The terminology “Marriage 2.0″ has entered the public discourse as a way of talking about the very real and significant differences between what our parents or grandparents would have considered “marriage” and what is practiced today. I believe that most people who read any blogs like this are software-savvy enough to get the reference to major revisions of computer software which get released every few years or months. Some few may even be old enough to remember when major revisions – those ending in “dot oh” (.0) – were followed by minor, but still significant, revisions indicated by incrementing the number after the decimal point. For example, DOS 3.0 was not followed by DOS 4.0, but rather by DOS 3.1 and eventually DOS 3.2.
I thought it might be useful to address in the dialogue what some of the minor revisions to marriage were, and when they happened. What follows is mostly a bit of semi-whimsical thinking about a very serious subject. I know that there will be many who will quibble with my selected milestones, but discussion is the name of the game, so quibble away.
Marriage 0.1 – 1.0 – origins lost in history up to 1945 CE
Marriage 1.1 released – 1945 – The Baby Boom Begins
Marriage 1.1 was almost identical to Marriage 1.0 except for a couple of key features which made it more popular. Veterans returning from WWII and going to college on the GI Bill, combined with explosive markets for manufactured goods necessary for the rebuilding of war-devastated Europe and SE Asia, fueled a massive expansion of the middle class, the managerial class, and the Baby Boom. Marriage was more affordable for the average man, and therefor more accessible for the average woman. The years up to 1960, which covered most of the baby boom, coincide with “Peak Marriage.” The percentages of four main demographics – blacks and whites of both sexes – which currently participate in the version of marriage currently available have been falling since 1960.
Marriage 1.2 released – 1960 – The Pill
While the advent of the Birth Control Pill (or just “The Pill”) had significant effects for unmarried people – allowing non-marital sexual activity with less risk of unwanted parenthood – it also had a HUGE effect on marriage itself. The concept of “Family Planning” became widely familiar, and the ability of married couples to have as much sex as they felt like without incurring the burdens on their time and finances which additional children would bring subtly changed the dynamics of a lot of marriages.
Marriage 1.3 released – 1970 – No Fault Divorce
Probably more accurately called “no real reason other than I’m tired of you” divorce. Where all previous versions of marriage were considered “durable goods” and were expected to last a lifetime, Marriage V1.3 and all versions after were disposable items, to be thrown away and replaced when they started to show signs of wear.
Marriage 1.3 was an instant and automatic upgrade which could be installed over any previous version without the user’s consent.
Marriage 1.4 released – 1973 – Legalized Abortion
While originally intended as an enhancement to SingleGirl 2.0 and Liberated Woman 1.0, enough married women users demanded this feature be added to their marriages as an update that it became broadly available. It was sort of a hidden revision, in that it didn’t actually show as a change in the version number. Many men who thought they were still running V1.0-V1.3 and had some sort of veto rights over the termination of their children were totally surprised and shocked when they first encountered the blue screen of death. Like V1.3 before it, V1.4 could be installed with the consent of only one user of the system, regardless of what the other wanted – “Her body, her choice, him – no choice.”
Marriage 1.5 released – 1974~1975 – Egalitarian Marriage
The release date for Marriage1.5 is a bit fuzzy because it spent so long in Beta testing (double meaning intended), and there were so many pre-release candidates which differed significantly from each other. One of the first visible features of Marriage1.5 was the Hyphenated-Lastname. I believe that this kernel of Marriage1.5 came out of the Santa Cruz Operation, at least I’m fairly sure that it originated in Kalifornia.
I’m not going to bother documenting versions 1.6 through 1.9 because they were not so much actual revisions as they were competing versions of Marriage1.5. There was Red Hat Marriage1.5 (practiced in NY, to go along with their red stockings), Ubuntu Marriage1.5 (first distributed as a tarball and required compiling your own traditions and vows), and dozens of other lesser-known versions.
One thing was definite, however – Marriage had become open-source, and anyone and everyone felt entitled to tinker around with it.
Marriage 2.0 – 1975~1993 – Spousal/Marital Rape
This was not a revision – it was a fundamental change to the kernel and the underlying code. It’s roll out took some time – 18 years between when the first state passed a marital rape law until the last one did – but the gooey interface was just so attractive to feminists, White Knights, and Manginas. It fundamentally did away with any concept of any sort of marital obligation on the part of the wife, and with the ever shifting definition of “rayyyyppppe” put the full power of law enforcement on the woman’s side if she felt a need to either punish her husband, or get rid of him entirely so she could keep his assets – as William Hetherington’s wife did.
Now, I’m not going to go into an in-depth accounting of all the revisions of Marriage 2.0, because there were literally thousands – Marriage 2.0.1, Marriage 2.0.1.1, etc. However, there were two major revisions which are exceptionally noteworthy.
Marriage 2.2 – 1993 – Lorena Bobbit establishes the right of a woman to castrate her husband for being a “selfish lover.”
Marriage 2.5 – 2006 – Building on the pioneer work of Lorena Bobbit, Mary Winkler establishes the right of a woman to execute her husband for wanting to have sex with her.
Marriage 3.0 – 2010 - Autogamy (HT: Eman, the Desperate Houseboy for coining the word.)
Autogamy was the natural, predictable, and inevitable result of the direction of successive revisions to Marriage 2.0. Marriage was no longer about being married, it was all and only about getting married. Coupled with the bloated egos and sense of entitlement of post-feminist women, its development was inevitable. Fortunately, it runs fine on older hardware, this giving a few more years of life to the wedding industry. However, since Marriage 3.0 has gone “groomless”, suppliers of divorce products are likely to see their sales fall a bit. They hope to minimize their losses due both to falling popularity and sales of any version of Marriage 2.x and being cut out of any market for users of Marriage 3.0, by pushing for the adoption of
Marriage 4.0 – same-sex marriage – 2004
It is an anomaly of the fragmentation of the marriage market that Marriage 4.0 was actually released before Marriage 3.0, but its release got bogged down in court battles, limited market acceptance, and a very high return rate due to excessive bugs. If someone were into splitting hairs (an activity which I am sure none of the spearhead readership would waste their time on), autogamy might actually be more precisely termed Marriage 2.9 as it is a natural outgrowth of the Bridezilla feature of Marriage 2.x. However, since it is a true innovation allowing the use of Marriage by a woman totally without a hard drive of any kind, it probably deserves its own major revision number. All previous versions had required either a real or simulated hard drive, and autogamy was the first version to be able to run entirely on its own without any sort of supporting hardware.
What new versions of of Marriage does the future hold? Hard to say. With the history of innovation over the past 65 years, the sky is probably the limit. Marriage 5.0 may allow people to marry their pets. Marriage 6.0 may extend marriage to inanimate objects or even pastimes which are not objects at all – we have, after all, heard for years about people being married to their jobs. “Do you, John, take this cubicle to be your lawfully wedded (um, well I’m sure someone will come up with a word for it)?”
{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }
Re: Marriage 1.2
Don’t forget that the pill also influenced women to seek men with more feminine traits. I think that also had a big impact, due to the fact that men saw feminine men being rewarded with female attention.
Like or Dislike:
16 
3
“Marriage 5.0 may allow people to marry their pets.”
We are already there:
http://marryyourpet.com/
Marriage has been “updated” to … nothing.
So far, all attempts at destroying marriage have failed. More updates are required in order to kill the beast.
Sometimes I wonder about some people’s “intelligence” : They commit to something that has been downgraded to less than bare essentials and still…. they marry.
They are being destroyed and wasted by the millions and still…. they marry.
They are seen as big time losers and still… they marry.
Once married, a man becomes less than a bed bug and still… they marry.
Their children are murdered on a grand scale to show them how insignificant they are and still… they marry.
Go figure…
Maybe one day, the groom will be taken to jail right after the ceremony to serve a life sentence and I bet you my last shirt that they will still… marry.
How do we kill the beast?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
4
Marriage had become open-source, and anyone and everyone felt entitled to tinker around with it.
Sheer fucking brilliance, Zed. It’s a pleasure to read your articles.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
0
You failed to mention that with the continued upgrades, pesky viruses emerged : Foreign Wife 1.0 and MGTOW 2.1
Behavior of these viruses was at times, unpredictable. The gubbiment has made some feeble, but ominous, attempts to thwart these attackers with such programs as IMBRA 1.0, and HystericalScreamingOutragedBitches 12.3
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
0
Oh, I forgot VAWA 1.0
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
0
“How do we kill the beast?”
I would take it out of the state as soon as I could and leave it with the religions. Maybe then men would realize it is a choice worth evaluation whether you want a family or not.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
Oh yeah, and hardware upgrades that render the old technology quaint and cumbersome : SexBot 2.1
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
5
If a man of means happened to be wise enough to consult a family law professional before agreeing to marry, he’d probably never do it. Depending on his state, it can be a complicated legal quagmire if cupcake decides to turn on him.
He won’t though. He’ll go ahead with it because he’s in love. Meanwhile she’s VERY aware of her new found standing within the bounds of the law, the system. Marriage to her is a user friendly proposition, a “can’t lose” investment of her time. Marriage means security, both during and afterward. It’s why they celebrate it once it happens to them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
0
Bunch of leeches just waiting on put the claws on innocent men to suck them dry of their life, money and happiness. Brrrrrrrr.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
6
It’s why they celebrate it once it happens to them.
And every year afterwards, with the onus on the man to “remember” his obligations.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
0
Rebel…The reason many men still get married is because of the qualities that define a man. Like nobility, honor and self sacrifice. Men sacrifice wealth and indepedence to raise a family. Their nobility and honor keep them in a “bad” marriage for their children, so they sacrifice much of their happiness.
These qualities which were, and still are inherently good are used against men to the detriment of the entire society. The Guv, media and corporations want and promote the family break up. The Guv gets power to make insane laws to control your lives. The media gets to lie and lie and lie to boost rating’s and control your lives. The corporation get cheap labor to control your lives.
There simply is no down side for the Guv/media/corporation alliance not to destroy marriage. If they use a man’s virtue’s to his destruction, so what? If they claim the almighty “tolerance” as the “only” worthy virtue, so what? If they leave of wake of dead men, spiritually bankrupt women and fatherless children who run the streets in animal packs, so what?
What can happy, intact families offer them? Nothing. However, divorced families offer child support agencies and extra security forces, deadbeat dad laws and security forces, more crime and more security forces, false arrests and more security forces, DV and more security forces, welfare and more security forces. Plus over seer’s to monitor all this and lawyer’s and lawyer’s and lawyer’s.
Quite simply they get all your money and all the power….Yea, happy families with well adjusted, independent thinking children. Just the thought of it is enough to make every lawyer up and group vomit.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
0
“Yea, happy families with well adjusted, independent thinking children. Just the thought of it is enough to make every lawyer up and group vomit.”
Reminds me of this small clip from The Simpsons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u9JAt6gFqM
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
0
He no sooner says “I DO.” and he’s…
Under her thumb
The squirmin’ dog who’s just had his day
Under her thumb
A man who has just changed his ways
It’s down to her, yes it is
The way he does just what he’s told
Down to her, the change has come
He’s under her thumb
Yeah, it feels right
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
4
The company that currently makes Marriage TM is likely to be taken over in the near future by Islam Inc (‘Peaceful solutions for the world’). When that happens, I suspect the Marriage product will be thoroughly evaluated by the new management, and ‘integrated’ with their existing product, ‘ShariaMarriage 1.0′. By ‘integrated’ I mean subsumed with no former trace of its former attributes.
The interesting thing about ShariaMarriage 1.0 is that it never seems to receive any product upgrades, having been in place for 1300 years or so. It allows the hardware to multitask with up to 4 parallel sessions of the application running in the background (ShariaMarriage 1.0 always runs in the background, with priority given to hardware at all times).
The major downside of ShariaMarriage 1.0 is that it requires a complete overhaul of the main OS, and some existing hardware may be incompatible with that. In those cases, the hardware will need to be forcibly demised.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
2
Hmm, maybe we need to change the operating system. We’ve patched and patched and still get the white screen of death. Too many version 5.0′s were a train wreck that never lasted (DOS 5.0, VB 5.0) so I’m going to skip once again and do the 6.0 Beta (woman from overseas).
Women warned me of compatibility issues. What do they know? In my 6th year now I can tell you Marriage 6.0 has a feature list that rivals the competition…
- 1 to 2 massages each day
- All meals cooked from scratch
- Coffee, Tea and snacks throughout the day
- Home cleaned and laundry done
- Clips my toe nails and “wants” to cut my hair
- Actually sews to fix any cloth that needs a touch up
- Nags and female shops maybe twice a year
…and this list of automated features just goes on and on.
Now as a typical man I like to give and give. So I do spend the time each day teaching her website development, photoshop, etc. and she now runs a small business because of this and is very grateful for it and still continues to do all the many things listed above. 7 days a week, 24 hours a day we work, play, talk, laugh together as we each run our small business from home almost back to back 2 feet from each other.
If 6.0 crashes I will let you know. If it does, I can at least look back and say I had a lot of fun.
Sure is easy when there are no kids involved. Where some of these men get the strength to hold it all together when they have kids with a hacked version of a wife 2.0 is beyond me…
We need to be careful with this kind of software because programming is a lot like sex, one mistake and you’re providing support for a lifetime.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
2
@ Zed nicely said. I agree completely.
I would ad that the user guide to Marriage is always at least 2 versions behind the version being sold.
So the buyer doesn’t get to know what version he’s buying unless he makes a living off marriage and divorce. The wives, psychologists, lawyers, Judges and social workers all get up to date, new release information.
Sometimes these folks are even given time off work to take seminars on the latest updates and to give suggestions for more additions for the next update.
Maybe getting married should be like buying a house. 100 pages of legal work initialed and a week long cooling off period on any marriage related decisions so there is no buyers remorse.
But men would still marry.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
0
Zed:
At first I was going to challenge you on adding marital rape as a major revision. I still fault you for making No Fault divorce a “minor” revision, when it was that, more than anything else that killed any contractual aspect of marriage.
Still, you are right in that “Marital Rape” is more important than I initially thought. See, I believe women should have protections against forced sex and beatdowns during marriage (same for men, by the way) and thus at first glance its hard to be against marital rape laws. But then I thought: not only is the definition of rape these days very amorphous , often applying to sex that was initially consented to and the definition otherwise stretched – but also there were laws on the books against cruelty and marital assault even back in the old “fault” regime. Maybe a woman couldn’t get hubby convicted of “RAYPE”, but she could legally divorce him on cruelty grounds, sometimes take him to the cleaners, and also in some states even have him convicted of the crime of assault. Thus, by at most mucking about with those laws to make them more strict I think we could have protected women in marriage from being beatdown and forced to perform sex, without actually making marital rape statutes.
Marital Rape laws as currently constituted come strictly from Dworkin style feminism and the White Knight impulses of most men.
So I agree with you that Marital Rape laws were a major revision, but I still don’t see why you dismiss “No Fault” as a minor one. I think ending “no fault” would get much more opposition than ending marital rape statutes esp if you strengthened laws against abuse in their stead.
Like or Dislike:
12 
7
Released: 1966
Marital rape laws imply that sex is not a given in marriage, which it is supposed to be. If a man were to attempt to force his wife to have sex with him by means of physical assault then he should be charged with a physical assault.
Sexual consent within marriage is implied and given when each person says “I do”. That doesn’t mean that a person has no rights to their own bodies within marriage, it means that these things, i.e. when and how often they have sex….are matters that belong between a husband and wife, not taken over by the state.
Additionally, as sex is such an integral part of marriage, barring any evidence of physical assault, it is impossible to prove a lack of consent and has no more backing than a simple matter of he said/ she said.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
4
There had been a sort of “under the table” form of no-fault divorce for years. If you look up the biography of Queen Silver by Wendy McElroy, you will see her described as a “professional correspondent.” For a fee paid by a wife, she would arrange to be caught with the husband in a “compromising position”, and the man would basically hand over whatever the wife wanted in order to avoid public humiliation. (Those were different days, compare John Edwards to John Profumo.)
Men could pull the same tricks and, with enough money to buy whatever judge he wanted, a man could easily get out of a marriage by assassinating the character of his wife. In fact, that was one of the primary justifications of the first no-fault divorce laws – some marriages were, in fact, irreparably broken and there was no point in having to completely destroy one or the other parties just to allow the partner who was DONE with the marriage and had no interest in or intention to try to even keep up the pretense of it, to get out of it and let the spouse get on with his or her life.
It turned out that the application of no-fault turned out quite different from its intent. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
Accurate history and figures are probably impossible to come by at this late, historically-revisionist, date, but I think that men were in the vast majority of those who took advantage of NFD laws early on. That stereotype of the wealthy businessman who has a mid-life crisis, buys a red corvette, dumps his loyal, faithful, and dutiful – but worn – wife of many years for a trophy blond half her age, did actually have some basis in fact.
In addition, I really don’t think that NFD had that much larger an effect on marriage than either the pill or legalized abortion. Both made “cheating” far safer than it ever had been before – for both sexes. Also, I don’t think most people realized what a significant effect those seemingly small changes would have.
Really amusing. I’d add that there probably ought to be a ‘cloud marriage’ out there for the poly-amorous types.
Does remind me of a time where in a meeting a female colleague made the comment that she hated having to type: man to get manual pages.
So I wrote a woman version for retrieving man pages. It would ramble on endlessly bringing up manual pages and the only signal it would trap was sigkill. And when you typed man woman you got a rather amusing manual page describing the attributes of woman. It was a big hit.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
One other feature of the woman manual page reader was that any other signal handled (sigint, sigstop) and it would berate your for interrupting it.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Zed:
I’m aware of the history you stated. But what you’ve overlooked are two things:
A. Prior to No Fault divorce the vast majority of marriages stayed together. So it wasn’t that easy to get out of, esp. if one wasn’t the type to lie in a court of law.
B. Insofar as people did succeed in “swindling” the court to get out of miserable marriages, often the husband and wife were in cahoots. In other words, it often took two to tango, whereas in current unilateral divorce the rights of one partner to care only about their own selfish needs and forget the kids or other spouse are placed first and foremost on a strictly legal foundation. Yes, sometimes one spouse would set the other spouse up, or try to assasinate their character or try some other ruse – but in that case the point is that the behavior was 1. illegal and could be sanctioned if a court found out, and 2. could be defended against. Yes, one could go to court and try to keep ones marriage together. A fascinating idea these days, I suppose.
My main point about “no fault” is that it is unilateral divorce no matter what the other party thinks. Most states don’t even have waiting periods before granting the divorce, and with the exception of I think Georgia (there is or was a state that until recently retained “fault” for marriages with children) they don’t take children into account at all. For the above reasons, I think no-fault has led to the biggest change in marriages.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
In other news :
Mother kills her baby for interrupting her playing of video game :
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-10-27/story/jacksonville-mom-shakes-baby-interrupting-farmville-pleads-guilty-murder
The article does not mention the marital status of the mother, but I would wager that she is unwed.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
Recently, I witnessed a long-overdue system update in a classic model of processor.
A very close relative of mine has been trying to push me into “finding a nice girl” for the past ten years. We’ve had many good-natured debates, which ended in a predictable fashion, i.e. it’s the MAN’s responsibility to find “the right girl to marry.”
Well, one of her co-workers has a son exactly my age. He was dating a girl for a year, who was putting horrendous pressure on him to get married. Finally, he acquiesced. They bought a house together and she birthed a baby. No more than two years after they got married, she said “I’m not in love with you anymore” and promptly divorced him. Not surprisingly, this happened a few months after he got laid off from his job. He is now bankrupt and only gets to see his kids on the weekends, and she (and the baby) is living with her parents.
So now, whenever I talk with my close relative, she says “You’re right about women these days. They can’t be trusted.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
0
OK. As I said in my OP, “quibble away.”
I saw quite a bit of divorce growing up. Two of my father’s 3 sisters, all of whom were born before 1914, divorced their first husbands, long before the term “no-fault” ever came on the scene. My oldest cousin, who was the same age as my youngest aunt (one of the divorcées), was married and divorced twice before I was born. Marriage generally lasted most of the time for most people, but we were not Catholic so it was accepted that it would not last all the time for all the people.
I have news for you…..
Women do not need to Marry you to be entitled to your assets….
Welcome to wealth “redistribution”…..also known as “Progressively taxing” all men (the more you earn, the higher percentage you pay) for the benefit of the single-mom and her bastard children.
You don’t hate babies and single-moms do you? Then you should support them getting taxpayer funding for all sorts of entitlements.
Doesn’t matter anymore if you are the Daddy…..you’re still going to pay.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
1
I was raised Catholic. That was like being given a manual on how to use an abacus as training for using a modern computer.
Like or Dislike:
11 
5
NFD is what people in most states wanted. Proving one was more at fault than the other in complicated personal relationships was time consuming and expensive. In most No-Fault states you can opt into a “fault” situation but the lawyer fees alone will typically out weigh any long term gains. That, and all the dirty laundry becomes public record. It’s amazing though what some couples willl battle over out of “principle”. The real trump card is if there’s children. That’s a whole other level of complexity and expertise.
As far as “Marital Rape”, I personally view it as a Red Herring within MRA circles of thought and opinion.
Like or Dislike:
1 
7
“Michelle Obama and the Women’s Vote”
The above link connects to one of several articles I’ve seen lately asking why women aren’t enthusiastic about voting in this election cycle. Not surprisingly, the feminist journalist says it’s because the Democrats aren’t pro-female empowerment enough.
Gag me.
Apparently, a blatantly one-sided political platform, “grrl power” political rallies, a mangina President, and spate of attack ads saying “If the Republicans win, they’re gonna rape you” has not been enough to get the little princesses to the polls.
“OMG voting is haaarrrddd…Maybe the boys will do it for me!”
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
5
Oh, sorry. I meant to post the above under another article. My apologies.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
@Danger: “Welcome to wealth “redistribution”…..also known as “Progressively taxing” all men (the more you earn, the higher percentage you pay) for the benefit of the single-mom and her bastard children.”
Well, we’re in a mancession, so a lot of men are out of work and the gubmint ain’t gonna be collecting much tax from those men. It’s going to be interesting to see how the worker-bee women react when they realize that the funding for all those feel-good social programs they enthusiastically endorsed is going to be coming out of her paycheck.
If a man doesn’t stick his head through a noose of obligation, it’s really quite easy to live very, very well on remarkably little income. Let the women earn their own money for their status symbols.
It’s usually easier to spend less money than it is to earn more money.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
What truly disillusioned me was how little it takes to induce women, of any age, to turn against their men, and men in general.
On the other hand, men truly bond with their women, and even do this for total strangers:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325296/Man-pulls-shark-tail-save-woman-diver-disappears.html
The guy’s picture reminds me of Zed.
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
@Paradoxotaur
For the time-being about the mancession, yes.
However,
My point is that even if you opt out of Marriage, 50% of your money earned, from your hard labor, sacrifice and effort…..goes away in taxes. With a LARGE portion of that going to benefit the Welfare single Mommy State.
Take what does not go directly to the Welfare state, and you STILL have a large leftover percentage going directly to inefficient Gub’mint workers, the majority of who are female.
Anyone ever look into the Teacher’s Unions? Talk about a black hole which sucks money…..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
0
Taking the analogy a bit further than perhaps it should be taken:
I believe that there were very little changes to the software and hardware during the course of all of these revisions of Marriage. The only real changes were to the drivers which interfaced the software with the hardware.
It seems that the developers of Marriage 1.0 were aware of the severe design flaws in both the software and the hardware that would be using Marriage, and so they wrote a very restrictive driver that only supported a few very safe protocols. What has been experienced of late were the maintainers “embracing and extending” the feature set of Marriage, apparently completely blind to the design decisions behind the limited feature set in the first place. Didn’t they read the documentation?
Wasn’t there a case from early in the 20th century where a woman had her husband committed because he wanted sex 4-5 times per week? I seem to recall the poor man was sterilized as a result (in the US at the time it was common to do that to people deemed “mentally ill”). That might be the first instance of Marriage 2.5 in our society. An early adopter, perhaps?
People claiming success using the ForeignWife 1.0 or StupidWife release 47 “Hyper-Religious Country Girl” hacks should be aware that most software enterprises ship with a feature that checks other programs for these hacks and attempts to patch them out. Generally such attempts take about 5 years of exposure before the hacks are completely removed.
Software is getting larger and more bloated every day. It’s a shame more people don’t support the UNIX philosophy…
Some people claim to have had success with pirating their software. There are a great deal of risks with doing so, especially with new releases. Nevertheless, when performed with skill and care, a good software pirate can easily get away with it and can even obtain free copies of more software.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
I think I would have marriage 2.0 beginning in 1961.
This was the year in which the well established legal principle of marriage that the children belong to the father was turned on its head and the courts began to rule that the children belonged to the mother.
Thus, the actual and true end of marriage 1.0. Everything following this date would be part of marriage 2.0. Indeed, without this judicial rape of husbands there would have been no marriage 2.0 because the man’s children and his wallet would have remained his own.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
I would suggest that Zed missed a step. Marriage 1.3 should have been Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society,” released in 1964. This woefully-misnamed socialist program was the first step in substituting big government for fathers. It paid unwed mothers for each child, encouraging them to continue to breed without the necessity of having a husband/father on hand to help support the family and raise the child. It was wildly successful: in 2008 (the latest year for which data is available) illegitimate birth rates were 28.6% for whites, 52.5% for Hispanics, and 72.3% for blacks. The total illegitimate birth rate in the USA in 2008 was 40.6%.
Of course, feminists think this is great, as their mantra “women need men like a fish needs a bicycle” is well served by the Great (big waste of taxpayers’ money) Society. One thing I don’t get though: feminists constantly tell us that women are “strong, independent, and feisty. If so, WHY THE F*CK DO THEY NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR WORTHLESS@SSES?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
3
I was under the impression that began clear back toward the end of the 19th century.
Definitely a significant development. Not to overstrain this admittedly frivolous analogy, but I would have classed that as SingleGirl1.5, or the early pre-releases of LiberatedWoman1.0. I was thinking of changes to marriage itself, and not so much to changes in the Operating System it was running on.
It definitely rewrote the entire rule book for “marriage” and families, though.
I remember when Humane Vitae came out in staunch opposition to birth control of any kind. Pope Paul VI said that birth control would cause men and women to lose respect for each other. It was one of the most hated encyclicals of all time, and seems to have proven to be one of the most accurate and prophetic – those two characteristics are almost certainly related. It was barely 5 years before the Supreme Court of the US sanctioned murder of the unborn.
In terms of social change, it seems the 1,2,3 punch was
1. Decoupling sex from reproduction, making it purely a hedonistic pursuit;
2. Decoupling reproduction from marriage, removing some of the potential downsides of unbridled hedonism and the pursuit of physical gratification;
3. Providing guarantees that someone else would have to pay with their life for your mistakes, so you would never have to – decoupling self-centered self-gratification from any consequences at at all.
No-fault divorce represented a major shift away from patriarchy. There are women today who, being of the herd mentality, wear divorce as a sort of badge of honor; or at least deny away the destructiveness of this act.
Combined with abortion privilege, there isn’t much more to make a man extremely cautious about modern marriage. Atheism has really screwed our culture up.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
There still are relatively safe enclaves for the marriage-minded man in traditional/orthodox Catholicism, Islam and Judaism. If you aren’t of a religious mind then you really are out of luck. Previously, the religious view of marriage (in the case of the USA, Christianity) drove the secular view, both in the way secular society viewed marriage, infidelity, divorce, etc. and the laws which typically promoted marriage stability. This gave a not very religious man some assurance in the marriage contract. Now, the religious and secular are essentially divorced and the traditional forms of various religions are no longer mainstream. A not very religious man has absolutely no assurance that his potential not very religious wife is guided by a view based on marriage stability, etc. He’s taking as much of a risk as a man in Marriage 1.0 who proposed to the cocktail waitress he met last night at the Bimbo Club.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Back in the days of Divorce for a reason ie, spousal abuse, infadelity or living apart for more than a year.
My mother got a quicky divorce by telling my father that she would (falsely) accuse him of physical abuse or he could admit to having an affair (my mom was having the affair) guess what my dad opted for?
Marriage has always been easy to get out of for the well informed. Marriage 1.3 is just the public admission and official approval of no fault DV
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
No need to break down till so many versions: marriage is NOT software.
Marriage 1.0 – pre-feminism, clearly defined gender roles, and humble women with a sense of shame. The women also know how to cook and clean and carry things. Marriage was still a poor deal for men, but at least you as a husband know what you’re slogging away and providing for.
Marriage 2.0 – post feminism, women in the workforce, anti-male laws, no fault divorce, demonization of the masculine in the mass media, alongside the glamorization of the empowered, boisterous(assertive) slut. Gender equality(the big, odious lie) assumed orthodoxy. Political correctness (thou shalt not hurt her self-esteem), pedophile paranoia all thrown into the mess.
Marriage 3.0 = No marriage/seems like marriage but not really/seems like relationship but not really. When male sexual needs/procreation urges are fulfilled by technological advancements and when the male pill has arrived, the institution of marriage AND feminism will be crushed.
Goodbye Marriage 1.0.
Hello Marriage 2.0.
Onward to ‘Marriage’ 3.0!
Whatever the version number, avoid marriage and you’ll be a happy man.
Don’t sign that marriage contract. Don’t share a roof with, or hand over your money to any woman. That ‘soulmate’ thing is a trap; don’t fall for it.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
Trust me, the problem lies wholly with feminism, and not with any(or a lack of a) certain religion.
For example, go to your typical Christian church in a feminized society and listen and observe.
You’ll discover gems like:
‘Adam caused Eve to sin.’
‘The Christian woman cheats because her husband failed to show ‘leadership’ He must forgive her and accept her again.’
‘You can put behind your sordid past, accept Jesus Christ, and be a born again virgin.’ *cheers from the over-the-hill church-going women who’re hunting for a God-fearing (read: beta sucker) husband in the congregation.*
Islam is also not spared. The same taint of feminism has infected their communities, with women’s rights activists leading the way.
Feminism does not respect cultural, religious, class or territorial boundaries. Its tentacles have widespread reach.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
If you men really wanted to do something useful you might ‘out’ the man-hating, white knighting, mangina apologists and the wimminz who incite this behaviour like I have just started doing.
http://www.peternolan.com/Forums/tabid/420/mid/1087/threadid/549/scope/posts/Default.aspx
I have also bought a web site called http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com where lawyers, barristers and judges will be named and shamed for crimes committed.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
Excellent article as always Zed, great to have you back here posting.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
@ MGTOW
I believe the terrorism being engaged in by extemist Islamics is in fear of feminism.
They realize it is the real religeon of the West. They fear it because, when defined as a religeon, perhaps feminism is growing fast than Islam.
But feminism will crush them. They came to the West and brought their woman. Their daughters will kill them, King Lear style.
The biggest mistake Islam made was leaving the desert.
There may be more boys named Mohammed than any other name in England, but they will desire to marry, Mary, the blonde girl down the block.
Her children will destroy Islam as children in the West destroyed the churches here. It’s a cultural wave that no amount of terrorism or war can stop, IMO.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
“No need to break down till so many versions: marriage is NOT software.”
But the idea of software versions is indeed an effective analogy.
And seeing how it was accomplished through incremental releases is quite educational.
After all, going from 1.0 to 2.0 to 3.0 wasn’t done by magic, or overnight.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
@Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c)
I looked at the forum link you posted above, and I am confused.
The subject of the original email, forwarded to you, by Lyn, was about having healthful water to drink. This effects all people, male and female, equally. And I saw no mention of women, except to note the culpability of one Anna Pauker.
But your reply to her started: “I have an honest question for you. Why would ANY MAN in Australia wish to help you when YOU SUPPORT SUCH CRIMES AS PERJURY, KIDNAPPING, EXTORTION and THEFT from men in the Family Courts?”
Irrespective of the validity of either point, I just don’t see how your response is related to the original message.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
There really is only one version of marriage. It can be found, but only at the woman’s behest in America.
These versions aren’t versions of marriage, they are variations on a prostitution contract.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
I find it an interesting omission that there was no history till 1945. The real history of marriage has always been financially based till about the 1950′s when people decided that “love” was the all important criteria for marriage. Marriage from the beginning was a way to transfer wealth from father to daughter through a dowry and inheritance to the Son-in-law.
http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-History-Obedience-Intimacy-Conquered/dp/B000EUKR2C/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_4
Regards,
Mr. Alighieri
Like or Dislike:
3 
8
“Still, you are right in that “Marital Rape” is more important than I initially thought. See, I believe women should have protections against forced sex and beatdowns during marriage (same for men, by the way) and thus at first glance its hard to be against marital rape laws”
Ugh.
What can I say to you. You’re brainwashed.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“As far as “Marital Rape”, I personally view it as a Red Herring within MRA circles of thought and opinion.”
Tell that to the men in prison. Oh you don’t care: men who rape wives should be imprisoned right? Yea some men’s rights movement.
You’re against men marrying young women too, under the age of 18, even though they are able to have children.
Yea some men’s movement.
Islam will win.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good post, but it would be awesome to have something like this that didn’t use terms like “mangina.” There are men I’d like to send this too and those terms, somewhat understandably, would probably just make them disregard the whole article.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 4 trackbacks }