsible for the polluted gender relations.

It is interesting however – that many feminists have tried to “abolish” it…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4
universe October 25, 2010 at 09:55

(Regarding my comment above: I spent time writing it before reading the next two articles)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
redshirt October 25, 2010 at 10:14

Great article as always Zed, and a great perspective on the categories.
Being a Gen-Xer, I’d would say that like the X–Files, “I want to believe”.
Growing up, marriage was seen as this amazing goal to reach,
I wanted to be married with children by my mid 20′s.
I’m now in my mid 30′s and by that measure, have completely “failed”.

But every day I wake up and look around,
I came to a similar conclusion as you,
That I thank God that I am not married to the kind of women
I see around me every day.

This really was a great life goal for me,
In fact I would say getting married with kids was my #1 aspiration and goal.
And when I came to the realization, as W Price wrote,
That she doesn’t exist, it was a huge blow to my own identity
Since my own core self was wrapped around that goal.

This put me in a soul-searching “Dark Night of the Soul” for quite awhile.
In absence of my Great Goal, what was my reason for being?

It was then that I realized that as corny as it sounds,
Whitney Houston was right.
The “Greatest Love of All” really is the love of self.
So I placed my own happiness first
And for the first time in my life, asked myself
What would make ME happy,
Rather than how I could get a girl so I could be happy.

At this point my energies are directed toward
Achieving financial independence and enjoying the fruits of this.
I work in the corporate world and since we’re on that subject,
I do want to state that in my own personal experience as a senior manager
In a Fortune 500 company,
These days I don’t think being married is what it used to be in getting ahead.

With Wall Street expecting companies and CEOs to make the numbers,
That’s where I place my priorities.
Think about it, you’re the President of a division and you need to lay off someone.
Do you lay off the married guy who is nice,
Or the guy you may not like, but he’s helping you make the numbers
Which keeps your boss at bay?
imo, be the guy who makes the numbers,
Because that’s what it’s all about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
zed October 25, 2010 at 10:52

Probably it is better the strategy of not facing feminists direcly, because it was already said too much times, they do not grasp logic, facts and numbers. So it is useless reason with them,

My intended audience for this essay was not feminitwits, for all the reasons you cited, but rather the White Knights and manginas who are carrying the feminists’ water and doing their dirty work for them, the remaining true believers out there who are sincerely looking for reasons why things seem to be becoming progressively broken, as well as the authentic and sincere NAWALTs who might be interested in marriage some day. I can’t give them detailed suggestions like grerp tried to do in the blog post which started this cascade, but in general I would suggest NOT being the kind of woman that a man would thank God that he is not married to.

They imagine that, when they become thirty-somethings, they will accept some men’s demands and they will get a stampede of men trying to get them to the altar. Haha. They are in for a rude awakening. When they are aware to the real situation, it can be too late. This means another free man.

Meanwhile, let’s feed their rationalization hamster. Marriage strike, Peter Pan, man-child. Say yes. Agree with them. And then go to a life free of stress and drama.

While things are pretty polarized between men and women these days, I think the majority of men are still not at the point where their goal is to clobber women. Whether there is an actual “strike” going on or not, discussing the reasons why at least some men are avoiding marriage at least gives those with sincere concern the opportunity to become our allies in addressing the issues.

By remaining single I give myself a layer of insulation from the worst abuses of the family courts and the excesses of women. It’s a fairly safe position from which to say “Here is why some men are quitting. If you don’t want that number to keep growing, it might behoove you to address those reasons.”

Eric October 25, 2010 at 11:33

Zed,

I fully understand where you’re coming from on trying to reach the mangina/white knights, and I know it isn’t easy. What you’re essentially dealing with in these types are men who are really in a deep state of chronic psychological denial. Their main problem is that they don’t WANT to see Anglo culture for what it really has become; they are obsessed with the idea of latent feminine purity and goodness.

What they can’t come to grips with is that feminism/ misandry has broken the gender polarity that exists in most civilized cultures. It’s often forgotten that Chivalry (historically) contained a ‘code of honor’ for women as much as it did to men. Women’s abandonment of their social responsibilities has led to a situation which is a caricature of what Chivalry actually was. For men today to live under such a code would be as absurd as imagining the Knights of the Round Table on the Isle of the Amazons; the latter of which the modern Anglosphere more closely culturally resembles.

Female Supremacy naturally implies a hatred for men in general; and consequently Anglo women view everything relating to men from a position of presumed superiority. All their relationships with men are geared to that end. Witness the relationship histories of most American women: they shift back and forth between breaking good men (their compusion to prove themselves superior); and competing ruthlessly between themselves for the attentions of completely worthless men (their compulsion to mate with men with whom they can feel superior easily).

IOW, relationships with American women are not the magical, fairy-tale romances the white knights WANT to believe in: it’s all about power-plays and superiority complexes. There is no way a man can win in a situation like that since his ‘priceless damsel’ is likely under a neurotic compulsion to level him any way she possibly can.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
trash October 25, 2010 at 12:17

America, structually and legally…is a pedal sewing machine government of feminism, in a stealth electronic age. Independance vs. Co-dependance…insulation vs. Isolation, are competing components in modern america, as much as the sexes themselves are.

Ultimatly organ replacement therapy will replace the search for curing all medical illnesses, and with those pursuits will come the ability to produce artifical wombs in foreign lands. This will be be the final nail in the coffin of an entrenched feminism. And this male advance thru gays and coupled with the technology of sex selection, the possibilty of the female sex itself.

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MALES WHO ” INVENT AND DISCOVER ” societies ways, into …EVERY… comfort , or away from disease and discomforts.

Feminism is both disease and discomfort all neatly rolled into one, making it a sitting target.

Modern america is awash in male constricting social ills specifically designed for the use by males.

We (males) will, as always, eventually / inventually….. will discover and invent and overcome feminism.

The future forFeminist and females ? ….not so much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Omnipitron October 25, 2010 at 12:17

Great article Zed, I think you hit the nail on the head with it.

Feminism has empowered women, with little greater awareness of how this has created a massive unbalance.

I disagree; Feminism is all about leverage and getting as much over men as possible. They know damn well about this ‘unbalance’ and they don’t care, they want more because they need it. Personally, I don’t think many men realize just how much leverage we have over women and just how much women chafed under it in the past and continue to chafe under it even now. Consider the market values of the genders; men have our resource gathering ability women have fertility. Over time, through knowledge and experience, our ability increases.

We all know what happens to a woman’s fertility over the years.

Consider how this dynamic plays out in a marriage, man get’s older and is surrounded by bigger better deals as his value rises, while his wife is watching as her value falls into the deep freeze, always looking over her shoulder at these young upstart woman to protect the best deal she has available to her, her husband. If he leaves for a better deal, what happens to her and her children? She can’t leave because anyone better than her hubby (and usually even equal to him) wouldn’t want her anyway. What is a woman’s only available defense, manipulation or supplication pretty much, right? Consider marriage in the first place; a woman has children and now she NEEDS her husband to assist in terms of maintaining their lifestyle. Even in this day and age it takes two parents to raise a family; kids are very expensive and even with social assistance many single mothers are living at subsistent levels.

Could be why Feminists love no fault divorce, it’s covering their collective @$$es and why some call marriage ‘oppression’. You marry; you need that man, no matter what the propaganda states so they don’t want women to ever be in that situation to begin with. Too bad it goes against their biological imperative.

Speaking about fertility, or a woman’s appearance, could all the hoopla about the changing of gender roles be about the fact that no matter how much a woman achieves in her life professionally, her value to a man is tied into her sexuality? What does a man need with another breadwinner, if he is marriage minded; he will seek the most attractive (fertile) female he can, men have no biological clocks, we can afford to wait. So women can achieve all the professional accolades they want in order to become independent, but that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans as far as men are concerned for the most part.

Even consider the marriage strike vs. a man and woman’s biological imperatives. Men marry for sex; women marry for children and family. What is available to a man as an alternative to ‘wedded bliss’, porn, fistine and palmela, you get the picture? Women, on the other hand have no such alternatives and currently using Obama to get the job done is bankrupting Big Daddy Guv. How many women in the past married someone they didn’t even like due to the fact that he was a good provider for her and her future children?

Consider it.

Because our needs are so basic in nature, not getting married doesn’t present the issues to us as it does to women, they couldn’t strike in the same way even if they wanted to. We’ve all heard the ‘Crazy Cat lady’ joke in our lives. Is there a male equivalent, a crazy cat or dog man?

Doubt it.

All feminism was meant to do was to give women leverage over men, to be able to put it to us like we ‘put it to them’ in the past. When they argue about their lack of choice, I bet this is what they refer too. The ‘vast’ amount of say and flexibility we men have and take for granted. They may look at it as freedom, we already knew that it was work and wasn’t glamours whatsoever.

We didn’t oppress them in the past, but they where oppressed by their own nature, suppressing their desire for the Alpha male so they could survive and bear offspring. Every ‘victory’ that women gained was a counter to some leverage men have had over them. Calling men shallow for their desire for a young attractive woman, calling for a change in the gender roles so women could be valued for more than just their fleeting sexuality. Calling marriage oppression so that they could be free to explore their hypergamous nature, and then shaming the male desire for a low mileage spouse when women finally feel ready to settle down. Calling for no fault divorce so that if hubby does leave, he is still on the hook for the family no matter what happens. And even using the threat of leaving and taking every cent so that now she can let herself go with impunity knowing that divorce is hell on earth for a man.

Calling gender a social construct in order to gain power in the home by saying men and women are the same in terms of external utility. Consider it; women can do everything men can do (of course they can do it better, right?) but only women can have children. Therefore, the female contribution is more valuable than male one, right?

Domestic Violence, and other false accusations, merely tools used for leverage my friends. Fairness and equality have nothing to do with it; they sought and continue to seek as much control of us as they can because for the most part, they bloody well need it. They want us to be afraid of them leaving the marriage, or what they could do to us so that they are ‘in charge’ and no longer have to worry about what we think. They want to be able to drop the hammer on us when they choose, and for US to be afraid of it ever happening in the future. They will never give up these rights willingly unless by having them, they forgo their biological imperative. We can tell them this, but it doesn’t matter, women will need to see it with their own eyes as more feminists die old and alone and men tell them to shove off for not meeting their needs and finding replacement ‘women’ whether overseas or here at home.

What we need to do is what has been touched upon slightly here. Educate marriage minded men as to what Marriage 2.0 means to them and that they have EVERY right to find a suitable woman in their future, be it here in the West or in another country. We need to cut through the crap of propaganda so that they realize that not only is a man’s contribution important, but ESSENTIAL to not just the family but civilization itself. Beta males don’t know this so they figure there is no reason to stand up for their rights, they feel that women don’t need them and they are lucky to even get married in the first place.

There will always be Alpha’s and there will always be the pump and dump, to say it needs to stop is unrealistic, but we need to realize that the marriage minded men, the Betas are being disenfranchised and this is the core issue here. They are the ones who don’t wish to pump and dump and actually settle down so these are the ones this message needs to be sent to. When people say that North American men are pussies, they’re right. We want to see change; we need to start telling Beta Males that they don’t have to settle with the entitled attitudes currently displayed by our NAW. That if a woman has had a storied past and it doesn’t jib with you, that you aren’t an @$$ for trying again with another woman. That if they are going to give their resources to a woman for the rest of their lives, that woman had better stand up and be accountable or leave room for the next potential candidate and yes, that as a marriage minded man, you are entitled to all of this.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 25, 2010 at 12:21

zed
While things are pretty polarized between men and women these days, I think the majority of men are still not at the point where their goal is to clobber women. Whether there is an actual “strike” going on or not, discussing the reasons why at least some men are avoiding marriage at least gives those with sincere concern the opportunity to become our allies in addressing the issues.

That’s because the majority of men grew up under Marriage 1.0, 1.2 or 1.5, what do you think the average 10 year old boy will think about marriage in 2020? Do the numbers, a 25 year old man today was born before Bradley mandated debtors prison for “deadbeat dads”, before VAWA, before IMBRA, and some percentage of them (probably 1/5 to 1/4) flatly refuse to consider marrying, according to some polls.

Today’s 20 year olds grew up with the effects of VAWA. How many of them have seen one of their friends fathers, or even their own relation, driven out of the house by men in uniform at the whim of Mommy? How many young men today have an image of fatherhood as “Gets to work all day and be home with the children at night, for 5 to 7 years, then has to pack his stuff in a gym bag and go live in a cheap apartment”? What will their response be to feminist shaming?

Right now, this moment, a majority of college undergrads are women. Given the mistreatment of boys in the schools that feminism has mandated, we can only expect the imbalance to grow worse for years to come. Obsideon has pointed out this fact in various places, and generally gets no rational response, but the facts are out there on the ground right now. College is in fact a bubble, and is due to implode, but that’s another topic. Women who want to marry are increasingly going to have to settle for men who earn less than they do, and that implies men in those marriages will need ever tighter Game to make things work. The Mancession is already jumpstarting this process, most likely. It”s grimly amusing; women as primary breadwinners, who can’t afford to divorce their unemployed husbands because that would increase child care costs…hey, you wanted to “Have It All”, now You Got It! How’s that workin’ out for ya?

There’s a lot of talk about the marriage strike, and so far it is confined to the world of blogs, mostly written by men. Feminista blogs seem to ignore the issue, or snicker at it. But the trends look clear to me, and I won’t be surprised to see the issue of men in college and the marriage strike hit the MSM in 5 years, or even sooner.

Because it’s not going away so long as the legal and social structures are set up to actively discourage men from marrying.

White Knights, manginas, NAWALTs, PAY ATTENTION TO ZED, he’s telling the truth straight out. You ignore it at your peril.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
universe October 25, 2010 at 12:41

Bang on comments, Omnipitron (and of course, Z’s).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greenlander October 25, 2010 at 23:21

Great post, Omnipitron.

This has been an awesome thread.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
nothingbutthetruth October 26, 2010 at 11:33

Whether there is an actual “strike” going on or not, discussing the reasons why at least some men are avoiding marriage at least gives those with sincere concern the opportunity to become our allies in addressing the issues.

By remaining single I give myself a layer of insulation from the worst abuses of the family courts and the excesses of women. It’s a fairly safe position from which to say “Here is why some men are quitting. If you don’t want that number to keep growing, it might behoove you to address those reasons.”

I assume you are not talking about women. The vast majority of women couldn’t care less about the real reasons why men avoid marriage. They don’t want to hear any men’s issue and they react with denial, rationalization and outright anger.

Why bother to explain to people that don’t want to understand? It’s better to MGTOW.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
fondueguy October 26, 2010 at 18:06

@zed October 25, 2010 at 05:31

I see what your saying. I understood the point you were making before and after when you went into it in more depth. I really like the comparison you make with marriage and the workforce; men need to see what women do in order to properly negotiate for themselves. (By the hype I get the impression married men are more deluded :P )

So I understood the point you were making, and you did make it, I just disagreed with the comparison you made.

I have to say I really enjoyed W.F.’s article “are men becoming gold diggers too?”. I enjoyed it jot because of the gold digger part but because it added a new dimension to men’s bargaining in marriage which is the question what is her wealth and status to add to the marriage. That theme is somewhat out of recognition in our culture and I want men to be more aware of it to help them negotiate what they want. For example is she educated which a husband may very well find important for the way he relates to her or the way it may help his kids. Does she have her own recourses to contribute to the marriage which might put a great burden on him If she’s far below him. How much work will she be contributing to the marriage.

Here are some of my favorite lines: “This is the way it had been for most of history, and only the recent aberration of the greatly expanded middle class gave people the impression that men are content to marry their social inferiors… . Most of the girls who get masters’ degrees in humanities programs, which are all heavily infused with feminism these days, go on to marry other wealthy or upper middle class men. They never had to stock shelves in WalMart, go to women’s clinics in run-down neighborhoods, or any of these other things they are allegedly so concerned about… Given the social system these privileged women have helped set up, it’s entirely natural that an intelligent man of modest means and some ambition will regard a financially insecure woman as a huge potential liability, and do whatever he can to find one with the modern-day equivalent of a dowry.”

The problem with society for a while and many of men’s bargaining terms is that it Pampers women too much and lets them off the hook for doing real and undesirable work like most men. Men need to start valueing hard working women again the way they used to before such pampered times. Otherwise your left with brats who not only put a greater burden on you but also may not even appreciate what you do for them after you have sacrificed for them because they don’t know the value of work. Only a spoiled bitch would call some hard working man giving up his desires, time, health, early retirement for her and his family an oppressor. So… men need to be paying closer attention to what she will contribute to the marriage in terms of work (which can come in different forms but must be carefully considered) and resources.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
fondueguy October 26, 2010 at 18:10

@zed

“And, I think a good indicator of how much social beliefs have changed over the years”

What did you mean by this part?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The White Rider October 26, 2010 at 18:19

I don’t “get” the whole “game in marriage” thing.

The reason game is employed in the first place is to sort of make yourself look like a better option to a woman who has options. If you’re married, shouldn’t you realistically be the ONLY option? Why should you have to jump through hoops to get your wife to have sex with you. It doesn’t make sense. It’s like some kind of weird acknowledgment that women cheating is really quite common and normal and you need to be their own personal court jester to stop them from doing it. If that’s the case, again, why bother with marriage?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
fondueguy October 26, 2010 at 18:24

To be more specific and relevant the problem ATM with women and their “work” and marriage is this:

1. Men as a whole make more money then women bit women still have more controlled of the wealth.
2. To a greater extent women are chosing their ideal balance of work and family while their husbands are left with the result. What about how much he wants to see his kids.
3. Studies show men do more than their fair share of work in a marriage. The most asininizing part of this is that men do more stressful and more risky work WHILE doing the same amount.
4. Housewives are nothing like they used to be. Technology has taken out the real work to the “job” and kids are spending most of the mid day at school anyways.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Keoni Galt October 26, 2010 at 18:51

Great post, as usual, Zed.

But I have to take issue with this characterization of “having to game the wife constantly to make marriage work.”

That’s not really how it is.

Speaking for myself, studying “game” concepts and how and why they work in attracting women, was simply an absolute wake up call. It helped me to notice things that prior to gaining this insight, was a completely foreign idea to me.

Game was not something “I had to do” to “make my marriage work.”

It was a literal de-programming of all the lies, bullshit and propaganda our mass media culture rams down all of our throats. Prior to studying this “game” theory, I never questioned the great lie of “Equality” and trying to be the kind of guy Women and our Feminized society says men should be.

In essence, I was acting in a manner for which my wife was LJBF-ing me…I thought I was being the nice guy, the guy who tried his hardest to “work on the relationship,” the guy who “got in touch with his feminine side” and “expressed my emotions” and was gentle, non-confrontational and eager to please her every desire. And the more I tried to live up to that mass media, Disney ideal of romance, the worse she responded.

Game de-programmed me from all the lies and bullshit. It helped me see the ugly truth hidden by all of the beautiful lies that permeate our society.

To say I need to constantly “game” my wife is to misunderstand the experiences I have tried to relate here.

Sure, I “game” her when I want to seduce her. But that is by no means the summation of our entire marriage.

What the understanding of “game” gave me was an understanding of what is masculine. What is attractive to women. And it has benefited my life immeasurably…not just my married sex life.

Social dynamics, posture, body language, understanding playful flirting, and most of all that the female attraction is based on hypergamy…these things are subject areas I was simply and completely CLUELESS about, until I studied this thing called Game. And believe me, those things apply to far more than just sexing up the wife.

While I find novaseeker is one of the best commenters and contributors to the pro-masculine blogosphere, I think he’s got the following completely wrong:

Game is the main destabilizer of this generation. It’s like acid, really. The more men who learn even a bit of it and deploy it in their lives, the faster this whole construct comes crashing down, I think.

Now, I think I know where you’re coming from Nova – the more men learn game, the more they turn into Cads and not Dads, the more they feed the rotating polyandry of the Matriarchal paradigm. But it’s not GAME to blame.

It’s the deliberate destruction of social mores, and not just the passive acceptance of promiscuity for both male and females…

…but the active and deliberate, non-stop promotion of promiscuity by our mass media culture that is the de-stabilizer of this generation.

As Gunn correctly noted:

Game in marriage isn’t really about continually ‘pulling’ your wife; its the male equivalent of not allowing yourself to get fat.

Game is the main destabilizer of this generation. It’s like acid, really. The more men who learn even a bit of it and deploy it in their lives, the faster this whole construct comes crashing down, I think.

Game is about realizing that you should NEVER be “afraid” of your wife’s emotional state.

Game is about bettering yourself. About discovering the natural role of masculinity and how our feminist-warped society has actively worked to physically, mentally and spiritually emasculate us all.

I can honestly say, that beyond the sex life, the biggest improvement I’ve seen from understanding and applying the principles of game, was how to deal with conflicts and arguments. How to be straightforward and honest. How to just let her be mad, let her rage when she is upset, and calmly project cool, confident assurance.

How to avoid getting into a vicious circle of petty passive-aggressive attempts at emotional manipulation — i.e. acting like a catty, bitchy female, in response to female bitchiness. Understanding Game, helped me understand how when I acted like this, it just made the entire relationship worse off.

And in many respects, it is NOT an active, continual, 100% effort to consciously “use game” to make my marriage work.

It’s a way of understanding how society has engineered confusion into understanding gender roles to deliberately foster relationship dysfunction.

The State doesn’t WANT happily married couples with 4 children in a stable household. The numerous policies and procedures they have enacted and carried out to literally destroy the institution of marriage makes this abundantly clear. And one of the primary ways the State seeks to ensure that stable, nuclear families are never formed in the first place, is to program us all through our various media and education institution’s influences in both men and women, to deliberately mislead us into adopting expectations and attitudes towards the opposite sex and how to make relationships “work.”

Game is simply the key to de-programming from that pervasive, mass media influence that has filled our heads with all of this bullshit.

Game is not the main de-stabilizer of this generation.

Game is the Red Pill.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Keoni Galt October 26, 2010 at 18:56

Damn….I accidentally pasted Nova’s quote right after Gunn’s.

Gunn’s was: Game in marriage isn’t really about continually ‘pulling’ your wife; its the male equivalent of not allowing yourself to get fat.

Novaseekers quote, of course:

Game is the main destabilizer of this generation. It’s like acid, really. The more men who learn even a bit of it and deploy it in their lives, the faster this whole construct comes crashing down, I think.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
zed October 26, 2010 at 19:54

Dave, the last thing in the world I want to let happen is for this thread to take the same wrong turn that my self-responsibility for self-defense thread took and have this turn into a pro-Game vs anti-Game argument. However, it does appear that you are contradicting yourself. First you say –

Game was not something “I had to do” to “make my marriage work.”

It was a literal de-programming of all the lies, bullshit and propaganda our mass media culture rams down all of our throats. Prior to studying this “game” theory, I never questioned the great lie of “Equality” and trying to be the kind of guy Women and our Feminized society says men should be.

But then later you go on to say

In essence, I was acting in a manner for which my wife was LJBF-ing me…I thought I was being the nice guy, the guy who tried his hardest to “work on the relationship,” the guy who “got in touch with his feminine side” and “expressed my emotions” and was gentle, non-confrontational and eager to please her every desire. And the more I tried to live up to that mass media, Disney ideal of romance, the worse she responded.

And, I have seen you say other places that learning Game “saved your marriage.” It really does sound like your marriage was failing and that you did have to learn Game to make it work.

It is abundantly clear to me that you and I are of very different generations. I was lucky enough to be born when I was, and did not need Game or anything else to “de-program” me because what you had to learn the hard way I grew up with as the “of course” default mode.

To keep extending my horse-automobile analogy, you grew up thinking that you needed to treat a horse the way you were told to treat an automobile. It didn’t work, and you had to really search to find out why. You had to go out and study and learn how to treat a horse. I grew up with “horses” and that was my natural mode of being, and found these “new-fangled horseless carriages” to be unreliable, temperamental, and in general far more of a PITA to deal with than they were worth.

There is a real quandary for me in these discussions because I never know how much of my knowledge of the “old ways” pre-feminism is relevant to the world that younger men live in today and how much has become as obsolete as the trick of wrapping tinfoil around the rabbit ears on your TV to improve reception.

The way I was raised, the values I was raised with, which worked quite well at attracting women 50 years ago, make women like you have described your wife to be, completely unattractive to me. Women today, in general, make it really easy to keep that commandment about not coveting my neighbor’s wife. But, I realize that younger men still have the powerful urge to mate and reproduce, and that their only choice is to either make the best of what is available on the woman-market today, or seek alternatives which have their own set of risks and costs.

A subtheme in my thinking that I didn’t really develop in my post is that the expectation of a high degree of uniformity in life experience – e.g. nearly universal marriage – is not likely to happen. People are fragmenting into millions of individual “lifestyle choices” and in exchange for the freedom to choose from among so many they sacrifice cultural wisdom and guidance regarding those choices which happens to come with the cost of having to conform to social norms which most people today find too restrictive.

With fairly fixed and defined sex roles, it was possible culturally to put almost any 2 random people together – one of each sex – and they could manage to make a go of a working marriage. That has been replaced by the quest for a “soul mate”, which amounts to wanting to walk into a store and find a suit custom tailored to you already hanging on the rack. I believe that is a big part of the reason why the percentage of the population which is currently married is at its lowest level since record keeping began.

One of the biggest problems hobbling men these days is the generational divide and the vastly different experiences of growing up that older men and younger men have. If I had sat down with you 10-15 years ago and tried to explain the principles of “Game” from the perspective of and using the language of a 1950s man, you would have told me that I was an old fool who didn’t know shit.

Game is valuable because it teaches younger men what they need to know using language and concepts they can understand. Simply calling it “Game” for us older guys invokes the concept of something artificial and contrived, which has to be arrived at by going counter to a man’s natural impulses. You supported this view when you talked about having to learn it and practice it. To me, it is a bit like the difference between “walking” and “skipping.” When I want to get somewhere, I just walk there. It is natural and automatic to me. I don’t have to think about it, and I don’t have to learn anything. It would never even cross my mind to “skip” there.

I think one of the things novaseeker might have been meaning when he said that Game was the great de-stabilizer of the current generation is that it alters the balance of power in the sexual arms race. Things had stabilized with the clear advantage toward women due to feminism. But Game is allowing men to rebalance the scales – following a short period when they unstably wobble up and down.

I saw a beautiful juxtaposition last summer when I ran into a woman I had a stupid, head-over-heels, puppy-dog crush on about 45 years ago. She is one of the women I might have married if we hadn’t been entering the years of de-stablization which were ahead of us. I’ve never been married, she has been married and divorced 3 times. I chuckled and asked her if she had learned her lesson, and she said she wouldn’t mind getting married again, “but, who wants to be anyone’s FOURTH husband?”

I thought, but didn’t give voice to it, I wonder how many men out there today would want to be her first husband for 4 years, her second husband for 15 years, or her 3rd husband for 7 years?

zed October 26, 2010 at 20:09

“And, I think a good indicator of how much social beliefs have changed over the years”

What did you mean by this part?

This -

So I understood the point you were making, and you did make it, I just disagreed with the comparison you made.

I was speaking from a value system which 50 years ago fewer people would have disagreed with than disagreed with the statement “water is wet.”

Notice that the old saying is “Why would he buy the cow when he can get the milk for free”, not “he shouldn’t have to buy the cow because his milk is worth just as much as hers is.”

Fender Cyborg October 26, 2010 at 20:14

Anonymous wrote:

Right now, this moment, a majority of college undergrads are women. Given the mistreatment of boys in the schools that feminism has mandated, we can only expect the imbalance to grow worse for years to come.

And by then, it’ll be too late. The Hispanic population is exploding right now, in case you haven’t been keeping up on current events. Say goodbye to white privilege then.

Once America has tipped the scales from white to Latin majority, I only hope the muslims in Europe can finish off the job and put an end to the entire white race.

That’ll be my revenge against white bitches who never showed me any love, affection, caring, support, or anything resembling feminine behavior.

People can flap their gums all they want, the basic fact is this: white population is in free fall. The responsibility of that is 100% on women’s shoulders.

So, to all you brown people out there, please, please, please make more babies. I want to still be alive when I get to watch all the stupid white bitches squirm. And I’m white too.

What if God is punishing white people for all the innocent babies that WOMEN have slaughtered? Think about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6
Fender Cyborg October 26, 2010 at 20:24

Here’s a link about the population decline from the National Policy Institute.
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/2008/04/18/global-white-population-to-plummet-to-single-digitblack-population-to-double/

IT IS DONE. WHITE WOMEN HAVE ALREADY LOST.

Sympathy from me: zero.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Keoni Galt October 26, 2010 at 21:09

And, I have seen you say other places that learning Game “saved your marriage.” It really does sound like your marriage was failing and that you did have to learn Game to make it work.

In retrospect, I would say Game “saved my marriage” because I was surely headed for divorce. It was because the more we grew apart (less and less sex) and the more we would fight (where every little thing became a huge fight), the more I tried to be nicer, to be pleasing, supplicating. In essence I kept pushing her higher and higher on the pedestal…but what I was really doing was pushing her away.

In other words, I was following the modern script of our mass media culture for “romance” and “equality.” And the more I did that, the more contempt she would have towards me. In hindsight, I cannot blame her. Like she used to tell me all the time “You’re always sorry! You’re sorry alright…you’re just saying sorry because you want to avoid making me mad!”

Yeah, I was pretty fucking sorry. I had no spine. I thought kissing her ass and always apologizing and “yes dear, you’re right” was the way to a happy relationship.

Simply reading up the concepts of game and thinking about it extensively deprogrammed me from all of that.

The way I was raised, the values I was raised with, which worked quite well at attracting women 50 years ago, make women like you have described your wife to be, completely unattractive to me. Women today, in general, make it really easy to keep that commandment about not coveting my neighbor’s wife.

The only thing I can say to this, is that much of the unflattering conversations and things that I’ve related regarding my failing relationship with her may give off the impression that she was an unreasonable bitch…my entire intent was to show how my emasculated, beta behavior brought out the disgust and contempt in her.

Now that I understand where I was severely deluded and misguided and how my behavior basically caused her to lose almost all respect for me.

I own my failures, 100%. That’s not to say my wife is perfect, that she isn’t fallible, that she doesn’t have her own faults…she is female after all.

Let’s just say her bitchiness is nearly non-existent, now that she is no longer married to a sackless, spineless doormat trying to appease her and placate her emotional state at all times. Oh sure it pops up from time to time…but now I understand how I respond to it makes all the difference in the world.

Where small, minor annoyances used to turn into 3 day long passive-aggressive arguments and silent treatments…now remain small, minor annoyances that flare up and disappear in mere minutes.. Because I finally understand the concept of frame and maintaining it. Now that I understand the masculine frame, and my role in maintaining it, she has embraced the feminine submissiveness without even consciously realizing it. Without ever explicitly stating it, once I stopped acting like a “beta” she began to do things for me again, unprompted, like cook me great meals and serve it to me and asks if I’d like anything else. The nagging went from a daily occurrence to almost non-existent — and when it does occur, a simple case of “agree and amplify” turns it into a joke that has her invariably laughing.

Does it mean I’m “using game?” Perhaps…but at this point, it’s become second nature to me. I don’t even think about it…she acts one way, I respond – and now our relationship works.

One of the biggest problems hobbling men these days is the generational divide and the vastly different experiences of growing up that older men and younger men have. If I had sat down with you 10-15 years ago and tried to explain the principles of “Game” from the perspective of and using the language of a 1950s man, you would have told me that I was an old fool who didn’t know shit.

Zed, I think I do understand where you’re coming from…see, while my Father is a Christian White Knight Mangina, my Grandfather is what PUA’s would call a “natural.” And I was raised by my parents to believe that the way my Grandfather acted and talked and treated my Grandmother was just wrong, not the right way to treat women, etc.

In retrospect, I understand now precisely why my own parent’s marriage is a travesty, while my Grandparents were happily married until they died.

He had the same intrinsic understanding of “horses” – to use your metaphor.

The difference is my Father became a White Knight, Churchianity Mangina that has ALL womenkind on a pedestal, and the belief that the male sex drive is intrinsically sinful. My Grandmother raised him to “not be like his Father.” Turns out that when they were younger, my Grandfather was quite the player before they got married, and my Grandmother was one of several different ladies vying for his affection.

One of the reasons why I was able to make the connection to this “Game” thing I was reading on the internet was that I could easily see the principles described when thinking of the way in which my Grandfather always behaved and interacted with people. He was most definitely the AMOG in any room he was in. He negged women without a second thought. When my Grandmother died, his last ten years of his life, he had multiple girlfriends until the day he died.

Yet I was raised to be like my own Father. My Grandmother’s insecurities about being married to a player were transmitted down two generations. It didn’t help that my Mother was that weird amalgamation of Christian morality and feminist equality ideology, combined with and reinforced by a lifetime of influence by our feminized culture, I had a lot of false beliefs and lies, and bad behavioral habits to overcome.

Where I was programmed my entire young adult life to “Never Be Like Grandpa, he was an abusive man!” I’m now always thinking, “What would Grandpa do?”

Incidentally, my Mother once asked my wife what she thought of my Grandfather. My wife told her she really liked him, he was engaging, funny and easy to get along with. My Mom was horrified that my wife would think so.

Perhaps my mom, deep down, was really resentful because my Dad is such a pussywhipped Beta and she did not get the kind of husband my Grandfather was.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
zed October 27, 2010 at 05:32

In retrospect, I would say Game “saved my marriage” because I was surely headed for divorce.

I was raised by my parents to believe that the way my Grandfather acted and talked and treated my Grandmother was just wrong, not the right way to treat women, etc.

In retrospect, I understand now precisely why my own parent’s marriage is a travesty, while my Grandparents were happily married until they died.

I was raised to be like my own Father. My Grandmother’s insecurities about being married to a player were transmitted down two generations.

Where I was programmed my entire young adult life to “Never Be Like Grandpa, he was an abusive man!” I’m now always thinking, “What would Grandpa do?”

Perhaps my mom, deep down, was really resentful because my Dad is such a pussywhipped Beta and she did not get the kind of husband my Grandfather was.

Man, there is an entire book right there in that post. I would say that you are dead on the money on every count. Part of why feminism is just so flat wrong is that it has taught men to be the kind of people that disgust women, and taught women to be the kind of people that disgust men. And now everyone seems pretty miserable.

As I keep saying, I am a great believer in Game for younger men. Interestingly, it seems to be particularly applicable to Christian men. You don’t need to defend Game here. But, you need to keep in mind that a lot of men’s first exposure to the concept of Game was the guys who called themselves PUAs who were mostly stupid slimeballs.

The cultural drift of the last 50-60 years has really stiffed younger people of both sexes. Men raised in your grandfather’s time were taught exactly the opposite of what you were taught, and women were taught to be their complement, and everyone was a lot happier. Younger guys like you are rediscovering what your grandfathers knew, and your fathers rejected.

How that ties into the point of my essay is that people respond to their programming in different ways. There were certainly plenty of betas in your grandfathers generation, and a lot of them had pretty miserable marriages. And there was a huge amount of cultural tension even back then because the culture did its best to break spirited young men down into reliable betas. But, the culture simply could not break some men – they were too stubborn. There is a reason why guys like James Dean and Marlon Brando have a mystique about them – even when they have been dead for years.

Your post actually validates exactly what both novaseeker and I were saying. Your grandfather was a player. But, he was raised in the era of Marriage1.0, so he got married as men had incredible pressure on them to do.

The difference is my Father became a White Knight, Churchianity Mangina that has ALL womenkind on a pedestal, and the belief that the male sex drive is intrinsically sinful. My Grandmother raised him to “not be like his Father.” Turns out that when they were younger, my Grandfather was quite the player before they got married, and my Grandmother was one of several different ladies vying for his affection.

So, in this case, “the sins of the grandmother are visited on the children unto the 3rd & 4th generation.” In your case, maybe you can stop it at the 3rd generation and teach your sons Game. And then they will marry women who are threatened by their husbands’ success with women and raise your grandsons to “not be like their father or grandfather” just as you were raised.

So, in thinking about what your grandfather would do if he were alive today – do you think he would still be a TRUE BELIEVER in marriage? Do you think that he would settle down with one woman who would be constantly afraid that she could lose him to another woman, and express that neurosis in the way she raised her children?

My guess is that no, if your grandfather were alive today, he would not settle down with one woman, but would be more like Roissy. Women today are nothing like your grandmother, and pussy is so freely and cheaply available that a guy like your gramps who can easily pull 8s and 9s on a regular basis would most likely be “next”-ing his latest 9 as soon as age and gravity turned her into an 8. Or he might stick around until she is down to a 7 – out of sheer loyalty. But, I have some major doubts that he would stick around for the complete ride down.

And, if he did end up getting married, would he marry a woman like Karen Owen of the infamous “Duke Fuck List?”

My take on what is going in is that the men who would make the best husbands – strictly in terms of making their wives happy – are the kind of man who will least likely to get married because it conveys no benefits, only liabilities. And, the culture is busily turning young women into the kind of creatures that no man in his right mind would want to marry – particularly not a man like your grandfather.

Anonymous Reader October 27, 2010 at 09:06

zed sums up the whole thread in two sentences:

“Feminism — taught men to be the kind of people that disgust women, and taught women to be the kind of people that disgust men. And now everyone seems pretty miserable.”

Everything else in this entire thread, all the comments, flow from those two sentences.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Herbal Essence October 27, 2010 at 10:19

Fender Cyborg-Luckily for me, I get along way better with Latinos and Muslims than I do white women.

Keoni-I hear what you’re saying and I’m glad you’re experiencing success. But I think my reaction as a never-married man is that women derive so many benefits from marrying a decent man she should damn well be grateful for it without a man having to constantly be on his Game. I suppose I am expecting a level of behavior from women they’re simply not capable of.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 27, 2010 at 10:48

Herbal Essence, I think you are still missing the point. Let me take a slightly different tack from Keoni.

When I first read about Mystery and Game back in the 1990′s, it seemed dishonest and manipulative. Since I’d gone out of my way for years to avoid manipulative women, and was no longer on the market, I saw no point in learning “How To Pick Up Chicks In Two Minutes In Any Bar”, so I dismissed Game completely. It seemed like something out of a 1970′s movie, all about gold chains, a shirt open to the waist, male cosmetics, learning dance moves, and so forth.

When Roissy began breaking out of the pure PUA world a few years back, there was a debate on a few websites I read that trend in a traditional manner, and again I saw the same image as before. So again I dismissed it.

I’m not comfortable discussing my private life. Suffice to say that I’ve turned some things around in just the last year, thanks to reading about female psychology — the real stuff, not the lies I was fed for years — and deliberately applying Game principles. But here is the point: the only reason that men like Keoni and I and millions of others have to learn mental constructs such as Game is to undo the damage that was done to us by upbringing, media exposure, and other sources of feminist falsehoods. Game is not about troweling another layer of learned behavior on top of everything else. It is exactly the opposite.

By learning Game, a man scrapes away the accretion, the incrustation of years of feminization that has been applied to him by others; maybe by his parents (who wanted him to be a good beta husband, rather than a married man), by his teachers, by the mainstream infotainment industry, by the web of feminist lies all around him.

Suppose you are a man who hasn’t exercised in years, decades, and you start doing basic things like chopping wood, riding a bicycle, running, pushups, pullups. Your muscles, as weak as they are, will hurt. Exercise will feel artificial, even painful. Game is like that at first, because for many of us we are going up against not only 40 years of feminist crap but years of pedestalization/whiteknighting on top of that. So asserting authority in a masculine way feels odd, strange, even painful. It’s all too easy to overdo it, and then have to back down a hair but not too much.

After a few weeks of exercise, if one is in normal shape, it gets easier. Muscle tissue firms up. Fat is burned off. Riding / running /lifting/etc. becomes easier. A man wonders why he didn’t do this years ago, he feels better, looks better, sleeps better.

After a few weeks to months of Game, a man stops mentally cringing at the possibility of offending a woman by accident, he no longer worries about sudden silence or a sharp word. He stops fretting over what he would do if “she” left — because he knows, from testing Game on women in the larger world, that he can replace “her”. And this confidence has effects very quickly in many cases, amazingly quickly. Sure, there are days when she shit tests, but now they are passed much more easily and she doesn’t carry them on as before. When she has a bad mood, she’s more prone to end it herself and even apologize, rather than nurse it along. There’s no balking over sex, because it’s treated as a given — this is going to happen, maybe she should enjoy it, but if not, then perhaps she’ll enjoy it tomorrow night.

I’m thinking of an old Zen story that I’ll probably mangle. A man goes to a master and says “What is this Zen?”. The master points to the moon. The man goes away, and comes back again another day, full of parables and koans. The master says, “I pointed to the moon. Why are you still looking at my finger?”.

That’s what Game is to me. It is a method to regain what was lost in my masculinity years ago. As I become more confidently masculine, I expect in time to not need Game anymore; that is, I won’t need to think about how to respond to shit tests because there won’t be as many, and I’ll have the innate confidence to respond without pondering/planning/thinking about it. I won’t be focused on the finger of “Game” pointing to the Moon of masculinity…

Maybe this explains things better?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Justus October 27, 2010 at 11:22

Women are like horses.

There was a time when every man had a horse. It was a part of life, a necessity. Today, due to modern advancements, horses are no longer necessary, and are prohibitively expensive for most men. A few traditional rural men still have a horse, and rich men tend to have a stable full. Horses are temperamental, and if you upset one, they’ll throw and kick you, which can paralyze even the most super of men.

Moral of the story: If you’re going to own a horse, make sure it’s well trained to suit your needs, keep it healthy and happy, and make damn sure you know how to ride.

Not to let pride get the best of me, but I’m a pretty decent horseman. I picked a fine filly out of the herd. I broke her in real nice, too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Curiepoint October 28, 2010 at 13:50

…and, when horses stop being useful, you can send them off the glue factory.

I don’t really advocate doing that with American women…they probably wouldn’t make very good glue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Skeptik December 10, 2010 at 03:11

Very interesting discussion.
I think there’s another factor that’s been overlooked which I reckon will be hugely empowering for men.
The impact of the recently invented NON HORMONAL male birth control pill (see here – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7857262/Scientists-invent-first-male-contraceptive-pill.html) tests so far show 100% effectiveness, no major side effects and it can be taken as infrequently as every month or every three months. Stopping taking it a man’s fertility is quickly returned to normal not having been affected by the pill which does nothing more than neutralize some of the protein in sperm making the sperm ineffective whilst NOT stopping the production of sperm.
Personally I think this will be a huge deal clincher for future generations of men who will be able to turn the reproductive tables on women. What I mean is that it will hugely increase pressure on women to drop the narcissistic feminist entitled way of life. For not only will a marriage strike happen but a reproductive strike also.
Think about it.
Millions upon millions of women waking up to the realization that if they don’t start helping Men’s Rights Activists to overturn feminist laws and social attitudes they are evolutionary dead ends. Men, Millions of them will overlook them unless they are card carrying active advocates of human rights for men – health rights, educational rights, economic rights and reproductive and family rights. I’d be very interested to hear others views on this and thank you all for a very thought provoking article and thread.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Steve January 8, 2011 at 09:01

In 2011, for an individual of high worth or of high income, there is NO REASON TO GET MARRIED ! Marriage will lead to divorce 50% plus of the time. The higher earner/worth individual could be ruined or best case lose a portion of their estate. Family courts are setup to protect the “poorer” spouse, and brutally punish the breadwinner.

Specifically, the following will occur:
1) In equitable distribution states, 50%-80% of ALL the assets brought into and acquired during the marriage, could be given to the “poorer” spouse. Bye bye house(s), cars, cash, 401k, ect….

2) Alimony – This is money paid to the poorer spouse in order to “maintain the lifestyle” of the poorer spouse. These payments can be 30-50% of the breadwinner’s gross earnings, and last A LIFETIME as seem in US states like MA. This is a form of modern day slavery, but many people do not know about such horrific laws. In addition, spouses of 2nd marriages in some cases, have to forfeit their earnings and assets to the ex spouse to maintain their lifestyle (in MA) !

3) Child Support – If you made the HUGE mistake of having 1 or more children with your ex-spouse, you will pay a 30-40% or more of your gross income. Most of this money is “free spending” money for the ex spouse, and little goes to the child.

4) Legal fees – Divorce lawyers are trained for conflict. The more a divorcing couple fights and goes to court, the more money spent on legal fees. HUGE amount of money can be lost to the deep pockets of lawyers.

ALL HIGH EARNERS AND THOSE OF HIGH NET WORTH MUST STAY AWAY FROM MARRIAGE, OR ELSE BE FACED WITH DIRE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Chrstopher March 17, 2011 at 09:46

Zed, very interesting article!
I agree with Steve on his assessment of high wage earners. You are more likely to get divorced that the average Joe making middle class wages. Young men making a fair amount of money are wiser than women think. They know that they could lose it all in a divorce, so they don’t marry and simply F*ck and Chuck the young women who get stars in their eyes when they see his Rolex or tailored Armani suit.
The power base for the feminists is slowly changing; men have begun to open their eyes and are becoming savvy risk analysts. The simple biological truth is that women need men, they need men to fulfill a maternal need, they need men to fulfill a psychological need to care for someone, and they need men to provide emotional stability. This is not breaking news, however it is fought and despised by most women because they simply do not like being dependent on another for their well being. Feminism has created generations of unhappy, needy, desperate, and hostile women.
No wonder why they see young men refusing marriage as a monstrous threat. Well folks, it is a hairy beast of a threat-to their psyche and ingrained self hate.
Feminism can only go so far before it becomes toxic to the host. Before Misandry collapses, I foresee a lot of completely miserable women. Men will do as they always have, work toward a common goal and survive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
SKeptik July 8, 2011 at 19:47

Awesome post Zed!
Thanks.
I’ve bookmarked it, and will send it to any of my buddies who hit the ‘divorce wall’ alongside the offer of emotional support as I don’t wish to influence them becoming another Thomas Ball.

Remember Thomas Ball.
He gave his life for our children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pala August 18, 2011 at 18:46

I’m sorry but, don’t any of you worry about getting old and dying alone?
No kids, no grandkids to come visit you at the old folks home.
No friends either because all your friends will be as old and sick as you are by then, if not dead already. I mean, that’s a grim future. I can tell you from experience that the elderly patients who have no family DO NOT get proper treatment in those places.
That could be you, have you ever really stopped to consider that?
People are living longer every generation, what exactly do you think is going to happen to you eventually?

By the way, all that stuff you were able to buy with all the money you saved by not getting divorced? Yeah, you can’t take that to The Home with you either, because *if you’re lucky* the room you get at those places is the size of the average bedroom. It’s dark, it stinks, the windows don’t open and the yelling of the dementia patents are a constant torment because the walls are paper thin. This will be your world until you die. Alone.

Yes, perhaps it’s true 50% of marriages end in divorce, but that means 50% of marriages do not.

I for one think it’s worth the risk.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7
jack_melford September 16, 2011 at 21:13

The only type of men that will be aviable to american woman are loosers and abusers .

That why they have this vawa act they know no good men will want them in the future see guys woman think ahead.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Curiepoint November 20, 2011 at 09:25

50% gambling is not good odds for anything, Pala.

As far as dying alone, everyone does that regardless of marital status. You miss the entire point of what is being said here. Wives do not take care of husbands, unless you wish to count her nagging which is designed to bend you to their will…and usually that has nothing whatever to do with taking care of you.

A husband is nothing more than an accessory to a woman. Once she’s plied sperm from him, he is utterly non-existant as a human being. He becomes superfluous to her, just like those little rat dogs they carry around in their purses; a piece of bling to show off in public. The only difference is, that they will actually love and care for the dog a hell of a lot more than she will ever care for her husband.

I may end up in a home when I am older, but I am going to live my life to the fullest until that happens. Just to have a wife who makes an occasional appearance by my bed-side in between trying to score another penis for her own pleasure is not worth giving up such a life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Quiet Observer September 1, 2012 at 08:21

I really enjoyed reading this insightful piece. The author so convincingly laid out his arguments, and almost persuaded me that the phenomenon that is going on right now is better called a “Marriage Quitting” rather than a “Marriage Strike”.
But the Marriage strike can still be a strike. This means, men can still “go back to [the] work” of getting married, if the conditions encourage them.
And that was an alternative the author failed to explore in his otherwise enlightening piece. The management can realize the errors of their ways, and have meaningful negotiations with the striking workers, so that both parties end up benefiting for a significant period of time, until changes are once more deemed inevitable.
There is a possibility that after the current crop of bra-burning, man-hating feminists all die off, or are too old to bark, the younger (and hopefully wiser) women, seeing the inevitability of their impending fate should they follow in the footsteps of their unfulfilled feminist parents, would make efforts to lobby the government to enact laws that would, once again, make marriage palatable—or even desirable–to men

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: