Hardly a week goes by these days without the lame-stream media trumpeting some measure which indicates that marriage as a social institution continues to crumble. The latest “big scary factoid” (HT to one of the Spearhead’s commenters for that great turn of phrase) is an article by Hope Yen being distributed by the Associate Press titled “Four in 10 say marriage is becoming obsolete.”
Is marriage becoming obsolete?
As families gather for Thanksgiving this year, nearly one in three American children is living with a parent who is divorced, separated or never-married. More people are accepting the view that wedding bells aren’t needed to have a family.
A study by the Pew Research Center, in association with Time magazine, highlights rapidly changing notions of the American family. And the Census Bureau, too, is planning to incorporate broader definitions of family when measuring poverty, a shift caused partly by recent jumps in unmarried couples living together.
…
About 29 percent of children under 18 now live with a parent or parents who are unwed or no longer married, a fivefold increase from 1960, according to the Pew report being released Thursday.
… about 39 percent of Americans said marriage was becoming obsolete. And that sentiment follows U.S. census data released in September that showed marriages hit an all-time low of 52 percent for adults 18 and over.
In 1978, just 28 percent believed marriage was becoming obsolete.
While a change of just 11% over 22 years may not seem that huge to some people, the strength of the language used – “obsolete”, as in outmoded, old-fashioned, no longer relevant – really does indicate a seismic-level shift away from what most people believed 50 years ago. Interestingly, the 40% figure tracks fairly well with the percentage of children born outside of marriage. The fundamental definition of not just “marriage”, but the term “family” itself is undergoing a profound change as the behavior of millions of people changes.
As with all statistics, averages across large numbers of people mask the fact that the changes are more significant among some demographics than others. Much has been made of the black/white divide when it comes to marriage and having children outside of marriage. The marriage rates for African Americans of both sexes have plunged more than for whites, but the trend downward has been consistent for all groups.
Here is a chart I snagged from Dalrock’s post “Driving a stake in the heart of the US marriage strike myth” with two baselines added.
The percentage of people currently married for the group with the highest rate – white men – as of 2009 has dropped slightly below the rate for the group with the lowest rate in 1960 – black women, while the drop in rates for black folks of both sexes has been larger than for their white counterparts. The change has been so profound in the black community that among younger blacks the sentiment seems to be that “Marriage is for White People.”
Some of the findings from the poll shown in this graph were what one might expect – the percentages who believe marriage is obsolete went down as age went up, were higher for blacks than for whites, went up as income or education level went down, and were predictably higher for people who were cohabiting than for married people. But, there was one result so surprising that I have to wonder if it is a case of mislabeling – conservatives were more likely to take a dim view of the future of marriage than liberals were, 42% vs 38%. Another finding which surprised me is nearly one out of every 3 married people – 31% – considered the institution obsolete.
A lot of so-called “MRAs” tend to focus on the legal issues, and not be as concerned with attitudes and behavior. While the legal climate toward men and fathers is incredibly punitive, at the same time giving women license to divorce their husbands for the incredible crime of not keeping her ‘gina tingling, it is more the loss of social controls and social pressure to inhibit destructive behaviors which has caused so many people to take an increasingly dim view of an institution which was clearly the norm during the time when most of us grew up.
While things may not be quite as bleak as the picture painted by Charles Martel in “The End of Marriage”, one would have to be extremely dedicated to the ostrich strategy of burying one’s head in the sand to continue to ignore and deny what are some very clear and unmistakable trends. And, the fact that the youngest demographic – historically the least likely to be married – hold the greatest skepticism toward marriage raises the question of whether that attitude will prevail throughout their entire adult lives and be reflected in their behavior. Perhaps the current generation coming into the marriage years will have the attitude “Marriage is for Older People”, or perhaps just ”Marriage is for Other People.”
There is not much reason to believe that current trends will do anything but continue, and marriage rates continue to fall and more and more people begin to see marriage as little more than one among many options, in the absence of any counter-forces against it. Normally, when market share for some product begins to fall, “investors” in the product begin to look at why fewer people are buying that product. However, the strategy pursued by the Marriage Cheerleaders so far has seemed limited to badgering and harassing unmarried people. I think the consistent drop in marriage rates is clear testament to the failure of this strategy.
{ 208 comments… read them below or add one }
“However, the strategy pursued by the Marriage Cheerleaders so far has seemed limited to badgering and harassing unmarried MEN.”
Fixed that for you.
Unmarried women by no means are being badgered or harassed to be married. The average American just assumes that she isn’t married because all men have “Peter Pan Syndrome.” Or that she’s a single mother because the father ran out on her.
Speaking of fathers, the term father is now being changed too. Feminists are doing everything they can to define father as “any man the woman points her finger to, (preferably a rich man so that she can have an excessive amount of child support that she of course won’t spend on the child). Whether the man even had sex with the woman is irrelevant”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
102 
1
Feminists will trumpet this…..and how much ya wanna bet the lame-stream media and even the increasingly-more-liberal Christian Evangelicals will come out and announce “legalizing gay marriage might save the entire institution!” (ad nauseum).
We’d have been better off if the Viking Religion (Odin, Thor, Freya, etc.) won over Western Civilization as opposed to the nauseating creed of Christianity…..in a nutshell, yes!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
15
Women don’t need marriage anymore, they have the state to raise their cad-begotten offspring.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
88 
1
On ‘gina tingle link: That Cary Tennis is a despicable human being. “You can get a divorce!” Atrocious. How about, “You were lucky enough to catch a wonderful man that millions of women would give anything for, and you should damn well appreciate it.”
Cue our female trolls shrieking “Men want marriage more than women” and “I don’t need no man” in 5, 4, 3, 2….
Men don’t let men marry in 2010.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
85 
1
Ken, you can hardly blame Christianity for feminism. Christiany WAS patriarchal until society was recently twisted in the last 100 years. TheBible is hardly a feminist document, after all, the New Testament does after all instruct a wife to obey her husband.
Strange that a religion which swept the western world and held off the warriors of Islam in the middle ages was unable to stand against the rise of feminism. I think the problem does not lie in the creed, but rather with the men at the pulpit who allowed feminism to creep in.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
59 
16
Angelo, Christianity was patriarchal during it’s first 1500+years yes….but also an ALIEN creed to most forced to observe it, an unnatural doctrine of eunuchs and suicidal pacifists forced upon and “morphed” onto Pagans who would have been better off without it.
Nowadays it is a feminized “religion” where it’s adherents motherly kiss-kiss the lowest forms of human scum and villainy whom are it’s “saints”. Many men are walking away from Churches and if youre a single man without a family you will be certainly feel un-welcome in the congregation! (trust me, see for yourself!). I GUARANTEE the Christian Churches (clowns like Mike Huckabee leading the charge) will trumpet the more liberal feminist agenda, embrace “universal marriage” (i.e. anyone marrying anyone) and be entirely feminist-run in creed by the year 2020….hey sports-fans, nowadays America’s decline is on fast-forward, or didn’t you know?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
20
Why would any sane male get married in the US? Women are simply not marriage material on top of the insane laws that protect them especially in divorce. It’s not just the laws, it’s the cultural mindset that raises women to let go of their sexual inhibitions from an early age and with the wrong men that is killing it. It’s the educational system that teaches them nothing, gets them into tons of debt under the guise of strong and independent yet many end up as slaves trying to pay it off. I know several young 20 somethings that are in five and six figure debts that are working service industry jobs right now. They can’t pay it back nor will they find men these days willing to do it for them.
The big lie that women eat up is that education and sexual liberation gives them power. For the minority it will in the long run but for the majority of them, it’ll leave them childless, single, miserable and slaving away at jobs to pay back the government that made them that way.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
81 
1
Men don’t let men marry in 2010.
golf clap
never marry or co-habitate (sc)
it is legalized blackmail
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
54 
3
There’s a guy on the blogosphere by the name of Great Books For Men. Once you get past his shtick and read into what he writes, he clearly shows why it’s all going to pot.
I highly recommend guys read his material.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
12
Men don’t let men marry in 2010. — Herbal Essence
Awesome, I love it.
Marriage won’t be heaven in 2011.
Marriage will be on the shelve in 2012.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
5
Cloud, reconsider.
Telling men that they have “Peter Pan Syndrome” … is badgering.
Whining that “the father ran out on her” … is badgering.
Defining any convenient man as the father … is badgering AND criminal.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
48 
0
Yes, this is good news. Keep up the good work guys.
I predict that we will see an increase in male life expectancy and wealth over the next few decades.
Mens’ increase in “happiness” over the last 40 years is well documented, female happiness, not so much. But I will worry about them when we have 200,0000 women buried at arlington cemetary for defending “their” country.
Of course the feminist propaganda organ, the press will lie to us to get us men to want to marry. When ever you see these articles look carefully because the chances they are lying is directly proportional to what women have to gain in marriage.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
6
Well, after reading it myself, it seems the woman is a tramp who is already whoring around behind her husband’s back. Cary may well feel that she’s trash and the guy will be better off without her. I’d advise any guy married to a slut to get rid of her, but perhaps the next best thing is persuading her to pursue divorce. Is it really doing a guy a favor to keep him with an adulteress?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
0
The dumbest thing I see marriage-savers doing is arguing for marriage.
If I were a marriage-saver, which I am not, I would simply drop the word “marriage” and hand it over to gays. “Here, you can keep the word. Have fun with that.” What does the word “marriage” really signify anyway? It is just a word in the English Language. It used to embody a meaning that everyone clearly understood. But, marriage doesn’t mean “marriage” anymore, since two men shacking up and becoming truck drivers on the Hershey Highway is also now considered “marriage.”
I’d just give the word marriage to the rest, and become a Reproductive Covenant advocate, or something like, in the direct spirit of the Bible or whichever other systems actually work.
Why fight over the word? I’d fight for the concept. It seems to escape most how silly it is to fight over a word that has become absolutely meaningless because of 40yrs of Critical Theory.
Same goes for the word “family.”
However, I am not a Reproductive Contract advocate.
I am a Free Man advocate. The cell doors have been inadvertently left unlocked, and the guards are all on coffee break. I say we stand up, and simply walk outta here while we have the chance.
But, I hope Reproductive Contract Advocates continue to spawn some future tax-payers – enough to last the West another 63yrs or so.
Coasting downhill on a once great civilization’s wave is really quite a comfortable way to live. We certainly have it easier going downhill than those did who took us uphill.
Kinda irresponsible of us… but… here we are.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
56 
7
LEGALIZE PROSTITUION (like it is in Nevada).
We’d be alot happier….but of course Evangelical perverts and feminist will lobby against it!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
48 
7
Speaking of gays, I live next to a “committed” gay male couple. When I pointed out why gay marriage is nothing more than a ruse for the divorce industry rackets to one of them, I dare say the guy had an “aha” moment.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
0
””””’Of course the feminist propaganda organ, the press will lie to us to get us men to want to marry. When ever you see these articles look carefully because the chances they are lying is directly proportional to what women have to gain in marriage.”””’
the meaning of marriage is going to keep changing.
It will go from that 2 years of knowing a chick and auto married to 2 months.
To whatever.
Be prepared.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
3
Hmmm… let’s see
Men don’t let men marry in 2010.
Marriage won’t be Heaven in 2011.
Marriage will be on the shelve by 2012.
It still won’t be keen in 2013.
Marriage will be quite denty by 2020.
In 2021, women will still search for “the one.”
By 2022 women won’t know what to do.
And near 2023 men will see they are free.
In 2024 women will still be a bore.
By 2025 marriage still won’t jive.
By 2026 they’ll still say we’re dicks.
But in 2027 we still won’t care about Helen.
Come 2028 they’ll be spewing hate.
But by 2029 men will still be doing fine.
In 2030 marriage will be thought dirty.
And in 2031 men are going to have fun.
In 2032 you may wonder what to do.
Because by 2033 we’ll all be free.
2034 will have men showing them the door.
Rather than date in 2035, I’ll wave as on-by I drive.
In 2036 our culture will be terminally sick
But by 2037 I’ll be seventy seven.
In 2038 I’ll still turn down a date.
And come 2039 I’ll know my life was mine.
—
Needs some work on the rythym. Iambic pentameter and all that jazz.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
4
oops, in 2037 I’ll be sixty seven.
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
@ Angelo November 19, 2010 at 06:18
“you can hardly blame Christianity for feminism”
You can certainly blame Christianity for promoting collectivism and feminism is just another form of collectivism so Christianity and feminism are quite similar and share similar goals.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
21
Some of the early feminists and the elitists who were using them (and called them “useful idiots”) stated clearly that in order to “free” women they must destroy marriage. Really, they were (are) communists. This is right out of the Communist manifesto. It’s a done deal.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
0
The general, total decline of all American Institutions is real – it’s not only marriage.
With “white males” at the top of that graph, it clearly shows numerical evidence (percentage wise) whom the biggest chumps and AFC’s still are – and which sheep still buy into The Myth.
Soon, America will degrade into a primitive African-style tribal free-for-all fuckfest. Both sexes will default to serial monogamy, where the legitimacy of offspring is always in question.
And one of the pillars of Western Society – the passing of property inheritance – will vanish.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
4
The nuclear family (mom, dad, kids, cats) was an invention of the nascent industrial era, at the end of the 18th century.
Industry needed workers in great numers: jobs were many and pulled millions away from the coutryside. In order to make it stick, marriage and nuclear family were presented as the only alternative. And everybody bought into it.
…Until now…
Now we are at the end of the post industrial era and “muscled” workers hardly needed. The nuclear family, as it existed, is no longer required.
The present bias against men and fathers reflect this new reality.
The family of the future will consist of a mother and her children, (probably conceived in a machine) while men will be free to do as they choose.
I would like to propose the idea that this “arrangement” suits men better than the old patriarchy where the man assumed full responsibility. (and had to die in great numbers to maintain the status quo)
A new age is dawning on mankind: there will be sex galore with none of the disadvantages “procured” by the form of slavery called marriage. (virtual sex is making stunning progress).
All in all, the obsolescence and eventual demise of marriage (slavery) is a huge step forward in freeing men.
This may sound like “Brave New World” to some, but it’s far better than “1984″.
In a certain given sense (as the future might show) , feminism has had its positive side: it caused much suffering, but the results are worth it: Freedom!
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
33
“Soon, America will degrade into a primitive African-style tribal free-for-all fuckfest. Both sexes will default to serial monogamy, where the legitimacy of offspring is always in question.
And one of the pillars of Western Society – the passing of property inheritance – will vanish.”
Not necessarily. Men will still hang onto their property and ensure it’s passed on. That means those males will only bring in women that will abide by his a patriarchy to ensure it remains in his bloodline.
Think I’m wrong and that women won’t submit to it? I’m running into single moms now that are prostituting themselves for extra cash. Wiser women won’t risk that and will seek out men that will ensure their protection. And I’ll add that they won’t stray from that nor have any offspring other than the from man that protects them. They know the consequences of doing so won’t be beneficial. Especially as Uncle Sugar’s pockets won’t be as deep as they once were.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
3
@ Firepower
Just a thought. Maybe we will become like Mexico or Central America. We already have a huge influx of people for whom this culture is, well, their natural culture.
I new a guy from Belize. He said that there marriage wasn’t common. The arrangement was that a woman would take a lover and get pregnant. There was no child support. If the men wanted to they would come around occasionally for sex and give the woman some money for the child.
Then the woman would find another boyfriend at the same time and have another child.
Each successive man would see her occassionally for sex and leave some money.
Given that LA is already majority hispanic, that we politically are at the mercy of the Hispanic community evidenced by our inablitity to make illegal immagrants, well, illegal.
I think it is possible this may be the way things go. I think the Black community is 70% there and the white community is 30% there and only 20 years behind the black community.
So, I believe in 2030 marriage will be something only wealthy people do to protect their assests as it was for many centuries in Europe.
But we must fight for the laws making association with females from turning us into automatic ATM machines.
I have asked here many times why the females are pushing for all female politicians when the males politicians are in their pocket.
Maybe these sorts of laws are what the femi-tards are thinking about and believe me, they see these trends just as much as we do.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
6
The scary thing is that any man who gets married in the next 30 years has a one in 3 billion chance of getting married to my ex wife. Those are odds I would not wish upon any man.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
72 
0
@Ken – prostitution is legal in NV – but only in some areas. This effectively makes it kind of – pricey – of course, I have not visited a brothel in a very very long time, so I could not tell you what the ho’s are charging these days.
I love this article.
The lame-stream-media needs to admit:
4 in 10 men are now WISE to what marriage actually is:
A win-win scenario for women and a lose-lose scenario for men.
They just don’t get it do they.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
0
@ Paul
“Women don’t need marriage anymore, they have the state to raise their cad-begotten offspring.
”
I think you meant the following….
Women don’t need marriage anymore, they have the TAXPAYER to raise their cad-begotten offspring.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
46 
0
You seem to ignore that “Uncle Sugar” you speak of as some benign power – as if Uncle has no say in how Law favors women in splitting property. Where have you been.
If you spent less effort merely looking to gunsling disagreement with me, you would be a great help.
Like or Dislike:
12 
5
As good as I can get it. Shakespeare I am not.
Where the “Real Men” have Gone
Men don’t let men marry in 2010
For matrimony’ll not be heaven by 2011
In 2012 it will sit on the shelve
And it still won’t be keen in 2013
So by 2014 no altar I’ll have seen
In 2015 my grass’ll still be green
And 2016 will fulfill a dream
For in 2017 I’ll have a Harley to clean
In 2018 she’ll call me mean
For by 2019 near me she’ll not be seen
Marriage will be quite denty by 2020
But in 2021 she’ll still wish her heart t’ be won
Come ‘22 she won’t know what to do
For in 2023 a “real man” they won’t see
He knows by ’24 she’ll quite quickly bore
By 2025 marriage will not jive
In 2026 they’ll still call us dicks
But in ‘27 I’ll still care not ‘bout Helen
I know in ‘28 she’ll yet spew hate
But I’ll be living fine by 2029
In 2030 marriage’ll yet be dirty
So in ’31 men will have much fun
Near ’32 they might ponder what to do
‘Cause by ’33 they’ll see they’re free
So in ‘34 she’ll once more get shown the door.
Rather than date in ‘35, I’ll wave as on by I drive
In ’36 our culture will be surely be sick
But in ’37 I’ll be sixty seven
In ’38 I still won’t date
And in ’39 I’ll know my life was mine.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
7
It links back to how feminism redefined the roles of a husband and a wife. It used to be she understood he was “the man of the house” and would work to provide while she birthed his children and tended to home and hearth. Then this great “power shift” in gender politics began 50 years ago (see chart above) and has held on to society from one generation to the next ever since. Now the roles are not clearly defined, but grey and overlapping. Neither one knows for sure where one’s role begins and the other one’s ends. This builds resentment, mutual disrespect and constant squabbling over “what’s fair”.
I have known very few happily married people. I’ve known many more single people who were not unhappy. It can be a miserable state where you’re told you have to “work at it” to succeed. Destroying marriage from without (changing law) AND from within (alienating women from men) was always a key strategy of feminists. Whatever it is they did and however they got it done, it worked. Other than “hooking up”, men and women don’t like each other very much as people. Neither one trusts the other. And this cycle is perpetuating itself through each generation. It can’t be stopped.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
3
Don’t help, I don’t need no body,
Don’t help, don’t let anybody,
Take all I’ve all I have worked for all my life, yeah
To the tune of the beatles song.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
Yes, some combo of these – with African tribal rules. There’s not enough money in if for me to spell everything out =].
As long as Uncle Sugar gives FREE money fo dem baby and los bambinos, there’s no reason for paternity in minority culture.
issa white thang
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
2
One of my friends here in Denmark has been pounding that idea for years, and I agree with him for a lot of reasons.
Wisdom, Will and Welfare* is at the core of human wish for society.
*) The Old Norse understanding of ‘welfare’ is rather an armed peace where the only one causing any unrest is the ‘boss’ in modern terms. It’s certainly not the modern version of welfare.
Any GREAT to read that phrase!
Like or Dislike:
13 
6
There’s no statistics in regard to First nation people. Obviously we’re an invisible minority out of sight, out of mind. being aboriginal men, well we’re considered unmanly and bunch of thieves and social terrorists.
anyways back to topic at hand. Well given to the misandrous laws and how narcissistic some people are. More men are losing faith and had lost faith in women. The family is teetering to collapse. Even if the family had collapse entirely, feminists will still bash men regardless.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
3
There are different factors that men had lost faith in women in general. I will only name a few. One of them is feminists and their enablers, who make lives of men hell.
Second illegal immigrants, they get special treatments
third, stress from work and bullshit
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
Marriage is obsolete largely due to feminist.
http://sxmodels.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-men-increasingly-avoid-marriage.html
Agree w/ Misterb. There should be stats for Indians, Asians, Hispanics etc. Since Hispanics tend to resist feminism better than other cultures my guess would be their marriage rate may not be so low.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
About Christianity and the Norse.
Really too much for me to write about – but there are reasons to believe that women didn’t partake in most ceremonies in the heathen ‘Hof’ (the place at any major farmstead where the Gods were praised). Then the christians opened the churches for both men and women, albeit women had to side in the left side of the church. That is they couldn’t sit with the men. Still it must have been quite a culture-chock for men of those days to have to endure that.
By many men here in Denmark King Harald, son of Gorm the Old, is seen as a traitor of danish men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jelling_stones
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Pre-Christian Norse women caused a lot of trouble, from what I understand. They often had very close relationships with older men, screwed around a lot, and many of them practiced some form of witchcraft (I think they were called sethrs, i.e. seers). The fact that so many men were compelled to leave Scandinavia and take foreign wives makes me suspicious of Norse paganism — I think the women must have had more power than subsequently under Christianity.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
1
Women are so strong and independent and are earning decent money too, so why do they need to get married? You go grrls! If you avoid marriage and go-your-own-way, you too, are my comrade and ideological sister.
P.S: Those involved in the business of matchmaking, wedding planning, bridal gown making etc…. it’s time to find a new job in new industries. May I suggest cats and dildos.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
0
@ Szebran
What sort of Hispanic woman would you recommend for an aboriginal man such as myself. I am going to have to compare my notes.
Obviously some aboriginal are still in market for women who can bear them children.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
31
These kind of pointless, fantastic”what if” flights of fancy are a child’s game of pretend and do not deserve adult male discussion.
It’s like how the Greeks would be better off following Zeus. Pointless and a waste of time and reflective of our infantilized American culture.
Get off the XBox.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
67
@SingleDad
And how is this different from the role of a husband in a typical marriage? Sperm donor, walking ATM/wallet.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
68
All of this esoteric discussion of obscure Norse deities will surely improve the discussion amongst The Big Boys.
Yes.
Bring on the runes and crystals.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
7
But Dalrock has convincingly shown that there is *not* much of a strike among first-timer men, for marriage. Those of us here are among the very few.
There is only a re-marriage strike, and many of those men are paying out 80% of their earnings after the fact.
So the marriage strike is not yet where we would like it to be to seriously pass the costs onto women.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
5
Because the shift in our culture from feminist controlled mass media propaganda to biased family court law, has decreed it to be so. The husband and father are second class citizens. Why would you want to be one? Give women untold power over men, beyond just sexual, and you’ve established a great unnatural imbalance in society and mankind. The death of marriage is a response to that, that people refuse to acknowledge.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
1
Licorne,
Women are not interested in marriage because the government got involved in the family and replaced men with CS and taxes from other men.
I have been around long enough to see that welfare families started dissolving in the 1960′s when women got more from the feds if no man was in the house. Wholesale cultural shift occured in these families that, prior to welfare, had the highest marriage rates.
Then, in the 1990′s under the rule of Hillary Clinton using her proxy Bill, passed “Welfare reform”. The stated goal was to reduce welfare by making dad’s pay for their kids.
This was a joke bacause these men never left. They loved their kids, women hate that. They just appeared to leave on paper to increase a womans welfare benefits.
What the real purpose of welfare reform as pushed by Hillary, was to extend welfare to the middle class and destabilize middle class marriage as welfare did to the poorer classes.
In the 1950′s divorce was rare. By the 1980′s the poor had a 30% single mother rate. At the time my work was partially to counsel teen mothers. They all said their pregnancies were planned because it made them “women” not children in their community. In other words they now qualify for welfare.
Since the 1990′s welfare reform act, now the single mother rate in the middle class is 30% and single mother rate in the poor class is 70%.
So women don’t want to get married because they can get a jumbo check from some beta dude they were screwing while they concieved a child by some alpha dude.
The guy has to pay or go to jail……get it….he is her slave.
Women don’t want to get married because they want slaves. Then they can screw all the alpha’s they want. Any other children are gravy, same as the first.
So Firepower is correct. What the fems will do next is make more men eligable for slavery. They will make any man that ever holds a childs hand to cross the street responsible for child support forever.
It’s time the MRM got ahead of the curve and started trying to stop this sort of legislation from being passed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
2
It’s time the MRM got ahead of the curve and started trying to stop this sort of legislation from being passed.
Don’t hold your breath…
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
7
@ MGTOW
The difference, as it was told to me, is that none of this is state enforced.
If the men don’t come around anymore, the woman is nasty, etc, they don’t.
And that’s all the difference in the world.
The feminitards know this and are secretly actively passing legislation right now behind close doors to make sure that any man that ever even knows a women’s child is on the hook for child support.
They know that if they don’t, and the future is like trends occurring today, the majority of the work force will be female and female taxes will go to pay for other females children.
This is abhorrent to them. Could you imagine, a female doctor with no children is paying some lazy ass to poop them out.
In the feminist world this is not going to happen.
We must make this happen.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
3
Sorry one last point.
The way to make this happen is:
MGTOW!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
2
Actually, on January 1, I am going to unveil a strategy that can actually get just 100 guys to cause asymmetrical damage to misandry, while still remaining anonymous if we wish, and not risking our careers. It will be a realistic strategy well within the general culture of keyboard-only activism that currently takes place.
Just like I unveiled The Misandry Bubble on 1/1/2010 (which is up to almost 200,000 visits, btw), I will unveil the next phase on 1/1/2011.
1/1/2011 is the day when we begin to fight back, within the realistic constraints that we are under.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
2
Yes, because as we can see from the really big graph and the detailed article that the WHITE MAN put up for everyone to see, giving free money to white people for having children has NO effect on their paternity levels at all. None at all, no siree.
Hearing what was just said about Hillary Clinton gave me a terrible thought: that many of our presidents since WWII have just been proxies for women, hence all the socialist programs that have been enacted since that time.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
70
Marriage was not invented by men. Marriage is a archetype of nature – this is why of course the illuminati seeks it’s destruction. Marriage will never be “obsolete” this is just the arrogant breast beating of the NWO. What is going to become obsolete is the ability for the state and the church and any other institution to control human relationships and define reality.
The NWO plans to destroy your future prospects of marriage are all irrelevant, it’s up to the individual to create their own reality. The only thing the NWO may accomplish is statistics, but a statistic is at best a stereotype – and at worst an emasculating lie. The world doesn’t work on statistics, yes they tell you that every 3 seconds X happens but have you ever seen it? No, in fact they use numbers to quantify and draw standard curves to average and flatten reality to serve their nihilistic arguments which feed their sense of ego and power in society. Things don’t work the way they say they do. Their purposes are to take away your power and give it to them.
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
You are right that many women caused trouble in the Saga’s and probably also in real life . . . sigh. Our women are still bitches.
The Sagas are mostly simple stories for entertainment, but do reflect society then.
Anyway men owned most property and ruled supreme without women. That’s a simple fact even with the odd presence of women at Thingvalla in Iceland.
Also besides men (wealthy men) being married, they had ‘Friller’ (concubines) living with them on their estate. That is, men (kings and earls) had whores on the very estate where their women also lived.
We do not know much about marriage then, but it existed and was mostly a ‘sign’ that this woman now belonged to this mans household.
-
The Law of Jutland, which is pretty akin to the Law of Skaane (southern Sweden also a part of Denmark then), states something like; “A man need to accept a woman as his wife if she has lived in his house for a number of years and has born children sired by him”. I don’t have the energy to look up the exact phrase, but this was a Law given in 1219.
One can only imagine how it used to be before that!
http://handrit.is/en/manuscript/view/AM04-0004
You are right that there were women sorcerers, seers. As always women tend to superstition and paganism, but it’s not the same as the male ‘seid’ or male search for wisdom although the difference can be hard to understand.
Female ‘trance’ mainly had a sexual connotation, like witches riding to Hekla on a broomstick. It’s basicly the same thing, with many references to the female period.
The trance-voyage performed by Odin was a search for wisdom. He hung himself for 9 days wounded by spears and so on, finally he fell down and had now the knowledge of the runes.
He sacrificed himself to himself –
- just like any man sacrifices his time and work for himself to become wiser and better (think nerd). This is the essence of male ‘seid’ – it’s an abstract thing and therefore not well understood by women!
Can be found in Havamal, The Rune Song.
Female warriors – just imagine a band of warriors coming home – get into the house to be served by the women. How would the ‘homemakers’ treat the female warrior who has been with their men for several months?
Imagine the same thing on the long treks along Russian rivers pulling the oars for days or pulling the ships overland.
What’s the difference in muscle force needed to drive a sword of 3 feet compared to one of 4,5 feet? What’s the difference in the battlefield?
What about a standard 5 pound battle axe?
The Valkyries are mythological figures, nothing else. (They are still interesting in the understanding of ‘Odinism’.)
As for the society being egalitarian.
Some woman, can’t remember where in the saga’s, donned man-clothes . . . !
No matter what the story else says there was a difference in male and female clothing!
How can that be, didn’t women just use the clothes they liked?
So much for egality.
That’s also all I have the energy to write about.
Like or Dislike:
16 
2
Nothing like a Nordophile give us his own very unique 6 page interpretation of Norse mythology. Honestly, I’ve never heard that stuff before.
You should keep us appraised of any SCA re-enactments you participate in, as Nordic Mythology (interpreted by guys named Ragnar, Sven and Olie) are crucial to each and every MRM discussion.
It’s so…applicable! Like the honest wonder a Star Trek convention gives to the study of Astronomy and Astrophysics.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
19
LOL! Firepower.
Don’t think many men will start honouring Old Norse Gods, nor that it would change much.
The interesting part, for me at least, is that the study of our ancient ways leads to a better understanding of male nature and society. The newer history of Europe tells the Christian version with a lot of good humane philosophy no doubt.
Odinism tells us about male survival in a world akin to the ‘wild west’ in the pioneer days. There is also so much more like; Get up and shovel the f*cking gravel, you aint getting anywhere by just philosophizing!
There are compelling likeness between the EDDA’s and the Hinduist Vedas/Upanishads in the understanding of the world. Most of the stuff is just neon sign and advertising banners though, which must be looked beyond.
You know, men banding and creating societies, respecting property rights and at the same time not being owed anything by anyone. Just entering society by free will.
Anyway it’s interesting and leads to going your own way.
LOL!
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
Zed
There’s a lot of information embedded in Dalrock’s chart. Dalrock attempted to debunk the marriage strike “myth” by disaggregating the data by demographic group and then making the NAEGALT argument (Not All Ethnic Groups Are Like That). I don’t buy it.
Big ideas like the “End Of Marriage” are adopted by populations in a predictable way, a way that’s similar to the market penetration of consumer products, cell phones for example.
Market penetration follows an S Curve, with early adopters initially buying the product and market penetration occurring slowly at first. Then the product becomes visible to the broad population and market penetration accelerates, then tapers off again as the technophobes finally accept the new technology. The shape of this curve is an extended S.
Now look at Dalrock’s chart again. African Americans are the early adopters of the “End of Marriage” meme. White Americans are the laggards, the resisters. The significance of this is that each group on Dalrock’s chart is following the same S Curve, they are just at different points on it.
So this chart is a powerful predictive tool. White men are now embarking on the journey that African American women began in 1960. Imagine the curve for Black women shifted 50 years to the right and tacked onto the end of the curve for White men. That’s the future. A marriage rate for White men below 30% in 2060.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
1
OT:
More from the files of pedohysteria and treating men like animals:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/kiddie_pawn_shock_KnKyQ0JfMITAIqGawRJf8J
The rule of the park is that as an adult you can’t be there without kids. Okay, but they could have just given the men a warning and told them to leave. Now, instead, they have to appear in criminal court because they were playing chess.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
0
I am very interested in these Norse people, especially those of what is now Sweden.
I am not sure but if the origins of modern feminism are found perhaps they will be found in France during the revolution but the practice of feminism seems to be taken to it’s extreme’s in Sweden.
What is it about Swedes and the Norse countries that has made feminism take hold there?
Question for our northern European brothers.
Is it related to this Odin philosphy, or did these tribes never have control of their women?
It seems mediteranian cultures like Rome and Greece and middle east cultures had some concept of danger of people of the female persuasion being dangerous if given total power, as they appear to have hear in the US.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Firepower the thread is about marriage. That’s very much a cultural thing.
Most of our cultural stuff is ancient and it is important that the changes made in marriage 2.0 compared to marriage 1.0 are also different from marriage 0.5 (or whatever). I’m talking about the political part of marriage over the ‘original part’ (maybe 0.1). The natural marriage can not be 0.0 as that is the chimp scenario. Marriage did not exist, my assertion*, before men banded AND formed societies AND respected property rights.
*) Assertions are wonderful! Here it goes. Even if man and woman decided to stick together it only lasted untill the first gang came by – whether they wanted it or not.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
There is one important statistic that gets left out of the equation. This decline in marriage is overlooking the fact that the only U.S. marriage demographic that is actually increasing is between American men and foreign-born women. I have read that the U.S. Census Bureau is predicting that those may constitute as many as 25% of all marriages by 2020. In contrast, by some estimates, marriages between American men and American women have a 65% chance of ending in divorce.
What this trend is indicating for the future is that America will show shifts in its cultural stratifications, more along sociological than economic lines. Those men who continue to marry foreign wives (and as time progresses, daughters of such marriages) will evolve into a distinct social class of better cultured and educated people; while American women, producing increasing numbers of feral and mentally unfit offspring with their thug boyfriends, will create a nearly-savage underclass.
There are a lot of potential ramifications to this demographic shift, it would be interesting to see how it ultimately plays out.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
62
That’s the future. A marriage rate for White men below 30% in 2060.
The world of 2060 will be so different that the sentence above will be seen for being based on many assumptions that are invalidated by 2060.
You need to study the accelerating rate of change. The next 25 years will have more change than the last 100, which itself had more than the preceding 500 years.
So the following periods all will have had similar magnitudes of change :
1410 to 1910
1910 to 2010
2010 to 2035
2035 to 2042…..
…..and so on.
(give or take a bit, as the exact cutoffs are not important).
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
2
@ THF
Nice. I totally agree. The rate of societal change is staggering. If there is one thing that shocked me more than anything else about the events leading to my ex leaving and being exposed to the femi-matrix was how unaware I was.
It was the late 1990′s and I had been aware for a while. I had helped friends get custody. I was also once divorced already.
I knew I needed to talk to my ex about divorce before we married. I knew we needed to be married for at least 4 years before concieving a child and I knew that I had to be able to prove in court I had just as much parenting time put in as my ex. So I did these things.
But I didn’t know about the “suprise attack strategy or false accusation strategy”. I was set up, two months before she left, my ex went to a psychologist without my knowledge who told her what to do.
Her parents admitted it to me.
I immediatly called my attorney and luckily, I followed his advice, I didn’t want to believe what was happening but I learned quickly. So quickly that my ex now accuses me of setting the whole thing up. That’s projection on her part.
And this is one of the main reasons I am here. I know that I need to keep abreast of these changes for my own knowledge and safety, for my son’s and for my job, to keep safe from the females I work with.
I agree, getting ahead of the curve will be hard but our opponents have the initiative. They are setting the pace and we are reacting.
To have things improve for us we need to gain the initiative.
First we need to predict what are opponents will do next and make the next move first, catching them off balance.
This is true of any human adversarial engagement.
And women started this war against men, we are unwilling combatants. But we must rise to the occasion or become slaves and watch our sons become slaves.
I will not.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
3
@ demirogue wrote “I’m running into single moms now that are prostituting themselves for extra cash. ”
If you happen to know any in the Tampa Bay area that are cute, under 5’4″, under 110 lbs, and under about 32 or so (and at least 18), have them hit me up with an email through my website. I’m always looking to increase the quality of my proverbial rolodex through referrals.
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
@TFH
You need to accept that your crystal ball may be tuned to the wrong channel.
“Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future”………Niels Bohr
As one pedant to another, I could ask exactly what about my statement you disagree with: “That’s the future. A marriage rate for White men below 30% in 2060.”
But I won’t.
I heard a good joke recently; might have been here even, but it’s worth repeating.
Adam, speaking to God….“I need a helpmate, loyal and true, a real companion.”
God….“That’ll cost you an arm and a leg, mate!”
Adam, crestfallen….“Oh….what can I get for a rib, then?”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
6
Charles,
The part of your statement: “That’s the future. A marriage rate for White men below 30% in 2060.” that I disagree with is that I believe it will fall below 30% much sooner than 2060. I have nothing to base this belief on, it’s just my belief.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
@ Charles Martel
Sure, we can’t possibly draw any conclusions about the near future from the near past.
It’s thinking like this that got us where we are. We cannot afford not to think about the future.
Your post is just negative at best and disengenious most likely.
Are you Charles Martel the illigetimate son and Frankish ruler from 732 (which would explain something):
http://historymedren.about.com/library/who/blwwcharlesmartel.htm
or Charles Martel that is a Catholic Marriage proponent also pushing gay marriage against the wishes of his own Pope (which would also explain something):
http://www.catholicsformarriageequality.net/preble
Or some other Charles Martel?
Which ever, I’m sure you have an agenda and are trying to derail, bad try.
The trends Zed and THF are talking about are very real and very dangerous and we shouldn’t let those white knights with an agenda let us lose sight of this.
If anything, it proves to me, we are getting closer to the truth of the matter.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
@ Regarding Neils Bohr, a truley great man, he was an atomic physicist who was talking about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Nice, and might I add, very Catholic, way to derail.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
@Charles Martel
There’s a lot of information embedded in Dalrock’s chart. Dalrock attempted to debunk the marriage strike “myth” by disaggregating the data by demographic group and then making the NAEGALT argument (Not All Ethnic Groups Are Like That). I don’t buy it.
There are several things going on here. As you say I did point out that there are huge differences between ethnic groups. Black men are clearly on a marriage strike, and have been for some time. Rolling the stats together only muddies the issue.
But more importantly the chart that Zed is showing (thanks for the link Zed) and the excellent charts you created for your End of Marriage post don’t show that men are on a marriage strike. They show that women are marrying later and then divorcing, and not able or interested in remarrying. In short, both your view and the one above are showing the declining percent of their lives Americans are spending being married.
As I have said before, marrying an older less hot woman and having her divorce you isn’t being on a marriage strike.
But this doesn’t mean that marriage as an institution isn’t in trouble. It absolutely is, and the survey result titling this post is proof people are aware of that. And it doesn’t mean that there aren’t signs a strike could be brewing. Whites could follow the lead of blacks as you say. They haven’t yet, with roughly 85% of white women having married by age 35. Also, women in their 20s are marrying at much lower rates than those who came before them just 10 years ago. As I said in my original post on the marriage strike, at the very least they are taking a huge risk that men will want to marry older women in larger numbers than ever before.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
@Dalrock
To tell the truth, I was impressed with your article. Particularly with how much thought you put into your analysis. My small effort on the End of Marriage was intended more to float the idea that marriage is going away and less to provide an in-depth quantitative analysis, as you did. What does come through clearly, though, is that however you slice the data the rate of decline is accelerating.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
@SingleDad
No he wasn’t. The Heisenberg uncertainty principal applies to pairs of properties of atomic particles. Unrelated to his quote about the difficulty of predicting the future.
Bohr’s famous quote was a tongue-in-cheek expression of an obvious truth. It’s amusing because of the idiosyncratic form of the quote and because it’s the work of a great intellect.
To be honest, I don’t quite understand why you think I’m deflecting or derailing when I’m in 100% agreement with Zed’s article.
And it’s Charles Martel, Hammer of Islam, btw. One of the most interesting historical figures that no-one has ever heard of.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
I’ll give as much evidence as you do of your assertions:
Because you obviously are.
Btw: Niels Bohr Atomic Physicist that, IMO is turning over in his grave that you are using (miss-using) him in this way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr
I don’t know of his quote, but, him being a physicist, he would probably have prefered you quote him about the uncertainty principle.
Since that was his area of expertise.
Unlike religeos zealots who’s main function is to confuse sheepish people.
I have heard many non-scientists like yourself extrapolate the Heisnberg principle into thinking they cannot know anything, for instance trying to convince sane people that 1+1 does not in fact equal 2.
It does.
Despite that you believe in God.
And by btw, the world is round and you and your friends owe Galileo more of an apology than he has recieved.
And btw, there’s a marriage stike on by men. Read the comments here:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2031962,00.html
Now tell us how your here to help men.
And explain to us how white nights such as yourself are not more dangerous than feminists?
Like or Dislike:
5 
11
‘rob’ at 06:59 makes a good point, one that is sometimes overlooked:
“The dumbest thing I see marriage-savers doing is arguing for marriage”.
While_The Spearhead_ is quite good at (rightly) pointing out the problematic views of feminists… the “pro-marriage” proponents of a now-extinct Marriage 1.0 also need to be called out.
A longtime example of this is the http://www.smartmarriages.com website, run by a woman named Diane Sollee, as part of a group calling themselves “The Coalition for Marriage, Family, and Couples Education”. I don’t know if they’re sincere-but-clueless, or actively delusional, in trying to prop up marriage in today’s West. In addition to the site, they have an e-mail newslist, whose archives are on the Net:
http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/smartmarriages/
The ‘Smartmarriages’ people are VERY unhappy about the Pew report on marriage’s decline, as you’ll see from this link; and even quote someone trying to debunk the report in parts:
http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/smartmarriages/2010-November/004369.html
Ms. Sollee writes:
“It is clear that we have our work cut out for us and definitely need to work harder to get what we know out there about
1) THE BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE TO MEN, WOMEN, CHILDREN, SOCIETY;
2) WHAT TO EXPECT IN MARRIAGE; and
3) HOW TO IMPROVE YOUR CHANCES AT HAVING A SUCCESSFUL, SATISFYING MARRIAGE (that it does not have to be an insane game of chance with 50/50 odds).
Surveys need to quit asking ‘Is Marriage Obsolete?’ and start asking people if they know the benefits of marriage and if they understand HOW to make their marriages satisfying and successful.”
Alas, they will *never* discuss the issues that killed marriage, as zed and others at _The Spearhead_ wisely have. And someone like Roissy would make their heads explode!
At least they have a tinyurl link to the actual Pew report, which translates as:
http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/11/pew-social-trends-2010-families.pdf
Look out… be prepared!
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
@Charles Martel:
“And it’s Charles Martel, Hammer of Islam, btw. One of the most interesting historical figures that no-one has ever heard of.”
Not so, friend. Hadn’t it been for him, you and I would be of an entirely different culture.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
…Hadn’t it been for him, you and I would be of an entirely different culture.
But then again, without him, there would have been no feminism..
History plays tricks, sometimes.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Aside from statistics there is something very special when an old good friend who you know so well explains in detail something of importance or when you pay close attention to something in particular over time that gives you a kind of unshakable evidence. The jewelry stores…
Besides being a people watcher, I watch even more closely the businesses downtown where I live. I pick up my business mail downtown and end up walking past 3 major jewelry stores along with a tiny 4th. It’s become a game over the past 13 years now where I predict how long a certain business will last because I know the city and people so well.
For the past couple of years I’ve been paying very close attention to these jewelry stores who primarily sell diamonds. It takes about 7 or 8 trips downtown to finally see ONE person inside browsing. One of the stores is a major one with regular TV ads and has 3 workers inside most times. No one is buying. It was not even close to this a decade ago. It’s at a point now that their promotions have done away with the old “up to” and now is a flat no nonsense above 50% on all diamonds and gold. Still no one.
Sure we had the Great Recession hit us a couple of years ago but I still see casinos being filled. I guess the odds are stacked against us there too but when we walk out that door it’s a clean exit.
As a young man grows up and sees all the divorce pollution around him and who may also have a mother who is in and out of relationships constantly, how could he ever get his brain to pay out 10k for a diamond ring?
Diamond stores may be a good yardstick to keep in mind.
Dam I should have taken my camera with me yesterday morning when I was downtown. What a picture this would have made. There is a beautiful old solid stone building which used to be the public library long ago. You had these hard working, tax paying MEN in hard hats putting up scaffolding along the entire front of this building ready to do some maintenance. The building is now the “Supreme Court of Justice, Family Court”. I wonder how many of those men have actually walked through those doors they are now maintaining in more ways than one.
P.S. The new library has a screaming day care on the first floor of a vertical open concept 5 floor design.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
Single Dad,
That Time article gave me a headache. They are mixing all sorts of facts in one rambling paragraph:
They are talking about the English Prince, but then burst into stats on the US. Then they talk about William’s likelihood of getting married by his current age, comparing that with the likelihood of people across age categories in the US to be married 50 years ago vs today. The whole thing is a disaster. Then they start talking about the percent of people being married in their 20s in such a way that it makes it sound like they are talking about their chances to ever marry (and for some unexplained reason picking 2008 data for that point when we now have 2010 data available).
They are talking about US Census data. It is much clearer if you go to the source.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Thanks Dalrock for not reading my post, how misleading of you.
I said look at the comments.
I never said to look at the article.
God I hate it when feminists come here, it’s like trying to have a conversation with a, well, feminist.
Like or Dislike:
5 
10
@Charles Martel
Thank you. I think we are in violent agreement that 1) The institution is crumbling. and 2) All signs point to further weakening of the institution and perhaps eventually an unwillingness by a large percentage of men to marry (even once).
I suspect we would both agree on one further point, that the fact that 85% of current white women have found a man willing to marry them is itself a disaster. The only way I can interpret that stat is that men are not being at all choosy, and are marrying a large number of women who simply don’t deserve the honor.
Oh, and I love the Hammer of Islam moniker. I wasn’t familiar with him before I saw you mention it on another post.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Correction: “85% of current white women” should have been “85% of current white women age 35″. The stats jump to 90% by the time a woman is 40 or higher. Men aren’t being picky at all…
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
@Single Dad
You are right I didn’t notice the comments part. I saw that you were using the link to prove there was a marriage strike on. Are there stats in the comments?
Now you’ve gone and revealed my secret!
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
I don’t think the human race will even be alive in another 200 years. Not in the numbers that we have now. If it still is, it will only be able to survive because it will require expensive birth to death medical treatment, vaccines, cancer screening at earlier ages, and other artificial means of life support. Because there are just too many diseases now that if we weren’t vaccinated for everything, or else we didn’t have medical treatment for the entire population to prevent outbreaks of things like MRSA, smallpox, or swine flu, we wouldn’t last long at all. Just imagine what would happen if tomorrow every drug manufacturer just disappeared off the face of the planet. The infant mortality rate would explode. In which case, the human population would plummet instantly as death, disease, and starvation would overrun everything. Imagine Haiti without all the foreign aid coming in to help it. That’s what would happen. Complete and utter chaos.
-Pollution is growing, not declining. More and more chemicals from plastics are seeping into the food chain. They’re already affecting frogs, turtles, fish, birds, and people. Causing everything from sexual defects to extremely low sperm counts. All the pills, medicines, and hormones that people piss into the toilet eventually make it back into the environment due to the fact that we can’t completely filter everything (particularly estrogen hormones). There are entire dead zones in the oceans along the coast of America that have oxygen levels too low to support life. Presumably this is caused by pollution. And these dead zones are growing. In essence, the ocean has little pockets of cancer that are spreading and growing that can’t foster life. Coral reefs are also shrinking at a staggering rate.
-Not only that, but our food is becoming more processed (in order to feed several billion people) and less nutritious: farmed fish, genetically modified corn, fruit and vegetables sprayed with pesticides; most of which is shipped from half way around the world, so by the time you eat it, it’s already lost half its nutrients. And in order to ship it, it has to be moved by burning fossil fuel which pollutes the planet even further. Leading to more oil spills, more pollution, etc. etc.
Personally I don’t see us blowing ourselves up. I think the Earth will eventually, after we’ve exploited all it’s resources, simply be unable to support the several billions of people that inhabit it. 100 years from now, we’ll probably be eating algae growing in test tubes, because it’ll be the only thing safe and unpolluted thing to eat. Wild animals and farm animals will be too diseased/polluted by then to eat. For instance, mercury and other heavy metals are increasing in fish, so eating fish will probably do more harm then good. Considering that the ocean is basically the world’s dumping ground. Eating wild animals that scavenge for food will be out of the question, seeing as how they’ll eat anything, and therefore they’ll probably be the most polluted. Which leaves us with stuff like cows and chickens. But without fish, it’ll be hard to feed billions of people just on cows and chicken products, because there isn’t enough land and space to support them.
But anyway, the ocean will be dead before we have to worry about land animals, and by then it’ll be too late. Just google “dying ocean” if feel like researching it. The oxygen levels in the ocean are dropping worldwide.
You better make peace with God now, before it’s too late.
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
16
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
43
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
43
@Lara
A lot of people, men and women, probably were unhappy in their marriages in the past.
That is feminist myth-making. They needed to pretend the sky was falling to convince us to let them “fix” marriage. Now they need to convince us that they fixed it. Either way, people used to be quite happy with their marriages (chart from The Marriage Project, the same post/source as the chart Zed included above). Also, keep in mind that the unhappy ones (especially the unhappy women) don’t have anything holding them back from divorcing now. So even with the unhappy ones out of the mix, people are far less likely to report being very happy with their marriages.
Feminists have made hundreds of millions of very happy women miserable. But it was all worth it to them in order to make men miserable at the same time.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
3
Yes sir Mr. Dalrock, there are statistics in the comments.
The vast majority of men commenting in a non-mens rights web site think marriage is a crazy idea in November of 2010.
I guess you are of the Lenin school of “if you repeat a lie enough, people will believe you”.
It seems like most men commenting on a major non-mens rights web site are not believing you though. Did you really think you could convince us?
I, on the other hand, am a casualty of your handywork, I will not marry, and will not mislead other men into marrying no matter who pays me to say so.
Marriage in the West is insane for any man.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
5
@Dalrock, I figured you would be showing up here.
Nowhere in my article does the term “marriage strike” appear. For some reason that seems to be a real hot button phrase which virtually always derails the discussion into argument over whether there is or is not some sort of organized action going on. Due to the fact that I believe there is nothing organized about it, I’m perfectly satisfied with not using that term.
However, if we are going to talk about a phenomenon it will help if we have a name for it. So, since it is so contentious to call it a “marriage strike”, let’s call it something else – let’s call it “Fred.” We have a “Fred” going on. Lots of people are “Fredding.”
I’m quite a bit older than you are, Dalrock, and just by your language above you have already redefined “marriage” very significantly from the concept of it which prevailed when I was growing up. It reflects what appears to me to be considering marriage as nothing more than the wedding. As long as someone goes through at least one, they are counted in the “ever married” stats.
To me, this makes as little sense as me cutting off my legs and replacing them with wooden ones and trying to call myself “a table.”
In 1960, when your chart begins, marriage was –
Anything else is something else. We can call it “marriage” if we like, but there is a complete and substantive difference between “until death do us part” and “until I am no longer ‘IN LOVE’ with you, and you don’t make my ‘gina tingle any more.”
That is the first part of “the Fred.” When people can use the phrase “same sex marriage” and keep a straight face, the plot has totally been lost. Instead of being an internal dedication to one person and your own family, it is now little more than a license for state-sanctioned fornication and cohabitation – and the behavior of the public at large indicates that few people consider a state sanction to be necessary at all.
I don’t think so. I think young black people of both sexes are being raised with the cultural belief that “Marriage is For White People” but not for them.
You, yourself, pointed out the aged nature of some of the remarriage statistics. All of the stats regarding current trends for younger people have the same set of problems. The question of whether the drop in the percentage of 20-somethings who are married indicates that people are simply delaying marriage or deciding to forgo it altogether will probably not be answerable for another 20 years. As you have said, it will take a radical change in the behavior of men WRT marrying “older” women for the 20-29 cohort of women to ever catch up with their older peers.
An alternative to the thesis that people are just waiting a bit longer to “get married”, but the same number will eventually end up with at least one wedding under their belt is that the US is drifting toward the Swedish model.
What it all boils down to is –
1) Do people, in general, consider “the Fred” to be a problem?
2) If not, then discussion is really just so much hot air, but if so
3) What are the characteristics and causes of “the Fred”?
4) How can these be addressed?
I can pretty much guarantee you that continuing to try to harass and badger single men into getting married isn’t going to work. We have pretty much reached the level of maximum harassment possible in the US without resorting to actual physical violence.
And, Game is a double-edged sword – if a man can get with Game what he used to have to marry in order to get (“buy the cow”), and even if married he still has to Game his aging wife so that she doesn’t “fall out of love” with him (and stop “giving milk”), a lot of men will simply skip the expensive Bridezilla extravaganza and go straight for the tits. NSFW!
You are right, marriage is in deep trouble. Mirror of the Soul even went as far as to say –
The numbers that the rate of white males declining marriage by 2060 are probably much higher. It’s not that white American males are rejecting the institution of marriage; they are rejecting it with white females. Just by simple logic, the number of white males will decline as more white males opt for marriage to Asian or Hispanic females and their descendants are of mixed race or choose to identify with their mother’s ethnicity.
Likely the sons (and most of the daughters) of such marriages will, in turn, marry someone outside the American cultural mainstream, because their education will encourage it. Feminism and female supremacy generally is going to die out by simple attrition.
The basic fact is that white American women lead all other demographic groups worldwide in divorces, voluntary abortions, out -of-wedlock births, consumption of psychiatric medications, and chronic obesity. They are also high in rates of substance abuse, domestic violence against children, and —as we all know— false rape and sexual harassment allegations. What sane man is going to commit his life against those kinds of odds?
The typical American woman opts for the only type of relationship she’s capable of: using a dysfunctional, brutal thug as a sperm donor. If she doesn’t rush to the nearest abortion clinic, she’ll produce offspring in the same mold. This will lead to the rise a new, more vicious underclass; while men who’ve chosen either to remain single or maintain a traditional family will be the new middle/productive class.
Like or Dislike:
15 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
50
Lara,
If your husband knew that you openly admit that you would behave exactly as OJ Simpson did in the same situation, he would regret getting into the situation he is in.
Exactly what does he get, in your estimation, out of being married to you?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
43
Anyone who thinks Dalrock proved there is no marriage strike, please note I have some really good investment land for sale; bring your rowboat and we will look at it.
He simply does not understand the basic math involved. I have asked him to talk to someone who knows math to explain to him that history does not predict future, nor present, when rates are changing. He tunes it out as mere static.
WHEN RATES OF ANYTHING CHANGE THE RESULTS CANNOT BE THE SAME, PERIOD. No amount of graph juggling and smoke blowing can change that basic math rule.
Those 40 year olds on average married in 1995 when there were roughly 50 marriages for each 1,000 unmarried women. In 2008, there were roughly 38 marriages for each 1,000 unmarried women, and all evidence is the rates continue to sink. Include the graphs above in that evidence.
There have been discussions on message boards about his refusal to seek math help, and the consensus is it is a waste of time to talk to him. One man compared his ‘logic’ to someone saying because in 1895 95% of all families in NYC had horses means today 95% of all families in NYC have horses.
Fifteen years from now there will not be 90% of 40 year old women who married at least once. It is mathematically impossible.
He also seems to insist that it is women who make the decision on marriage, that when women are ready to marry, they will be married. That implies men are chomping at the bit to marry, just as soon as women are in the mood. That is ludicrous.
The UK figures are relevant, because UK is ahead of the US on the marriage strike. We are following along behind but not far behind.
Dalrock is not the only person to fall afoul of the math and confuse history based figures with the current rates and what they bode for the future.
By the way, I write this for those who may be confused by his graphs. I have no intention of debating one word with him. He has shown it is a waste of time. I just don’t want others to be led astray by his impossible assertions.
Here for the zillionth time are the marriage rates:
Number of Marriages per 1,000
Unmarried Women Age 15 and
Older, by Year, United States:
1922 99 (found on Web)
1960 73.5
1961 72.2
1962 71.2
1963 73.4
1964 74.6
1965 75.0
1966 75.6
1967 76.4
1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8 (rate at the time when 40 year olds married on ave.)
2000 46.5
2004 39.9
2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
1
Zed, grerp also makes the mistake of saying there is no marriage strike, because it is not organized. I was a union member for 31 years, and we had some exposure to labor law. So, who said all strikes must be organized and have leaders? Google for wildcat strike. Many a strike has been started when the whole group jumps up and says, “Enough!”
You may be misled because under US labor law any union recognized by the NLRB that strikes without authorization is committing a crime. Non-unions are not subject to those laws. And, in other nations wildcat strikes are not uncommon.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
1
The widespread western illness in marriages and relationships knows as ABT (Anything But This) Syndrome has turned couples away from true priorities.
Instead of joining as a team to tackle the challenges of making it in this world, the Oprahs and Behars of the world constantly undermine marriages with EatPrayLove nonsense.
And instead of admitting that it is time to stop the delusion, the feminist nanny state will plod on towards oblivion.
Is it so hard to ask women to simply be content that their man is working, paying the bills and keeping a roof over his head?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
1
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Better for women, that’s for sure! We know that is what you are counting on, sweetcheeks.
A whole lot of men these days are about wising up young men about what they are getting into before they are trapped.
@ sharpcool
There, fixed for you.
Same thing as that (now-defunct) policy of British Airways which barred men from sitting next to an untended child on a flight.
Even fathers are not allowed to walk alongside their own kids in parks. Or they may do so, but be suspected every step of the stroll.
You got a penis! You’re chummy with kids! You’re most likely a perverted pedophile!
I’m reminded of Dateline NBC’s ‘To Catch a Predator’ show hosted by Chris Hansen. The infamous line ‘Why don’t you have a seat over there?’ comes from this show. Did any particular episode feature entrapping a FEMALE pedophile and catching her red-handed on tv?
This pedophile paranoia is getting out of control. And thus we must avoid children wherever possible. I’m the weirdo bachelor uncle that doesn’t like children, doesn’t go for baby showers and kids’ birthday parties. I’m an insensitive clod that does not help a kid in distress.
Go ahead and sue me.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
43
I think you’ve talked enough for one day, Lara.
Run along home now, little girl.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
7
Anonymous age 68 – I think it’s entirely clear from the figures you have quoted that marriage for the Millennial generation will be far less frequent. Obviously, even with a population that remains the same size, you can’t extrapolate those numbers into the same marriage rates. The Fred is definitely happening.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
20
A guy who has the “Johnny Paycheck experience” and says “You can take this job and shove it, I ain’t workin’ here no more!” is not on any sort of “strike” – he has just quit.
I don’t think there is any point at all in arguing about what we call it. Call it a “marriage strike” if you like, but most “strikes” end sooner or later. What if this one doesn’t? If marriage has become a “job” rather than a social institution. it very possible that a larger percentage of millennial generation may never “go to work.”
And, if the idea of a “strike” is to scare women and the PTB into making marriage less odious for men, the implication that men will cave in if they just hold out and keep the pressure on long enough actually works to men’s disadvantage.
I think what is going on is much bigger, ,much more significant, and should be much scarier to those people who still believe in marriage. Two out of every five people in the US think marriage is OBSOLETE, a very strong word – as outdated as the horse and buggy. With marriage rates falling the way they have been, and without some sort of counter force to get them back up, sooner or later whites will follow the pattern set by blacks and being married will cease to be the norm and become the exception.
I’m not sure where Dalrock gets his figures, but in the “Marriage is for white people” article I keep citing, the author says
I think the picture for marriage is anything but rosy, and if I really hated women, was a feminist, and really wanted to mess them over, I would be saying exactly what Dalrock seems to be saying – “Don’t worry, there is no problem, if you are white it is almost certain that you will get at least one husband. Now, how long you keep him is up to you.”
I think “the Fred” is a real social problem that we need to be talking about, no matter what we call it.
@Eric,
“Feminism and female supremacy generally is going to die out by simple attrition. ”
This would be the ideal solution. We can get rid of feminism by breeding feminists out.
We can accomplish the goal by doing..nothing.
Destroy the nests, don’t let the eggs hatch and you will destroy the species.
It’s so simple it almost hurts.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
I might be better to do it relatively young before you know what you are getting into.
One good thing about Laura/Lara is that she is candid about what women really think.
i) She has no problem with admitting that most women are no worse people than OJ Simpson is, as they would behave the way he did if placed in that exact situation.
ii) She admits that concealing reality from men is necessary to trick them into marriage.
And boy and I going to extract more candid admissions about female thoughts out of her
Far from chasing Laura off, she is invaluable as a tool in teaching men about what women really think, and the horrors that await them in married life. Not that this is her intention, but “if you want to make people stop going in the water, show them ‘Jaws’” is the metaphor here.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
4
*and boy AM I
I think Lara will prove to be a goldmine of candor that will get new guys a shocking dose of brutal reality.
Like or Dislike:
14 
5
The typical American woman opts for the only type of relationship she’s capable of: using a dysfunctional, brutal thug as a sperm donor.
This is why top-flight sperm banks may actually save the gene pool.
Men selected in the top sperm banks have high IQ, degrees from top schools, are above a certain height, etc.
If this displaces thugs, that is better than the alternative.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
“Far from chasing Laura off, she is invaluable as a tool”
Well put. She’s the poster girl for MGTOW.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
2
Far from chasing Laura off, she is invaluable as a tool in teaching men about what women really think, and the horrors that await them in married life. Not that this is her intention, but “if you want to make people stop going in the water, show them ‘Jaws’” is the metaphor here. — TFH
Famous last words.
Are you willing to take full responsibility for your actions?
If she turns into an insufferable cunt, which she has shown herself to be on numerous occasions, can we drag you out in front of the guys and hold you responsible for her actions?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
4
@TFH,
“Men selected in the top sperm banks have high IQ, degrees from top schools, are above a certain height, etc. ”
I always thought that one had to be in a desparate situation to sell one’s genes for a few bucks. There’s clearly no thinking here.
And you say that these men have high IQ and education?
Frankly, that’s beyond me!
I would not do that even if I was starving.
But honestly, I can’t stop laughing at the thought of my dentist jacking off in a jar for $50. (I know I’m being gross here, but that’s really what they are doing).
And I guess that women are after that? Is this shopping or am I hallucinating? Babies have become a commodity?
What a disgrace humans have become!
I want to renege my own species.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
@Zed
Hi Zed,
I don’t have any disagreement with your article here. Everything you said seems right to me. Something is very wrong with the institution, and attitudes are changing. I was responding specifically to Charles Martel’s comments about my position on the marriage strike.
As for terms, I do think we need to be very careful in how we use them. The percent of the adult population which currently is married is an important and telling statistic. It shows an institution in great decay. But it by itself doesn’t tell us if men have wised up to divorce theft. In some sense they have because they are much less likely to marry a divorced woman than before. But a man swearing off marriage after already experiencing divorce theft is very much closing the barn door after the horse is already gone. So depending on what the question is, different stats will apply. Unfortunately the media is mixing stats willy nilly, and making a mess out of the whole thing.
This is a good example of the media offering confusing stats. I’m guessing the figures mentioned are the percent of all people over 15 who have been married. We know that while marriage is still extremely common, it is happening later. So a larger percent of the adult population at any given time will show up as never having married, even if the current younger folks marry at historical rates (which of course isn’t a given). This is why I have been sharing the tables with it broken down by age category.
I’m surprised you don’t know where I get my stats though. I have always linked directly to the source. Typically they all come originally from the US Census, although sometimes it is other groups reporting Census data like with The Marriage Project.
What I have said is that so far that has been the case. They can get married, but if they decide to play divorce lotto they run a large risk of not rejoining the club. I have also stated on a a regular basis that this isn’t a guarantee that it will be the case for today’s twenty something women or those who follow; we can only wait and see how their gamble turns out. If you have any suggestions on how I could communicate these things more clearly on my blog I would be open to hearing them.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
@ Dalrock,
I think the general gist is that you are trying to tell the ladies “Not to worry, men are still chumps for your funny humps. Don’t pay any attention.”
And really, how does that help in any way at all? For men or women?
Except for guys like me, who expect you marriage savers to spawn out some tax-payers to pay for my Old Age Pension, which I deserve!
You guys, get to bed, and start a humpin’. The birth rate is declining, and I can show you charts of how my Pension Plan is Unsustainable unless you marriage-saving Christians start pushing out at least 6 or so kids per marriage.
Now, hop to it!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
5
http://scholar24.blogspot.com/2009/04/wall-of-silence.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN_557o91Pk
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Strike has the connotation that it will eventually stop.
This is full on quitting.
I mean, if you are a young man, and (like me) have been watching divorces over and over in your families (but thank god not my parents) and friends, would you want a piece of that?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
0
I think Laura’s “trick men while they’re young and horny” comment was good advice for women. Too bad women are not following this advice, and waiting until they’re longer and longer for Mr. Big to sweep them off their feet.
BTW CNBC had a segment on this poll a few hours ago. The willful ignorance was palpable, first off blaming the recession for decline in marriage (despite we know it’s been declining steadily for a really long time. Then it was said that marriage wasn’t happening because women didn’t want to. Failing to mention the inconvenient fact that men are the marriage deciders, not women. Women control the pussy access, but men have the upper hand when deciding on marriage. Hence Laura’s “trick ‘em while they’re young and stupid.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
Herbal Essence,
The single biggest thing which provoked the feminists the most on my blog is when I pointed out that women still want commitment from men later in life and they can’t get it. First they railed that women had no trouble getting it. Then after I buried them in hard data proving otherwise they claimed that women are done with men at age 40. Then when I proved this wrong they went ballistic. Ultimately they called me a misandrist for being so hurtful to women by pointing this out, because everyone of course already knew it was true.
I almost felt bad for them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
3
Edit: Should be misogynist not misandrist.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
@Dalrock
Awwww, you made them cry. LOL.
Like or Dislike:
13 
1
Feminists only ever hated marriage because of the responsibilities it imposed upon women. That is why they called it slavery for women.
If feminists look down at modern marriage it’s only because they don’t consider it good enough for them. (bad enough for us)
Same goes for chivalry.
Feminists don’t have a problem with men deferring to them. It’s EXACTLY what they want. But they want men to defer out of HUMILITY not out of generosity or courtesy.
Chivalry looks great to women who are beaten on a regular.
Chivalry looks terrible to women who take it for granted.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
“Men selected in the top sperm banks have high IQ, degrees from top schools, are above a certain height, etc. ”
Are not these things anonymous?
If yes, how can they protect those men from false rape accusations, false child support claims, discrimination in the workplace?
If not, they will be regarded as fathers and forced to pay child support.
How are they treated by unknowing women around the street?
Where should it be this so big IQ? Sperm donors = the extreme manginas, who masturbate for the women not even for pleasure. They must be the nerdy computer geeks. I guess they think to Lara Croft (or some Japanese cartoon girl) and not a real woman in that instant.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Marriage or no marriage, white people are simply being out bred. White women, you’re all going to go bye bye. And the great thing about democracy (which women love), is that once you lose majority… you’re fucking toast as a culture. What are you going to do? Vote to deport half the population? The other half will simply cancel your vote. Then I guess your shit out of luck. It’s just a race to see who can tip the scale and breed faster than the other. Because all you have to do is maintain half the votes, and all the laws, and political power can’t touch you. But do you think they’re ever gonna help white people with stuff like affirmitive action? Fuck no. They’re gonna let us rot.
White Britons a minority by 2066
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330734/White-Britons-outnumbered-2066-immigration-continues.html
To see the American side of the picture, read Pat Buchanan’s book “The Death of the West.”
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
“Marriage: What’s It Good For?”
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2010-11-19 03:27.
http://news.mensactivism.org/node/15970
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2031962,00.html
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
If she turns into an insufferable cunt, which she has shown herself to be on numerous occasions,
Dude, the admission that she and other women are the moral equivalent of OJ Simpson was high-larious. I want more such admissions…
Laura is useful target practice. She actually admits things that other women go to great lengths to conceal.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
6
Hmmm, just wondering if in the future we will eventually see single North American Women loudly ‘commenting’ at taken North American Men when they see them with their foreign born partners. Black Women give attitude to Black men who date inter-racially so I wonder if this is only a matter of time before it reaches the North America as a whole.
They do this out of frustration of course, that a woman of another race has ‘taken a good man’ from the already small pool that is available and left them with the dregs.
What a shame
Like or Dislike:
13 
3
””””’A common-law marriage can still be contracted in the District of Columbia and nine states: Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Texas.”
Contracted like a disease lol
”””’In the US state of Texas, a new provision was added to the Family Code; either partner in a common-law marriage has two years after separation to file an action in order to prove that the common-law marriage existed. To use the provision, the separation must have occurred after September 1, 1989””””
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
””””””There is no such thing as “common-law divorce”—that is, it is far easier to get into than it is to get out of. Only the contract of the marriage is irregular; everything else about the marriage is perfectly regular. People who marry per the old common-law tradition must petition the appropriate court in their state for a dissolution of marriage.
””””””’
Welcome to the hotel california.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/faqEditorial-29086.html
””””””””’What is a common law marriage?
In a handful of states (listed below), heterosexual couples can become legally married without a license or ceremony. This type of marriage is called a common law marriage. Contrary to popular belief, a common law marriage is not created when two people simply live together for a certain number of years. In order to have a valid common law marriage, the couple must do all of the following:
live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
hold themselves out as a married couple — typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as “my husband” or “my wife,” and filing a joint tax return, and
intend to be married.
When a common law marriage exists, the spouses receive the same legal treatment given to formally married couples, including the requirement that they go through a legal divorce to end the marriage.
”””””””””
So don’t get tricked he he he
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Dude, the admission that she and other women are the moral equivalent of OJ Simpson was high-larious. I want more such admissions…
Laura is useful target practice. She actually admits things that other women go to great lengths to conceal. — TFH
Don’t be a weasel, TFH.
This stupid cunt is an OBVIOUSLY a disruptive troll, and you are begging for Barabbas to stay within our midst, just for YOUR pleasure, and to the DETRIMENT of everyone else.
I’d run this bitch out of here in a heart beat, and quite frankly, I’ve got my sights set on her. But, YOU want her here, because YOU are so much smarter than everyone else. What with your high IQ squirting into a plastic cup and all. Fuck you sure know it all since your time in the MRM.
When I DO have to run this pest out of here, I’m gonna mention that she is YOUR responsibility and it is YOUR fault she is a pest to us. Why don’t you accept responsibility for what you want to do? Invite a goddamn pest into our midst.
Thanks, from all of us who are sick to death of trolls disrupting everything.
Way to be a woman, and shirk responsibility for YOUR actions, and shuffle it off onto all of us collectively. Yay!
But then, how did you say, Rob’s just a bully.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS, TFH, why don’t you accept it?
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
10
Wasn’t it you, TFH, that made such a big deal that those of us who have been around in the MRM for a while, don’t know what the hell we are doing and thus the “proto”-MRM needs your “tough love” to motivate us to accomplish something?
Has it ever occured to you that we never accomplish anything because everytime we even try to do the smallest little thing, there’s someone like YOU trying to undermine us? And refusing to take responsibility… you know, like the way you undermined Angry Harry on this site – another guy who was obviously not nearly as smart as your majestic self?
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
8
If any of you gents are wondering why men have never been able to actually accomplish anything over the past decades… the number one reason is because of men undermining other men.
The women have never really been much of a problem – once you figure one out, you figure them all out.
But, it is men – guys like TFH – who show up with an ego the size of Texas – who will do everything they can to undermine other men around them, in order that they may rise in the hierarchy.
That is 95% of the reason the MRM has been such a failure.
It’s why I find it such a joke that TFH runs around calling everyone else stupid and innefective, when in fact, it is exactly his kind of behaviour that has kept us on our knees all along.
90% of men will use any power they gain to undermine other men rather than to accomplish something positive.
In four more years, TFH himself will be getting accused by newbies – perhaps by one of his high IQ plastic cup babies themself – that he hasn’t accomplished anything and so it is justifiable to undermine him every step of the way.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
38
Basically you can put the message out there but you better also take care of yourself. Nobody else gonna do it.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Lara is TFH’s responsiblity and nobody else’s.
What she does and says here is on him.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
7
@ rob
Yes, we should, an Men, take responsibility for those we sponsor. Like in Johnny Brasco, if you vouch for a guy and that guy turns out to be a rat you get whacked”…..lol.
How would we here metaphorically whack a guy.
Neg him to death…lol.
We can’t even neg clear cut assholes who come here to derail threads.
Cohesion is something you build. It doesn’t just happen.
I, to the bottom of my heart, think that cohesion is one of the most important things we can do at this point in the MRM.
I have seen the stages. Men are more bluntly expressing themselves and there is alot of cohesion here, most I’ve ever seen on a MR board.
Bravo to the spearhead regulars.
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
””””rob November 20, 2010 at 05:06
Lara is TFH’s responsiblity and nobody else’s.
What she does and says here is on him.
””’
That must be how the judges in divorce court sleep at night.
I get it now.
he he he
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
@Single Dad
.
WRONG!!!! Belize is not culturally Central America. Belize is a country of black people who speak English and have been ruled by England until recent times (it is part of the Commonwealth). Central America are countries of mestiso people who speak Spanish and have been part of the Spanish empire until this empire desintegrated in the earlies 1800s.
The thing is I have been living in Central America for ten years. I write from Central America. Let me explain the traditional culture and the recent developments in this area.
CENTRAL AMERICAN TRADITIONAL CULTURE
Here the traditional culture was of marriage and infidelity. Central American men have a big pressure to prove their masculinity (there must not be doubt that they are “machos” and not “culeros” (fags))
This is why every man wanted to marry. There is this sentence “Soltero maduro, culero seguro” (“Middle-aged bachelors are fags with no doubt”). Marriages could be formal or common law. Marriages had lots of children (nine children was not uncommon).
Men had their wives but they had no qualms to have sex outside marriage, whether with steady mistresses whether with affairs. In Honduras, you can even show your mistress (dama) in public acts. The sentence “Estoy casado pero no capado” (I am married but I’m not castrated) is used to justify men’s infidelities.
Single moms (mistresses with their kids) were prevalent. I think this was because some women preferred to be the mistress of a rich man than the wife of a poor man (we are talking about poor societies)
Divorce was extremely rare. Infidelity was universal. As you see, it is a classic example of hypergamy and polygamy.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Because of American influence and contraceptives, the culture has changed.
There is not so much pressure to show masculinity, although there is the same pressure for women to get married, no matter how, or, at least, to have a kid.
The pattern is an early marriage (early 20s) and an early divorce (late 20s or early 30s, after two children) , which produces lots of single moms. It is also very common that a man gets a woman pregnant and dumps her afterward (more single moms).
There are many families too but there are less and less familes and more and more single moms (and the number of kids is 2 or 3 per woman).
Recently, I have been aware of a recent and startling development. Men have stopped being marrying that young. This has produced a generation of single women without kids, who are desperated to get married and have a guy. In past times, these women would have been got pregnant and would have been single moms. Being mothers gave them a reason to live. Now they are single without kids, their reproductive years are about to expire, and they are desperated.
The first time I saw a Central American woman in their thirties without husband or kids, I was astonished. Now I see them every day.
This makes me think that Central American men must use contraceptives to have sex without kids, which was uncommon before.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
.
I don’t wonder. I am positive that this will happen. Want to bet $1000?
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
@Dalrock, both rob and I seem to be getting the same message, so I will quote what he said –
I don’t know why this one specific term – “marriage strike” is such a big deal to some people, but you have devoted several posts to it, including one specifically likening it to a vampire and driving a stake through its heart. That is why I suggest we stop using that term and start calling it “Fred.” Even grerp admits that the Fred is definitely happening.
The meta-message of your tone is just what rob says above – “don’t worry, grrls, men are chumps and will never wise up.” The fact that you are a self-described “happily married father” indicates that you are generally pro-marriage, and a lot of your posts are about how to improve it.
Now, granted, I am on the other side of the fence as a never-married man, so that is going to color my perspective on your blog. But, I don’t see most of your posts as indicating that the institution itself is undergoing any problems other than men not being alpha enough or not having tight enough game. I enjoy your blog a great deal and think you have a very wicked sense of humor – the “Rationalization Hamster 500″ post was a real hoot.
I get the sense that your target audience is primarily women, and that your message is more aimed at convincing them not to divorce frivolously than examining things like their entitlement mentality, loss of character, or addictions to materialism and media. All that is fine – it is your blog and the rules are that you get to say whatever you want there, just as writers here get to say whatever they want.
But, to me, there is all the difference in the world between getting married and staying married. And, assuming that because things were a certain way in the past they will always be that way in the future sets people up for some potentially nasty surprises.
I think that the number of people currently participating in any activity – sort of a “market penetration” measure – is about the best measure of how that activity/product is perceived by the general population. If GM, for example, saw their market share plummet from over 70% to barely over 50%, executive heads would roll and people would be scrambling to figure out why.
Even though there are demographically fewer men than women, a higher percentage of them are married than women. How is this possible? Well, first, I saw figures a few years ago that fully 12% of marriages by US men were to non-US women. Guys are still buying cars, but they are buying Nissans not Chevys. That is why “U.S. Women Inc.” got the protectionist legislation IMBRA passed.
Second, even though the percentage of men currently married is higher than the percentage of women, more women get married at least once over the long term than do men. I have seen figures that show that men are more likely to remarry after divorce than women are, so I’m not sure there is any sort of “re-marriage strike.” But, it does appear that when men do remarry they don’t marry a divorced woman, but rather move one more never-married woman into the “ever-married” column.
Social change has a tendency to move slowly through a population at first and then reach a critical mass when it explodes and moves through the rest of the population very quickly. In 1990 I didn’t know anyone who had a cell phone. Now, 20 years later, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t.
The Jesuits have a saying – “Give me the boy until he is 7, and I will give you the man.” There is an old folk saying “as the twig is bent, so grows the tree.” Developmental psychology generally accepts that personality and world view are formed in the first 6-7 years of life, and actually change very little after that.
Most of the people in the upper ranges of your table range grew up under marriage 1.1-1.3. People who were 29 in 2009 were born in 1980 – when Jimmah Cahtah was still sitting in the rose garden. Already they are showing signs of departing significantly from the patterns of older generations. Imagine what sort of world view kids who grew up under VAWA will have – seeing their mother be able to make one phone call and have daddy be dragged out of the house by men with guns.
The time to start doing something about a grease fire in your kitchen is while it still a grease fire in the kitchen and not when half of your house is on fire.
If Harry Harlow’s studies on the effects of maternal deprivation have any implications at all for human beings, a huge percentage of today’s children are being raised by being warehoused in daycare to have significant attachment disorders later in life.
Personally, I think sending the message to US women “don’t worry, you can get as horrible, entitled, and fat as you want, and some chump will still marry you” is doing women an incredible disservice. If you look at the comment by Jack to S2′s post about text game you will see that even so-called “good Christian men” are getting a pretty negative attitude toward even Baptist Deacon’s daughters.
This does not bode well for young women over the next 40 years or so. Personally, I thing telling young women “Don’t be a Karen Owen” is much more to their benefit than sending the message “Go ahead, be as nasty and soulless as you want, some chump will still marry you.”
However, the sad thing is that you are probably right. Even those skin-bags of toxic waste Jessica Valenti and Melissa McEwan managed to snag chumps. If some men are desperate enough to marry women like them, it is probably true that some men will be desperate enough to marry anything.
But, not all men.
You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
34
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
36
Marriage never guaranteed financial security.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
1
Hi Zed,
I’m more than happy to argue with you, I just would prefer we select a topic we actually disagree on.
Absolutely. This is what I have been arguing from the other side. When we look at data, we need to be clear about what it is actually telling us. If the question is are men wising up to divorce theft, the fact that they married an older woman and didn’t stay married all that long before she divorced him and took half of his stuff doesn’t show the kind of change in behavior I think we all are expecting. If the question is that marriage as an institution is crumbling, your data above and Charles Martel’s original data is exactly what we need to look at.
Violent agreement here. Have you seen my post about the possibility that the passed over betas could get the last laugh on the carousel riders?
Moreover, here are the endings to my original posts Marriage Strike? and Clarification on my position on a marriage strike:
and (from my clarification post):
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
@Zed
Thanks for the compliment, and I always enjoy your comments. I know we come from different perspectives on this, but I get the sense that we aren’t that far apart in our overall assessment of the problems we face in the wake of the disaster called feminism. I see marriage as being in an existential crisis. Something needs to change or it won’t continue as a viable institution. Perhaps we are already too late, but I’m not going to stop trying to get the word out. I don’t see game as the answer to fixing the marriage problem. Game can make a good marriage better, but it can’t make a dishonest woman honest. And it won’t stop her friends and the church and the media from all whispering in her ear that she should divorce you and find a better man.
I think I probably range all over the place, but at any given time it probably looks like I have a single focus until I move on to something else. I’ve created categories at the top of my blog to help with this. Two I think you might want to look at are my posts against feminism, and my posts calling the church out for failing to uphold marriage morally.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
For not wanting to derail the topic too much I won’t give too long an answer.
The Scandinavian men aren’t that much different from other men, I think. Like other men we ‘know’ that we ultimately are in charge and even if things are going real bad, it’s the doings of our women.
That’s something we hesitate very much to react upon.
We, so to speak, sit around and wait for a ‘natural’ opportunity to correct things so we do not have to act against our own women. The conditioning for this is very strong – almost unbreakable.
This is a way of reacting I’ve observed among many Scandinavian men. It’s easier for any man to attack another man – but go against women in general and ones own women specifically – no way!
It is hard to get a real understanding of the ‘crazy women’ in the Saga’s unless one first understand this. Men didn’t have to do anything, it was even best to do nothing, the female rage would disappear after a short time. Even if a woman ran away the nearest settlement would be a day away on horseback, in the summertime.
OTH Scandinavian men understand the concept of “Mandsforbund”/Brotherhood/Bands much better than most men here or otherwhere in the mens movement. Years ago I was surprised to see even AngryHarry speak against it (can’t recall where), but I shrugged it off as a difference in culture. Could be wrong though, who knows.
There are presently forming Brotherhoods in Scandinavia. They are popping up in many locations, but none of them are going ‘public’ (what do you call it) yet.
This doesn’t say much about mariage at all, version 0.1 and on, but it makes it probable that marriage as a concept doesn’t exist without Männerbünde. You have only the other guys respect for your rights to keep your ‘marriage’ together. When women become equal, you place the burden of solving matrinomial problems on your fellow men – and they always side with women. What else could they do?
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
32
While the idea of sperm banks ensuring a better gene pool is appealling, I don’t think it will work in reality. The problem, at bottom, is that American women fundamentally hate men, and it won’t matter whether they choose children of better or worse stock. The children will still likely be raised without a father and with the warped, male-hating attitudes of the mother.
If men desire marriage, they should at least marry women capable of a rational marriage arrangement—and American women decidedly are NOT capable of it. It’s probably best in the long run to let nature take its course and just breed the last generation of dysfunctional American women out of existance. While American women are busy keeping the abortion-mills and the welfare state in business, we can concentrate on something productive.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
I don’t mind the discussions on Scandinavian culture — it had a great deal of influence on English and Scottish law, and by extension Welsh, Irish and eventually my own American law.
Also, the sagas are very clear about the destructive influence of women — especially the Icelandic ones. Seems the Norse have forgotten their own literature, or perhaps it was something more like prophecy.
Like or Dislike:
15 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
30
No, you just haven’t read them that closely, or you haven’t read them at all. The sagas are far more explicit about women’s passions and treachery than the slop offered up as modern cultural fare. In fact, they are every bit as hard on women as the Bible, which you are so quick to condemn.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
30
@aspanishguy
OF COURSE that men in Latin countries are using anti-conceptives. You seem to be forgetting that the reason that divorce laws aren’t so bad in here is because men are SHAMED THE FUCK OUT by their families until they support their mistress and their bastard childs. And when you multiply that for 6-9, you end up like BOTH of my Grandfathers.
Broke at old age, not having where to drop dead, living off the Goverment benefits earned earlier and from the sons that don’t hate their guts.
Fuck that. Seriously, fuck that in the eye.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
A bit late, but beg to differ. I call as my witness Scott Locklin, he of the article discussing D C Stove’s “On the intellectual capacity of women.”
See his article “The Myth of Technological Progress” at
before citing about the singularity. Kurzweil might be wrong: we might never get there.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
A bit late, but beg to differ. I call as my witness Scott Locklin, he of the article discussing D C Stove’s “On the intellectual capacity of women.”
See his article “The Myth of Technological Progress”
before citing about the singularity. Kurzweil might be wrong: we might never get there.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
How about this, thrall girl:
eru köld kvenna ráð
–from the Íslendingasögur
What do you know of these sagas and epics? What could you know? Men wrote them. Men keep them. Don’t trouble your silly head.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
2
Why would you assume you need to be old and cynical man to shun marriage? I’m 28 and you couldn’t convince me to marry. When I was 19 you still couldn’t have convinced me marriage was good, and I came from a traditional home with an intact family, so it’s not like I grew up first hand seeing why it was bad for men. I merely saw what was happening around me and figured out what was going on with divorce scams and infidelity.
I admit it wasn’t until later I was shocked to learn about the other things that cement marriage as a no-go like paternity fraud and just how common it was because that’s just the kind of thing you can’t really see and nobody really talks about, but what I saw over 10 years ago was enough for me to say I’d never do it. Paternity fraud just adds another reason, especially in Canada where a married man is automatically locked in to paying for bastards.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
34
As I’m sure you know, in most states a man has 60 days or less to respond to a paternity suit, and improper service does not stay that time period. If the notice of suit goes to a wrong address the man is still screwed. Settled law in California, for example. I am very surprised that (so far as I know) no enterprising woman, aware of these facts, has named an innocent wealthy man the father, given a wrong address, waited the statutory period, and then demanded tens of thousands of dollars a month in child support from him. She probably couldn’t get away with naming somebody like Bill Gates. The cases that settled the address issue in California had suspicious addresses, but willful fraud wasn’t provable (though almost certainly present). Gates is a little too famous and his address too public for an address mixup to be seen as anything other than malicious. Plenty of fairly anonymous millionaires out there, though.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
TFH,
I am working on the same kind of thing. I will unveil mine in January.
Keyser Soze
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Oh, there is much more Sir.
Havámál tells us about women sneaky ways, Billings daughter, about having a woman is like riding an unshoed horse on ice. LOL!
the Saga’s should be understood like tales with a moral point, besides being good litterature. The moral point may be have been lost in time, but it seems to be there. Just like in the story about “The Fishermans wife”.
Like the Gods can be seen as forces of nature and depictions of human faults (Loki) so can all the elements in the Saga’s.
In Njals saga two young men lay hungry in their beds at night. They could get up go to the kitchen and help themselves, no woman would stop them from doing that. It would also be the work of women to fetch things in the kitchen and exactly that stopped the young men, that would be beneath them.
So much for egality!
If one would want an impression of male-bands you could read Bandmanna Saga. It got some humoruos element ridiculing the band-men. The story actually indicates that ‘Bands’ were not unusual and the way the ‘Band’ did not do well at the thing could have a moral point like, “Be careful for what you ask for – you might get it!”
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
Hm . . . looks like my last post is missing, when I check now from another pc!?!
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
All this viking lore is so applicable to the topic of Police.
Just like western Anglos still assiduously apply The Canterbury Tales to their everyday life. It lives. It breathes!
Because timeliness and relevancy is more applicable, instead of hearing about religious myths from one thousand five hundred years ago, lets hear about how 70 years ago German conquered Norse lands in like, 4 minutes.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Pls delete this and the post before this. The missing post suddenly popped up anyway.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Of course modern politics is a wonderful thing.
It has no relevance what so ever that the bible says women are not allowed to speak in public (or whatever the correct phrase is). It doesn’t matter that numerous ‘old’ philosophers and scribes warned us against female influence.
Otherwise, you right. It is embarrassing that no more resistance was delivered.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Apparently not, for Greater Minds than found even here at Spearhead (and including even Mr. Bible – God himself) had/have no effect on preventing men from meekly surrendering all power to inferior factions.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Right Firepower.
We should also not dismiss the fact that the present situation is a result of a fairly recent change in politics, female voting rights. Furthermore the destruction of the family caused a clear disconnect between fathers and sons. This seems to be the main thing that makes it possible for society to devolve as fast as it does.
We actually lost the connection to the forefathers by loosing the connection to our fathers.
Let’s play with some premises;
If men really are the ones that took us out of the animal kingdom and the price payd for that is the occasional spanking of women. Can spanking of women then be regarded as oppression?
If families are the building stones of society and thus different from primate promiscuity. Can restrictions of female sexuality then be regarded as oppression.
Could it one day be regarded as ethical and higly moral to spank and restrict women, because it is related to a higher principle that is good for Mankind, their women and children?
. . . or is it easier and less distressfull for men to keep going their own way and eventually evolve away from needing women at all?
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
In all probability: Yes.
Potentiality for a reversal of the current universally dismal scene in the west is almost assured, for balances of social power are cyclical.
The problem lies in these sea changes coming about after almost total destruction of a status quo and the dark decades of rebuilding that follow.
A future utopia of a world rebalanced holds no practical interest when the rebirth is only realized a hundred years from now when we’re all gone.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Ok, Firepower.
You do not see ‘us’ a potential ressource for ensuring the connection between fathers and sons.
I do, and regard it as less traumatic this way.
The other idea of Men evolving further away from the animal kingdom, including women, is a high-tech one. I’m too old to really envision that and don’t even think it’s the best for us.
So to me there is only one way to go.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Presently, fathers as potential resource for ensuring the connection between fathers and sons is tenuous at best, and practically, nonexistent – what with the state of fatherless families.
Plus, the majority of fathers that do participate in raising their sons raise them to be the same, standardized feminized male, as they themselves were taught.
For all its successes, “Game” has merely created a generation of temporary nightclub asses with success measured solely by seduction, yet based on no enduring foundation.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
@Ken:
This is one of the few things both Christians and feminists actually agree in, cutting off male access to sex outside marriage or Game.
Other than that, the two groups DESPISE each other. Amazing how male sexuality can draw two bands of people who would cheerfully slit each other’s throats to unite under a common banner.
That’s how lowly they think of males, their sexuality, and their male-ness! How hateful can you be?
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
We should also not dismiss the fact that the present situation is a result of a fairly recent change in politics, female voting rights. Furthermore the destruction of the family caused a clear disconnect between fathers and sons. This seems to be the main thing that makes it possible for society to devolve as fast as it does.
We actually lost the connection to the forefathers by loosing the connection to our fathers. — Ragnar
I’ve been thinking about this as well lately – mainly because of what I keep seeing happening right here at the Spearhead when men keep “ignoring” the women, and what effect they have on the dynamic of an internet forums such as this – basically, shutting down discussion or misdirecting it, or pukifyingly nice-ing everything up that men want to do with a lacy doily underneath us and a pink bow tied in our hair.
I have read before that only one woman present in a room full of men will change the entire dynamic of the room. This would be why, I assume, that at old fashioned “gentleman’s clubs,” even the serving staff would be male.
Look at how much an internet forum such as this improves without the presence of women. The comments do slow down, because most men are not so desperate that they need to shriek nonsense all the time, merely to assure survival by garnering attention. But, the comments that are made are more thoughtful, and men start “figuring it out” in time.
So, not only have fathers been ejected from their sons lives, but also remember, women were not in the workplace, they weren’t in the pubs & taverns, and they weren’t permitted in many other areas of society either.
All of those places would have served as places very much like this internet forum after the women get run out of the door and we are left to our devices to talk amongst ourselves, uninfluenced by the chattering of little girls trying to get attention.
I think even bringing back men only pubs or gentleman’s clubs would have done an awful lot to stabalize society.
Everywhere that women are interacting with men, things just go ’round and round and round and round, oh, and they go ’round a bit too. All of society is constantly swirling around with female relativity and complete nonsense where men can’t make head or tails of things.
But, if there are “male only” spaces in society, I suspect that these would serve as “pins” or “pillars” of male “absoluteness” that would prevent society from being under the total influence of females.
I mean, if your wife at home was an abusive shrew that manipulated everything about your life, you would still be able to go to the pub or to work, where you would be surrounded by other men – and, much like we talk here at the Spearhead, men would start talking and “figuring things out.”
When women are around us, we live in a world of half-truths or outright lies.
When men get together without women, they seek truth.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
6
I keep thinking of a friend I made from work once – he was in his early 50′s when I turned 30. I became pretty good friends with the guy outside of work, and we stayed friends after we no longer worked together. Lol! I think he was living vicariously through me. When I turned thirty he sighed as he remembered his own life, “Thirty was awesome. You could nail twenty year olds and you could nail forty year olds and nobody thought anything of it. It was the best age I’ve ever been.”
It is true, I learned many things from my father. But, there are only so many things a father will teach you. My dad, for example, wouldn’t have taught me much about “women.”
But my friend from work? Being an older man, I learned things from him that were also quite valuable.
He had been divorced when he was younger, and was by the time I knew him, married to his second wife who was only a few years older than myself. I think they had a fifteen year age difference between them.
His first wife though, he would spit and steam even thinking about her and how she fucked him around… so, he kinda “knew.” Although, I don’t think he knew the things we know here at the Spearhead – but, life had clunked him around some and he was battle-hardened. Apparently, after his wife dicked him around, he said “fuck it” to the whole works, got in his truck & camper, and buggered off up north to find work. He said he parked his camper outside the entrance of this one mining outfit for two weeks, until they gave him a job. He was a pretty determined bugger.
But, I learned a lot from him. Sometimes small things, sometimes big things.
It was from him, when he noticed my thinning hair and mentioned it to me, and said, “You know, when I was your age I went through the same thing, until one day I just said ‘screw it’ and buzzed it all off short. It was the best thing I’ve ever done because I gained ‘myself’ back.”
Well, I didn’t just run out and do it because he said it, but, when I eventually moved to the next town, I said you know, I’m gonna take his advice, and I did it – and he was right. It was a good move.
It was from him that I witnessed first hand how a “proper” marriage should work. I think he figured it out from his first wife that all this feminist bullshit was, well, bullshit.
He was definitely “alpha” in that marriage, and a happier woman I have never seen. But he was in charge.
When I was over for dinner, after we were done, of course I would get up and start clearing the table and offering to help with the dishes.
“No, no, no Rob,” he said, “Come with me into the living room and we’ll have a beer while watching some NASCAR.”
And, he went on to tell me that he laid down the rules when they got married, and in this house there’s men’s work, and women’s work. “The cooking and the dishes are the wife’s work,” he said, “And when you were here a few weeks ago helping me put up siding on the house, she didn’t help us because that was the men’s work. That’s how it’s done in this house.”
She had a job as well, but, lol, when her boss kept pushing her for working more and more hours, he went down and had a talk with the boss himself. “It’s eight hours sleep, eight hours work, and eight hours family,” he told the boss. “That’s a hard rule in our family, and if her job doesn’t fit with those rules… well… family comes before work.” Apparently, the boss co-operated with him.
Lol! He also told me he warned his wife, “You better wait for at least two years after I die before you get involved with another guy. I know what you women are like. You’ll all be screwing some guy a half hour after the funeral!”
I learned a lot of things from becoming friends with an older man – things I would have never learned from my father.
The only thing with my friend though, is he had a 27yr old daughter that he kept trying to marry off to me.
“She’s a really good woman, Rob,” he would say, “And I don’t want her marrying one of these modern-day pussies. Plus, I’ll keep her in line for you.”
“Well, thanks for the dinner and the beer. Gotta go. See ya!”
When I reflect over my life so far, I see more and more how much I’ve learned from “other men” than just my father.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
8
rob November 21, 2010 at 12:15
When men get together without women, they seek truth
Yeah or rather, men only accept rational thought, which is a form of truth seeking.
But, if there are “male only” spaces in society, I suspect that these would serve as “pins” or “pillars” of male “absoluteness” that would prevent society from being under the total influence of females.
Agree it would help, but I still don’t trust a society with female political influence.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
rob,
I’d run this bitch out of here in a heart beat, and quite frankly, I’ve got my sights set on her.
Then proceed to do so, by all means.
But, YOU want her here, because YOU are so much smarter than everyone else.
I said nothing of the sort. I just said the OJ Simpson thing was both funny and revealing.
Lara is TFH’s responsiblity and nobody else’s.
Nope. I don’t even like Lara – I am the one who keeps saying she is just as bad as OJ Simpson.
As usual, rob, your reading comprehension is astonishing poor.
Has it ever occured to you that we never accomplish anything because everytime we even try to do the smallest little thing, there’s someone like YOU trying to undermine us?
There isn’t anything to undermine, rob. You lost the argument spectacularly before, and have made no new points. You rationalization hamster, and projection, rival that of a woman.
If the MRpM is getting nowhere, it is because of you. You don’t even know the difference between ‘proto’ and ‘pseudo’.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
16
So wait, let me get this straight :
i) I say that Lara is just as bad as OJ Simpson, which she admitted.
ii) From that, rob butts in and claims I actually *like* Lara? Calling someone the equivalent of OJ Simpson is ‘liking’?
iii) From there, rob goes off into a tangent that makes his rationalization hamster work overtime, in which he projects the failure of the MRM to become a movement (in North America)*, on others who point this out?
iv) Next, rob will while about tom47 saying the same things as me, only harsher.
So all this is because Rob disapproves of me saying Lara is like OJ Simpson?
If Men’s Rights ever gains traction, rob will not be a prominent figure in it. That is for sure.
*Europe actually had a gathering, so in Europe, there is something that could actually be called a Movement, not a proto-movement like in North America.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
12
like the way you undermined Angry Harry on this site
Again with this stupidity.
How did I ‘undermine’ Angry Harry? Unintentionally, no less (I certainly didn’t want him to leave).
No one else here has claimed that I ‘undermined’ Angry Harry. In fact, many bashed rob for such an outlandish claim.
I am waiting for someone other than rob to point to specific comments I made to AH that ‘undermined’ AH. I doubt anyone will rescue rob from his display of foolishness.
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
Fuck off you little punk.
Like or Dislike:
8 
11
Many bashed rob for his outlandish claim?
Who exactly, you goddamn weasel?
Will you or will you not take responsibility for dancing around with Lara, as you insist is so beneficial.
Obviously you will do anything to shirk responsibility.
Fuck
Are
You
A
Weasel.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
16
Do you see what this little weasel does? He is just like a woman.
He will not address the main issue about Lara AT ALL, but rather picks one little phrase and explodes it into the main issue, when it is, a peripheral issue.
He does this every time.
A weasel.
There is no way in hell TFH will take responsibility for having Lara here, something he undermines ME on, but instead he deflects the issue.
I’d go and get AH’s comments myself, but:
Welmer, what’s up with the articles in the arhives from back in April & May? The comments are missing from them.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
13
Many bashed rob for his outlandish claim?
Over here, back in September. More came out in agreement with me, even though YOU started a fight you knew you would lose, just like over here.
I just need to keep citing that thread. Repeatedly.
In fact, JustAnotherAnon said this, giving you some advice that you clearly are not heeding.
Will you or will you not take responsibility for dancing around with Lara,
Saying someone is as bad as OJ Simpson is ‘dancing’ with them? I even called her a racist just two days ago, is that ‘dancing with them’. Reading comprehension, Rob, reading comprehension.
I told you to go run her off, by all means. Why can’t you do that?
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
10
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/11/19/in-the-us-39-believe-marriage-is-obsolete/#comment-54168
Read your own weaselly-ness.
Like or Dislike:
7 
11
You know TFH, I am going to undermine the fucking shit out of you.
Every fucking time.
Like or Dislike:
8 
10
Sane readers know that I have called Lara, based on her comments :
a) The moral equal of OJ Simpson
b) A racist
Yet, Rob thinks I am ‘dancing’ with her.
Rob sees text on a screen, but comes up with interpretations that no one else comes up with. I don’t see much reason to take him seriously, and I don’t see anyone expending any effort to agree with Rob.
Period.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
11
I skimmed your thread, but only a WEASEL would deduce that I lost there, lol, or that you had an army of people defending you.
I know you’ve got your followers here TFH.
I’m not gonna call on my followers though, I can handle you all by myself.
Stop bringing it back to Angry Harry.
Let’s talk about YOU.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
12
You know TFH, I am going to undermine the fucking shit out of you.
Wake me up when you are done.
Your meltdown on a mellow Sunday is clearly the result of bottled up frustration due to the lack of your ability to take action in support of Men’s Rights. Then, you project the lack of success of the cause onto others, when I don’t see anyone else so obsessed with taking down fellow travelers, (rather than fight feminists), as you.
I have a great deal of respect for zed, Paul Elam, Welmer, and yes, Angry Harry. For you, I have none. If Men’s Rights ever gets anywhere, you will surely not be a prominent person in the cause.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
14
Stop bringing it back to Angry Harry.
YOU brought it up, fool.
Now that you know your invented narrative is bogus, you are backing away from it.
I have never seen this much projection from a man. From women, yes, but not a man.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
RIGHT after I targeted her, here is TFH’s reply
Far from chasing Laura off, she is invaluable as a tool in teaching men about what women really think, and the horrors that await them in married life. Not that this is her intention, but “if you want to make people stop going in the water, show them ‘Jaws’” is the metaphor here.
Here is his NEXT comment:
*and boy AM I
I think Lara will prove to be a goldmine of candor that will get new guys a shocking dose of brutal reality.
After asking TFH to take responsibility for keeping her here, he replies thus:
Dude, the admission that she and other women are the moral equivalent of OJ Simpson was high-larious. I want more such admissions…
Laura is useful target practice. She actually admits things that other women go to great lengths to conceal.
And that brings us DIRECTLY to these comments we are at now.
You are a weasel and a LIAR.
Fuckin’ lying weasel that never takes responsibility for himself, and constantly tries to redirect and deflect from himself.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
10
Fuckin’ lying weasel that never takes responsibility for himself, and constantly tries to redirect and deflect from himself.
This sentence describes Rob Fedrz perfectly.
So proceed Rob, by all means, to run Lara off. Why can’t you do that?
I called her a racist, and an OJ Simpson-equivalent. Go run her off.
Like or Dislike:
9 
10
I’m not gonna run her off.
You wanted her here.
Her actions are YOUR responsiblity.
Weasel.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
10
Virtually anyone else here will clearly see that I said Laura’s existence makes men see how BAD women are. Having more men see how BAD women are can be educational.
Of course, Rob has no reading comprehension. No one else seems to interpret my negative treatment of Laura as a positive.
Let’s up the ante, shall we?
I actually think Hestia, Thag Jones, Female Masculinist, and grerp are *good*. While they have not produced anywhere near the content of zed or Welmer, their existence is valuable for one reason : they can shame whiteknights and manginas for being enablers in misandry. Everyone agrees that whiteknights and manginas are a very large part of the problem, and women like Hestia/Thag/FeMasc/grerp shaming manginas could be beneficial. Manginas can most effectively be shamed my women.
Now, 99 men here will agree with this, and one, Rob Fedrz, will disagree so strongly as to have a vein-popping stroke.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
12
The only way to solve this dilemma, gentlemen is obviously to post nude pics of lara – either to delight, or horrify.
case closed
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
2
I’m not gonna bother arguing with you anymore, you Weasel.
I’m just gonna undermine the living piss out of you.
Lara is YOUR responsibility, and everytime she shows up here, rather than run her off like I have done with the rest, I’m simply gonna point the finger at you.
Lol! You’re just a pussy begging motherfucker anyway, look at what you did the last time I ran off a bunch of trolls:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/11/10/german-family-minister-slams-feminism/#comment-52969
“Duh-huh! Hyuk yuk! I knows, since I’s tole you guys a ‘undred times dat I’s allows ta jerk offs in a plasssstik kup ’cause I’s a sertifide geneyus, I’ll rank the women ’round here for how high on the pussy pedastal they should sit.
Hyuk, hyuk.
Squirt. I think that should be your new nickname, TFH:
Squirt
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
24
Give it a rest, guys. The feminasties don’t need to do anything to us, we are too busy ripping into each other to get anything else done.
@ElectricAngel
I agree. Nothing really new since the transistor.
Feminism and the Death of Science: This idea has been floating around with me for a while. Feminism has unleashed powerful anti-science forces. Off the top of my head:
1. Feminization of the educational system – disadvantages the high IQ boys.
2. The politicization of science – it’s all about consensus now.
3. Diminishing incentives – the nerd gets no love from the herd.
There’s more. Probably worth an article.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
rob,
I’m not gonna bother arguing with you anymore, you Weasel.
Argue? You pick fights out of thin air on account of your bottled-up frustration, and promptly get clobbered and humiliated.
I would *love* for you to cease begging for my attention, but I doubt you could resist your obsession. Let’s see how long you can go without pleading for me to notice you.
Oh, and the comment that you link as an example of me making an error has 28 ‘likes’ and 3 ‘dislikes’. Sort of shows how no one really wants to sign up for your frequent meltdowns.
A bit of introspection would be healthy. But you are too far gone.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
13
That’s absolutely worth an article if you will.
It’s totally in line with my thoughts about male only places and this post from Rob.
Women in science is a disaster - my words!
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
zed: I am not sure about your stats concerning break ups between married or cohabitating parents in Sweden. The figure for children living with both parents starts at 90 and finishes at 60 at age 17.
http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____151501.aspx
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
The risk of separation for co-habitating parents is double that of married parents.
80-90 % have joint custody and 30 % have 50/50 living arrangements. In my group, the urban upper middle class, I get the impression it is around 80-90 %.
http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/LE0001_2009K04_TI_02_A05TI0904.pdf
Google translate or just guess what the tables should concern.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
You did run angry Harry out of Here fifth horseman.
I’m surprised you haven’t run off Rob as well. Seriously WTF? Going for Zed next, followed by a hostile takeover of Welmer?
I don’t get it. You write great stuff, and then the next day an entirely different monster surfaces. What’s with that?
Why don’t you become a mrm leader? Ive never seen a public hanging.
Peace
Like or Dislike:
13 
4
Day by day I become more MGTOW deep in my soul. It is incredibly liberating. It is bringing me peace.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
‘Feminist’ Christians – lol
There is no substitute for a man being the head of the household, and the vast majority of Christians believe this. My wife obeys me without question. This is the status quo in my church community.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
The years 1960-2010 are years which have been unusually stable, prosperous, and individualistic (at least for women)compared to any other half century throughout human history, or even the previous two or three centuries.
Women–always more gullible and impressionable than men, as well as somewhat more present oriented–fell into the delusion that they could get married or not, have children or not, persue formal schooling, even higher education or, and embrace the feminist vision to their hearts content, and there would be no consequences, either to them, or to the larger society.
When women were given the opportunity to access–I am NOT going to say’earn’–a male breadwinner’s income without the risks or responsiblities of manhood and fatherhood, a world evolved where large numbers of confused, childish, and self-absorbed females indeed could, and did, seek their fulfillment where in Ms. Steinem’s immortal prose in 1972, “a woman needs a man the way a fish needs a bicycle”. We are beginning to suffer the results today!
The gravy train is coming to an end, sooner and more decisively than anyone could have imagined even five years ago!
The debts incurred by the unbelieveably shortsighted and asinine economic policies of the inflationist, paper “money”supported, shop-till-you-drop corporatist, feminist and welfarist governments are finally coming due. The US Dollar itself has lost over 95% of its purchasing value since 1913, with the remainder to follow soon enough, especially with Ben–”we aren’t borrowing or spending enough” Bernanke is at the unchallenged helm…
Once REALLY hard times start to begin, once the follies of the past two or three generations, including feminism, State enforced gender and racial “equality”, government “welfare” and so on MUST make themselves felt, and the “money”sustaining the sundry women’s and children’s programs runs out; it WILL turn out that the patriarchal family (as traditionally understood) is the only thing allowing people a chance for physical survival–and NOT even every family at that–I think that traditional values, including REAL marriage, may make a significant comeback.
Marriage IS obsolete, for now, as countless posts and articles in the Spearhead, as well as similar websites and blogs, make clear. The society who made it obsolete, and its parasitic elite classes, especially feminists and their “male” lapdogs, are however, inevitably going bankrupt! I only hope they don’t drag everyone else down with them!
Food for thought…
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
You did run angry Harry out of Here fifth horseman.
No, I didn’t. How does one even ‘run out’ another, that too without intending to do so.
Show me a specific comment of mine that qualifies as ‘running out’ AH, or shut up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
You did run angry Harry out of Here fifth horseman.
No, I didn’t. How does one even ‘run out’ another, that too without intending to do so?
Show me a specific comment of mine that qualifies as ‘running out’ AH, or shut up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
@ “TFH vs. Rob”
So the fuck what?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 3 trackbacks }