Marriage Isn’t Dying. It’s Dead.

by Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech on April 25, 2011

Lot’s of people say that marriage is dying because less and less people are getting married.  Many men are on a defacto marriage strike refusing to get married.  While marriage rates are going down and many men are on a defacto marriage strike, marriage isn’t dying.  It’s already dead.

What we think of as “marriage” or “traditional marriage” is marriage 1.0.  Marriage 1.0 was killed a few decades ago by legal changes and marriage 2.0 replaced it.  Most people don’t understand what the name, marriage 2.0, really communicates.  The version number concept comes from software engineering and changing the whole number in a version number says that there were major changes between version 1.0 and version 2.0.  When talking about marriage the use of “marriage 2.0″ is correct.  There were massive changes between marriage 1.0 and marriage 2.0.  Many people who use the term, marriage 2.0, don’t really understand this.  They think of marriage 2.0 as really being marriage 1.2 or marriage 1.02, minor changes not the major change it is.

When a new version of a software application comes out, no one is forced to upgrade to the new version.  They may choose to upgrade.  The software vendor may not support the old version anymore but there are no forced upgrades.  This is different than the change from marriage 1.0 to marriage 2.0.  There was a forced change to the new version of marriage.  Everyone who was in marriage 1.0 was forced into marriage 2.0.  Since whether marriage 1.0 or marriage 2.0 is available is determined by laws there can be only one or the other available at any time.  The only marriage anyone in a Western country can have is marriage 2.0.  It doesn’t matter if a person thinks there in a marriage 1.0 marriage  or “traditional marriage”.  They are not because it’s determined by the law, and the law in all Western countries only allows for marriage 1.0.

This is why marriage is already dead (in the West).  In every Western country marriage 1.0 is simply not an option no matter how much someone wants it.  Anyone who tries to push “marriage” or “traditional marriage” is really pushing marriage 2.0 and by extension pushing feminism (since marriage 2.0 is feminist marriage) whether they realize it or not.  There is no way of having a non-feminist marriage (or marriage 1.0 marriage or “traditional marriage”) unless a man expats.  (Bringing a woman from a non-feminist country to a Western country is not enough to avoid marriage 2.0 because it’s the laws that determine which version of marriage is in force.  Thus the man must expat if he wants a marriage 1.0 marriage.)

What does (non-feminist) marriage being completely dead and buried mean for us?  Unless a man is willing to permanently expat, he should not get married.  Anyone who is pushing marriage even if they claim they’re pushing “traditional marriage” is reallying pushing marriage 2.0, a feminist form of marriage.  Thus the marriage pushers are either useful idiots for feminism or have no real problem with feminist forms of marriage.  If any of the marriage pushers were really interested in rebuilding marriage 1.0, they would not be attempting to shame men into marrying or calling us hedonists or nihilists.  They would be in the courts challenging aspects of marriage 2.0 such as no fault divorce, and/or they would be setting up private marriage systems that actually reflect the “traditional marriage” they claim to believe in.  (Even if these things didn’t work, at least we would know that the social conservatives and traditionalist conservatives who push marriage were actually serious about “traditional marriage” and not attempt to pull a bait and switch on men.)  Because of all this marriage in the West is no longer an anti-feminist institution.  That kind of marriage is completely dead.  The current form of marriage, marriage 2.0, is a solidly feminist institution.  To support marriage now (unless said supports are legally challenging marriage 2.0, setting up private marriage systems, or encouraging men to expat to get married) is to support feminism.  Anyone in the West who is married is in a feminist marriage whether they like it or not.

{ 147 comments… read them below or add one }

demirogue April 25, 2011 at 05:10

The rise of single households is the biggest indication of it. In my neighborhood alone, I know of at least 4 houses occupied by only one man. Including mine. So not only is marriage on the way out, but slowly cohabitation as well.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 173 Thumb down 3
Philip April 25, 2011 at 05:19

Marriage is all about men providing and protecting women and children, but as we all know women have given that responsibility to government.
Women are really married to gov now, that is marriage 2.0.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 209 Thumb down 5
migu April 25, 2011 at 05:24

I get better conversation from my dogs. Why move a woman in?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 152 Thumb down 8
AfOR April 25, 2011 at 06:21

May I offer the following comment, while it doesn’t specifically address marriage per se, it does specifically address the issue of marriage, children, and legacies.

We as a (fucked up) society are today laying the foundations for an even more fucked up tomorrow.

http://wimminz.wordpress.com/2011-04/selling-your-soul/

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 3
scot April 25, 2011 at 06:28

The growing matriarchal underclass need an education, and gender-raunch leadership say…” Give the children dildos and condoms instead”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 8
Omega Man April 25, 2011 at 06:33

I made the mistakes of 1). Enlisting in the military and 2). Going to College, but after seeing what some of my divorced went through, I’m not going to make the mistake of getting married.

Many men can’t get jobs because womanoids dominate the in-human resources trades making harder for men to provide for themselves, let alone others.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 125 Thumb down 3
Aharon April 25, 2011 at 06:47

“If any of the marriage pushers were really interested in rebuilding marriage 1.0, they would not be attempting to shame men into marrying or calling us hedonists or nihilists.”

Great piece. It gave me a few good early morning laughs too. I fully agree with you.

While some women sincerely do not want marriage for various reasons, many still do. Refusing to cooperate (boycott!) and support today’s pro-feminist misandry marriage is the way to go to hopefully bring about a change that is fair and decent for everyone.

The huge police-nanny state is extremely costly to maintain. America isn’t just in huge debt from past fiscal mismanagement. America is bankrupt and living on borrowed time. The federal debts alone are far worse than most people can even imagine. There will be a collapse at some point.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 108 Thumb down 1
Omega Man April 25, 2011 at 06:48

Thanks for the link Afor, excellent article.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
McBain April 25, 2011 at 06:56

Common law marriages are going to make a comeback. The courts are already getting wise to those ducking marriage 2.0 by cohabitation. Can’t have that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 87 Thumb down 3
Angelo April 25, 2011 at 07:00

I wonder if parallel legislation could be set up that would allow couples getting married to choose either a 1.0 or 2.0 format.

There would still be some that are foolish enough to go for the 2.0, but as they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him smart.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
Omega Man April 25, 2011 at 07:01

Not surprising, McBain. I wonder if anybody remembers Lee Marvin’s former live-in girl friend suing for palimony which started some palimony suits.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 0
Abe April 25, 2011 at 07:03

“They are not because it’s determined by the law, and the law in all Western countries only allows for marriage 1.0.”
I think you meant to say “2.0″ in this passage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Herbal Essence April 25, 2011 at 07:07

I know I’ve posted something like this before, but it bears repeating.

American Women on the American Male:

“He’s a pervert. He’s a rapist. He’s controlling. He’s a neanderthal. He’s superfluous as a father. He’s only good for his money. He’s….OMG why won’t he marry us?!?!?!?!??!”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 178 Thumb down 3
Russ the Dogg April 25, 2011 at 07:13

Unlike my former home of michigan, Virginia has no common law marriage

I can’t help bu t notice the coincidence. The states with the worst feminist policies are in dire economic trouble, while more sensible ones are weathering the downturn with some strife, but aren’t in the worst shape.

======
A “common law marriage” is one in which the parties may hold themselves out as a husband and wife, and under certain circumstances, be deemed married without a marriage license or ceremony.

Virginia does not allow the creation of a “common law” marriage, a relationship in which a couple lives together but have not participated in a lawful ceremony. Unlike some other states, in Virginia a couple cannot acquire marital rights and responsibilities by living together for a particular period of time. You do not need legal action to end such a relationship, if it was created in Virginia.

However, Virginia does recognize as valid, common law marriages created in other states if the legal requirements of those states have been met. As a result, legal action is needed to dissolve legal “common law” marriages performed in other states and foreign countries in compliance with their licensing and ceremonial regulations. The courts are available for determining the rights of parties now living in Virginia.
======================

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
Common Monster April 25, 2011 at 07:14

Typo fixes needed:

It doesn’t matter if a person thinks there in a marriage 1.0 marriage or “traditional marriage”. They are not because it’s determined by the law, and the law in all Western countries only allows for marriage 1.0.

1) “there” should be “they’re”
2) You obviously meant “2.0″ right at the end, not “1.0″

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 10
Russ the Dogg April 25, 2011 at 07:23

oops.. looks like I was mistaken MI doesn’t have common law marriage either

Michigan Common Law Marriage
Michigan does not recognize common law marriages. However, the state does recognize common law marriages that were validly created in another state.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
mananon April 25, 2011 at 07:30

Common Monster

It’s a litlte konwn fcat msot popele can raed wodrs taht are not porplery splet as lnog as the initail and fanil letrtes are in the crocert psotiitn.

And anyway it’s impolite to point out people’s spelling mistaks.

:)

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 46 Thumb down 41
Jabberwocky April 25, 2011 at 07:33

http://io9.com/#!5651462/brain-scams-the-real-science-behind-sex-differences

If your bored and want to feel hate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Jabberwocky April 25, 2011 at 07:43
Hedgewolf April 25, 2011 at 07:44

MARRIAGE 2.0 hits the royal family!:
Kate Middleton omits the traditional “promise to obey” from the wedding vows:

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/royalwedding/2011/04/22/2011-04-22_kate_middleton_will_not_promise_to_obey_prince_william_during_royal_wedding_vows.html

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 0
AntZ April 25, 2011 at 07:44

“The version number concept comes from software engineering and changing the whole number in a version number says that there were major changes between version 1.0 and version 2.0.”

Sorry, but the “2.0″ in marriage 2.0 does not come from a version number, but from the number of husbands. Here is marriage 2.0:

Part 1: Find and marry husband number 1.0, a hard working and generous man who believes in duty and sacrifice. Then, search for and find “jerk” lover. Have desired number of children, is possible conceived in secret by jerk lover.

Part 2: File false restraining order against husband #1, divorce him, obtain primary custody, and transform him into personal ATM machine. Mary, or shack up with, “jerk” lover, herein called husband #2.

Hence the name: marriage 2.0, because each female “family” features 2 husbands. For convenience, these husbands can be known by their feminist call signs: beta bank and alpha dick.

End transmission.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 82 Thumb down 2
Ken April 25, 2011 at 07:46

Okay, its been said here on Spearhead before….
How much do you all want to bet that between now and 2020 the US Govt. passes a “bachelor tax” bill that targets single mens’ money to be re-distributed to wimminz’ “programs” and single-mom welfare checks?
The marriage strike has begun indeed, and Uncle Sugar in DC will react as
(s)he usually does by over-reaching!

Anyone need more Brasso? (to polish brass on the Titanic)

“FOXTROT TANGO!” (F*CK THAT!)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 80 Thumb down 3
Keyster April 25, 2011 at 07:50

Let’s be clear, it’s caucasians and negroes that are eschewing it in droves. Marriage is still very popular among the hispanic population in the USA.

In my neighborhood of about 60 homes, most are single inhabitants; retired or close to it white folk (like me). There are about 10 homes with hispanic families and their kids. Mexican kids are the ONLY kids in the neighborhood. There are NO caucasian families. Interestingly, many of the singles are siblings living next to, or across the street from each other.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 63 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky April 25, 2011 at 07:51

http://glorioussexism.tumblr.com/page/22

Put this one on your favorites list.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Hedgewolf April 25, 2011 at 07:53

Ken, the “bachelor tax” already exists, indirectly anyways. Its common knowledge that the tax codes favor households, and couples living together. However, I agree that the bottom will fall out eventually. The state will have no choice to revise the codes, substantially, singles may win in the end.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 2
Carnivore April 25, 2011 at 07:55

Great article. Just to add a bit – marriage 1.0 should probably be placed in the early to mid-19th century, with the “release” of marriage 1.1 and subsequent versions ongoing in the early to mid-20th century, up to the release of marriage 2.0. The later versions of the 1.0 load line got worse – more bugs were introduced.

The 1.x load line was supported by three legs – laws, societal norms, and religious norms. Depending on the time and place, societal and religious norms might have been more fused into one leg, but going into the 19th century and later, they tended to be more separate. For those who were not religious, the societal norms could be just as stringent. That is, society shunned and reined in the cad and slut.

With the 2.0 release, women still have the strong support of the law and society (i.e. white knighting) and, depending on the denomination, some form of religious support with shaming of males for not “committing” to the wonderful gals who have seen the light, jumped off the carousel, and converted.

For men, however, all three legs of support have been kicked out. There are a very few religious denominations which provide 1.x support for men in marriage. Even for those that do, the risk is women always have the exit provided by society and the law should they decide to dump their religious beliefs which trumps the religious card a man might hold. A man who is not religious has absolutely no support; his wife holds all the cards.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 0
DrDave April 25, 2011 at 08:00

With the marriage strike gaining momentum, in the future expect a few billion fem/mangina shaming comments directed at men who won’t “man up” and marry, a/k/a commit to indentured servitude to a woman. Other terms for marital indentured servitude are two-legged annuity or two-legged perpetual ATM.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 0
Common Monster April 25, 2011 at 08:09

I suppose it’s too late to rename it Marriage 0.x, because incrementing the version count makes it sound like there’s been some progress, improvements, bug fixes, and new features.

As it’s primarily a devolution back to previous casual forms of marriage, a decrement of some sort would seem to be called for. Further changes would then result in negative version numbers, which would more accurately reflect out attitudes.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
Ken April 25, 2011 at 08:15

Less and Less children will be birthed as well! (more noticeable in the next 10 years or so) Western Civilization is in its death-throes.
When the total-collapse comes, where-oh-where will Candy Cupcake, Susie Sucksalot, Frumpy Franny, and Lilly Lesbian get protection from?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 76 Thumb down 2
mananon April 25, 2011 at 08:20

Ken, I’d happily pay a bachelor tax, if that ends up being the price for a peaceful life then that’s something worth while.

But it may not happen for a long time. For one thing there’s plenty of single women too, and Government wouldn’t want to be seen to be persecuting women. If it did happen Government would need to differentiate between male and female taxpayers, something they wouldn’t dare do lest such a move gives MRMs and their supporters something obvious to campaign over.

That’s where Government is so clever. Make sure sexism against men is as indirect and obscurely implemented as possible. Make it too obvious and people might complain…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 1
Ken April 25, 2011 at 08:29

I think Uncle Sugar will do precisely that! (over-reach) and differentiate men from women in the future (tax code) I actually hope they’re that arrogant….more and more men will say WTF?!! and react accordingly.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 3
Herbal Essence April 25, 2011 at 08:42

Ken-”I think Uncle Sugar will do precisely that! (over-reach) and differentiate men from women in the future (tax code) I actually hope they’re that arrogant….more and more men will say WTF?!! and react accordingly.”

What will probably happen is that the female supremacists on the Right (known as Social Conservatives) will form an alliance with the female supremacists on the Left (known as the Democratic Party) to create more tax breaks for married couples and families with children.
That way, the Social Conservatives can pat themselves on the back for pushing more young men off a cliff. And the Democratic Party can get back in the good graces of Latinos (who like marriage) and Seniors (who enjoy seeing their grandsons get pushed off cliffs.)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 4
Rumor April 25, 2011 at 08:45

The sad thing is that “men” (males) are their own worst enemy. Too many still hold these illusions of being a husband and father with a house, kids, dog, etc. … living the American dream. That dream is gone baby.

Female power is a myth. When you refuse to move out of your home after a judge declares your marriage over … they send male police. When you lose your job and can’t pay child support … they send male police. Most legislators are male, mose CEO’s and top management of companies are male. Females only get because males give in to them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 69 Thumb down 3
Alcuin April 25, 2011 at 08:54

The problem with the marriage strike is that any male in education or any of the other female-dominated occupations get to listen to middle-aged and rapidly-aging single bitches whine all day and vomit their emotional sick over everyone else. It gets to the point where they follow you out after work and “walk with you” a few blocks to the subways station, and “vent” all the while. If you don’t play the nice guy, they start in on you with gossip, accusation, and so on.

Best to avoid western woman altogether. Go west, young men. To China.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 6
greyghost April 25, 2011 at 09:05

“The sad thing is that “men” (males) are their own worst enemy. Too many still hold these illusions of being a husband and father with a house, kids, dog, etc. … living the American dream. That dream is gone baby.”
The illusion is more palatable than reality. Through the ignorance of 24/7 brainwashing lies these men know of no other way to live. Marriage today is one of the biggest institutional lies there is.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 1
Ken April 25, 2011 at 09:06

and they wonder why MEN are the majority fans of ‘apocalyptic” films such as TERMINATOR, DAWN OF THE DEAD, etc.??
Because we actually enjoy watching pretty lies and pretty socialism collapse into destruction and only MEN can save the day (too bad it’s fiction, hunh?)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 3
GhostShip April 25, 2011 at 09:22

Marriage as an institution is DEAD in the Western world and has been for a long while. What the Western world now refers to the institution of marriage is nothing more than the left over tradition of the its outer appearance.

The feminists always complain that marriage is a system designed to support patriarchy and for once they’re right. The institution of marriage is a three way (Four if you include religion as most will) mutually beneficial contractual arraignment. The man agrees to support and protect his wife. In exchange the woman agrees to remain faithful to him “GIVE HIM” children. (This meant that any children born from the marriage were custodial his.) The state agreed to recognize the marriage and the mans custodial rights and enforce the terms of agreement.

Now it might seem that the state under marriage 1.0 did not receive any benefit but that’s not the case. The core of society is always made up of women and children but civilization is built by men. That may be called a sexist statement but it’s also the truth. The state needs men in order to thrive but men are not going to fully put forth the effort if there’s nothing in it for them and it won’t be just for an occasional piece of tail. However, men will fight, die, and work their fingers to the bone in order to have a family and that’s why the custody part was such a big part of the institution of marriage. This used to be common knowledge and back in the day it was acknowledged that when a woman married she bore him (To which he had primary legal custody) children.

Until we adopt the policy that children born from marriage are the legal custody of the husband and children born outside of marriage belong to the mother there will be no hope of resurrecting marriage 1.0 from its grave.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
universe April 25, 2011 at 09:27

Ken, I’d happily pay a bachelor tax, if that ends up being the price for a peaceful life then that’s something worth while.
But it may not happen for a long time. For one thing there’s plenty of single women too, and Government wouldn’t want to be seen to be persecuting women.
That’s where Government is so clever. Make sure sexism against men is as indirect and obscurely implemented as possible.

So, instead, men become the targets.
Because men themselves allow this to occur.
But, this is all going to change.
Right?
(right?)
(Somebody give me an A may-en!)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3
Rebel April 25, 2011 at 09:39

I don’t know if marriage is dead, but it’s announcement will be great news.

Think about it: would YOU bring children into this society that is being destroyed?
If fewer and fewer children are born, they will be pampered like precious gems and then… when they grow up…OMG!

Do you imagine your child(ren) growing in such a toxic environement, specially if you have BOYS!
I would call that child cruelty.

The good news is… that the West makes up about 5 or 6 % of the total world population. There are still plenty of fish for Western men who are willing to move to other regions of the world and settle there.

But if you plan on staying in your Western country, then don’t make the mistake of marrying.
Should you still caress the dream of having a family, then you will have to make a very hard choice. And that choice (your only one) is to emigrate to a man friendly place. Luckily, such places still abound: not in the West, however.

In the end, IF men wake up, it will be women who will be stuck between a rock and a hard place, which was their chosing to begin with.

So, essentially, men’s dilemma is to chose between TWO alternatives: 1-Stay single in a Western country or 2-Emigrate and found your own family.

Seen in that perspective, it simplifies the equation greatly, doesn’t it?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Ken April 25, 2011 at 09:41

“MARRIAGE 2.0 hits the royal family!:
Kate Middleton omits the traditional “promise to obey” from the wedding vows:”>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yep, no shocker there…..
How much y’all wanna bet Kate is riding some other man’s root before 2012, maybe some pos American sports “hero”?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 4
scot April 25, 2011 at 09:51

60 % of all American college grads are women, and this is estimated to be “2 out of every 3″ college grads to be women by year 2020.
Men have been the main protector and provider for women and children since recorded history, and this has been hard wired into the female brain ( to seek out a good provider), you could say its her nature.
So in the very near future, when women can’t find an man as educated as her to start a family, she will then have a growing sense of “theres something wrong here, but she herself may not be able to articulate it”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 1
Common Monster April 25, 2011 at 09:58

The problem women and other matriphiliacs have now was best expressed by Yogi: If people ain’t comin’ to the ballpark, how ya gonna stop `em?

I hear the Marlins are going to sluttify — I mean, add cheerleaders — next year with their new park, though other places find success merely by always trying to have quality players and good teams. What a concept.

Ok, the free souvenirs and $1 hotdog coupons help, too. Marriage is so far gone that even them going BOGO with it wouldn’t make any dif. Twice nothing is still nothing. Maybe they need to give out more comp passes — the good seats, not the bleachers out in the upper-deck outfield — though even those would have to be accompanied by get-out-of-jail-free cards to be worth wanting to risk using.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) April 25, 2011 at 09:59

“demirogue April 25, 2011 at 05:10
The rise of single households is the biggest indication of it. In my neighborhood alone, I know of at least 4 houses occupied by only one man. ”

This is also true over here in Germany. I see a LOT of guys in their 30s who are not married and NOT living with anyone. This was RARE in Australia 30 years ago. Here it is ‘normal’.

“Jabberwocky April 25, 2011 at 07:43″

From the article you linked…

“We all know what Hugh Hefner thinks of women, and his outdated misogyny has already been analyzed to death.”

This is how stupid women are:

Misogyny is currently defined to be ‘hatred of women’. Hugh Heffner is the LAST man on the planet that you could make the argument he hates women..He has been VERY open that he LOVES women….just as often as he can.

Gentlemen. These feminists are THAT dumb. Why would you talk to them?

(I posted into the comments….lets see if the strong and independent woman will approve the comment…methinks not! LOL!!)

Yes. Marriage as in 1.0 is deader than a doornail. It is possible to marry into the future using the marriage agreement template (Link below). But this requires men to be willing to hold women accountable for their contracts. And so far men are showing now signs of being so. Of course. It is arguable that there is no point at all in holding women to contracts and that men should just contract among themselves.

Speaking of which. I have found a colleague who is willing to host mens only sites using only men to do the hosting work. I’ve mentioned to him that I have proposed in the MRA area that men move all their online business to a mens only area and that censorship etc is ruled out. My colleague is willing to do this. The proposal is I create a ‘front end store’ and my colleague gets his staff to do all the work.

If men want to discuss his more openly here on a separate post? I think it’s worth discussing. The recent spate of closures of web sites by the fem-nazis indicates that these manginas that run these places can not be trusted.

http://www.peternolan.com/Forums/tabid/420/forumid/58/threadid/587/scope/posts/Default.aspx

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 7
mgtow April 25, 2011 at 10:16

Marriage dead? Marriage dying?

You forgot the most important one:

Marriage DEADENS. Doesn’t matter if it’s version 1.0 or 2.0.
(Although in 2.0, the deal for men is shittier and the game is also further rigged against men.)

A man stands to gain NOTHING from marriage. On top of that, there is a real risk that he may lose everything.

Just like investments, I prefer to take calculated, educated and potentially profitable risk. Therefore, this excludes marriage.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 3
Rebel April 25, 2011 at 10:29

@mgtow:

This reminds me of a famous phrase coined by Leo Ferre (he was a French singer). He said: “Marriage is the most abominable institution that was ever created on earth.”

That was back in the sixties.
He was right then. Today, his phrase is a huge understatement.

Marriage is nothing short of slavery for men, whatever angle you look at it from.

Marriage kills your freedom, it hurts your health in a most vicious way, it causes pain untold and it destroys your soul completely. Furthermore, your children are used against you in order to crucify you. Tell me: do you love your country? Nice place to live, ain’t it?

Marriage is quickly becoming the number one cause of death for men.

Any takers?

Any lemmings willing to jump off a cliff?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 3
Herbal Essence April 25, 2011 at 10:29

Also note that “polyamory” is growing in popularity among Leftist and Hippie chicks. Polyamory lets women hold onto the security of a provider male while keeping the carousel options available for when she’s feeling frisky. There are even polyamorous couples who are in “open marriages.” Why any man would agree to this, raising his chances of being cuckolded, and still risking a divorce ass-raping, I do not understand.

Polyamory seems like another “double-down” of female privilege in society. “I get the financial security of marriage AND the joys of slutting it up!”

Roissy has already written extensively on Polyamory. He wasn’t complimentary. http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/polyamory-is-disguised-polygamy/

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1
P. Gibson April 25, 2011 at 10:31

a man gains only one thing when he’s married: responsibility.

all of those other things like companionship, admiration, sex – well that was only a temporary that thing she forced herself to do while you dated.

But it was just temporary.
keep dating; when they turn on you it is permanent.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 2
Rumor April 25, 2011 at 10:34

@ scot

“60 % of all American college grads are women, and this is estimated to be “2 out of every 3? college grads to be women by year 2020.”

and with it that high quality paper and neato gold sticker they will bring … large sums of debt for some sucker to pay off … in exchange for access to her vagina of course.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1
Robert April 25, 2011 at 10:37

All forms of marriage are hell for men. The imposed role on men are still the same as they were in marriage 1.0.

Marriage of either version is still enslavement of men.

Under the social construct of chivalry, men were/are stil: hellcatchers/”beasts of burden”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 2
Rumor April 25, 2011 at 10:38

More men living single will allow them to build meaningful and productive relationships with other men and to mentor and inform younger men. During my marriage, I found this nearly impossible. My wife didn’t like it when I hung out with other men w/out her and their wives. I was a pussy and went along … I know better now.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 1
mananon April 25, 2011 at 10:42

I believe it was Oscar Wilde who once said “bigamy is the practice of having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same”.

It was true then, it’s even more now!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 2
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) April 25, 2011 at 10:44

Gentlemen,
it’s appropriate to remind the young men of the ‘woolly mammoth’ story. This is what marriage has ALWAYS been about. It has ALWAYS been about enslaving the young men to a woman to provide for the woman, children, and old men. If you think it has EVER been any different? I have some beach front property in nevada I would like to sell you.

This only has 478 views so far. It should be in the 1000s.

http://www.peternolan.com/Forums/tabid/420/forumid/58/threadid/577/scope/posts/Default.aspx

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 6
Ken April 25, 2011 at 10:48
Joe Zamboni April 25, 2011 at 11:03

Things have to go to an extreme before they become painfully out of whack, and then noticed by many people, and consequently properly attended to. The situation with men in western societies, as exemplified by the marriage laws, is a good example. It is painfully out of whack, and starting to get noticed by many people, and soon it will be attended to (we MRAs can and should help this process along). In the meanwhile, it is important for us men NOT to put ourselves in harms way, by co-habitating without a written co-habitation agreement, or by marrying. Balance between the genders is coming back, but not without a lot of damage, and a lot of destruction of the old ways.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
escaped slave April 25, 2011 at 11:11

Meanwhile, Yahoo’s top headline is “hollywoods hotest 40+ actresses”

I noticed that they are all single. Can women get any more delusional?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 1
Ken April 25, 2011 at 11:28

“Meanwhile, Yahoo’s top headline is “Hollywoods hotest 40+ actresses” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No doubt they’re all SINGLE! Unless they marry someone at their own financial level which is narrower and narrower when sweet-cheeks becomes a multi-millionaire or they go slumming (a la Britney Spears) what man wants them outside the fantasy-f*ck? :)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Aharon April 25, 2011 at 11:34

“My wife didn’t like it when I hung out with other men w/out her and their wives”.

Especially wives hate it if you hang out with other men who are single. Many wives and girlfriends want to be there to observe and supervise the behavior of their property err men. Of course girls night out is fine and acceptable. It is disgusting when males submit to even the girlfriends who have the arrogance and nerve to pressure guys into changing their personal habits ie poker night with the guys, softball league, fishing, and reading, etc. so the woman can selfishly do more exploiting.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1
blert April 25, 2011 at 11:35

For those paying attention: the co-eds are getting degrees in Feminism, womens studies and the like.

They are all trash degrees for the most part.

STEM oriented degrees — very rarely.

The result is females with anti-knowledge and crazed self-evaluations.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 1
phil white April 25, 2011 at 11:35

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 41
Herbal Essence April 25, 2011 at 11:45

phil white- “Men have got to rescue the culture of the West.”

Nope. Men have to protect themselves from a culture that treats them as a battery and as cannon fodder. Men also have to shun white supremacists who are among the most disgusting, chivalrous, self-defeating pussy beggars around.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 73 Thumb down 10
Common Monster April 25, 2011 at 11:57

> Men have got to rescue the culture of the West.

Who says? And what for?

And why me? I didn’t break it, so why is it suddenly my responsibility, when “the culture of the West” hates me?

Lots of people have made the case that marriage is the foundational bedrock of society. The point of the article is if marriage is gone/dead, there’s nothing left to rescue.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 6
Rebel April 25, 2011 at 11:58

@Phil white:

““Men have got to rescue the culture of the West.”

In return for your life given away freely, you will be kicked in the teeth.
And then your body will be crucified by the roadside: women will glady piss on your rotting corpse. You will really feel their hate: that’s how they will thank you.

You can have your dreams…but to me it sounds more like a nightmare.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 6
V10 April 25, 2011 at 12:10

Agreed, an overt Bachelor Tax would tip their hand too much.

Stay in as low a tax bracket as possible, have a comfortable lifestyle without trying to keep up with the hyper-consumerist Jones, and starve the fuckers.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
Ken April 25, 2011 at 12:33

“Nope. Men have to protect themselves from a culture that treats them as a battery and as cannon fodder”>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

*Absolutely! That is in the nutshell 100%….couldn’t have said it better :)

“Men also have to shun white supremacists who are among the most disgusting, chivalrous, self-defeating pussy beggars around”>>>>>>>>>>

*To each his own, but I just warn against buddying with radicals of any persuasion as they typically do not appear to be 100% what they espouse!
I once knew a guy who was overtly a White Supremacist and wouldn’t get into it at work, but off-duty he was way too angry to be cool. I also discovered that for all the race talk he did, he had on his video shelf a collection of X-rated videotapes….ALL of them of “interracial” theme!
Seems the dude liked watching black men with white women, despite all the WS talk he blathered on about….like I said, be careful about “radicals”!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3
livingwell April 25, 2011 at 12:35

you go V10. Love it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti April 25, 2011 at 13:26

*EW pulls pin on grenade and throws it*

“Anyone who tries to push “marriage” or “traditional marriage” is really pushing marriage 2.0 and by extension pushing feminism (since marriage 2.0 is feminist marriage) whether they realize it or not. There is no way of having a non-feminist marriage (or marriage 1.0 marriage or “traditional marriage”) unless a man expats.

If any of the marriage pushers were really interested in rebuilding marriage 1.0, they would not be attempting to shame men into marrying or calling us hedonists or nihilists.”

Shenanigans on all claims.

I push trad-marriage, and do so in a way that undermines feminism, not supports it. I am no femmarxists’ useful idiot.

Moreover, I am living proof that the claim “no way of having a non-feminist marriage…unless a man expats” is false. As are quite a few of my friends.

Further, some of us that do advocate for qualified men to marry do not shame men into doing it. A man should be ashamed for things like failing to keep his dick in his pants, for abandoning his dependents, or for bringing dishonor to his family. This are good things to shame other men for, because they are destructive and destabilizing. But not all of those who push marriage attempt to shame guys into it; we recognize there is a risk, as with everything in life, and the risk is substantial. Even though steps can be taken to mitigate this risk, in the end, each man needs to decide for himself whether the juice is worth the squeeze. Let me repeat that again: these choices are ours to make.

Finally, regarding the labels “hedonist” or “nihilist”, I submit that if a fellow makes a habit of banging women outside of the marriage bond, that guy is doing more to hinder the return of marriage 1.0 than hasten its restoration.

If you want marriage 1.0, it means that you have to find a marriage 1.0 kinda gal. They are not plentiful, to be sure, but they exist. Start with ones who don’t flinch, not one iota, at uttering “obey” in their vows to you, unlike, apparently, Ms. Middleton, and her predecessor, Princess Diana.

But this point about the scarcity of marriage quality women, while true, is irrelevant. The more salient point is this: How qualified is each man here to be the kind of husband that a woman fit for marriage 1.0 deserves? Are each of us the kind of fellow we would want his daughter to be marrying?

I don’t say this accusingly, it is (and should) be a pretty high bar. Even now, I struggle each and every day to be the kind of husband and father that my wife and my children deserve and my Redeemer demands. Humbling? Yes. But humility in a leader is good.

We want marriage 1.0 back. This is good. But in the process of looking for the marriage 1.0 woman, I suggest we ensure that we’re marriage 1.0 kinds of guys while we’re at it.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 32 Thumb down 32
MWPeak April 25, 2011 at 14:09

Maybe it’s time to DBAN the hard drive and reinstall the OS.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Proverbs 2 April 25, 2011 at 14:20

16Wisdom will save you from the immoral woman,

from the seductive words of the promiscuous woman.

17She has abandoned her husband

and ignores the covenant she made before God.

18Entering her house leads to death;

it is the road to the grave.b

19The man who visits her is doomed.

He will never reach the paths of life.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Gunn April 25, 2011 at 14:22

@EW: whilst I have some sympathy for those who push for traditional marriage, I think what PMAFT is saying is that under the law, the only game in town is marriage 2.0. So by all means, you may look for a ‘marriage 1.0 kinda gal’ but if the shit hits the fan, despite all the effort and discrimination a man has put into the process, he will find himself at the mercy of the marriage 2.0 machine.

For those berating Kate Middleton for not choosing to ‘obey’, she has a notable role model who did the same – Diana, William’s mother. I suspect that William buys into the whole chivalry / white knight / marriage 1.0 type of thing, but then he has a distinct advantage – in the event of a divorce, Kate’s not going to walk away with half of Britain…

In more general terms, if Diana had not so obviously been made more sympathetic by the behaviour of her husband, there is no way in hell the british public would have accepted her affairs and indiscretions; she was, after all, the mother of the future king.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Proverbs 2 April 25, 2011 at 14:22

16Wisdom will save you from the immoral woman,

from the seductive words of the promiscuous woman.

17She has abandoned her husband

and ignores the covenant she made before God.

18Entering her house leads to death;

it is the road to the grave.

19The man who visits her is doomed.

He will never reach the paths of life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Elusive Wapiti April 25, 2011 at 14:37

@ Gunn,

I agree with PMAFT on the point you raised. Legally, marriage 2.0 is it, despite all maneuvering to the contrary. All power rests in her hands, should she choose to use it.

But that leaves men in a quandary, particularly religious men who are the only men I advise get married and who are required to marry before they have sex.

Thus, for these fellows, the only crowd I exhort to marry, the choice is to get married or be celibate. They have advantages that the rank and file do not–being morally and spiritually compatible with a woman who is much more likely to keep her word than other women.

As for calling what I advise an accomplice to feminism, I’ve suffered that accusation before and its as much baloney now as it was then.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 12
RVT April 25, 2011 at 14:42

EW – Some women in modern America would make good wives. There are some lottery tickets out there that would make me a millionaire. I can’t think of a good reason to waste my time searching for either.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 0
TFH April 25, 2011 at 14:47

EW,

If you want marriage 1.0, it means that you have to find a marriage 1.0 kinda gal.

Too few exist. And the risks of it ‘not working out’ are all borne by the man.

PMAFT is correct that those seeking to restore traditional marriage have to work towards overturning misandric laws. No action other than that is a serious action in ressurecting Marriage 1.0.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
TFH April 25, 2011 at 14:49

But that leaves men in a quandary, particularly religious men who are the only men I advise get married and who are required to marry before they have sex.

Then their religion failed them. There is no shortage of comments here about how churches have become crucubles of whiteknighting and female ego-boosting.

So many women in the churches are sluts who turn 30 and want to get a man before it is too late, but are already too damaged for marriage.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2
TFH April 25, 2011 at 14:52

Thus, for these fellows, the only crowd I exhort to marry, the choice is to get married or be celibate. They have advantages that the rank and file do not–being morally and spiritually compatible with a woman who is much more likely to keep her word than other women.

Transferring all risk onto the man, is unethical. Especially when so many women in churches only went there when they conveniently wanted to ‘reform’.

The problem with modern American Christianity and the socon beliefs around it is that there is far, far too little accountability placed on the woman. If you look at socon opposition to abortion, they will do everything other than seek to hold the woman accountable for her own behavior. That is why social conservatism is among the biggest failures around.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
classic Joe April 25, 2011 at 15:35

“So many women in the churches are sluts who turn 30 and want to get a man before it is too late, but are already too damaged for marriage.”

The ones who aren’t sluts are either 1,200 lbs or have personalities so grating they could make helen keller run screaming from the room.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 1
Keyser Soze April 25, 2011 at 15:47

These so called conservative women are just better at tricking men than their “liberal” sisters. Its funny how they always find a way to make everything a man’s fault.

It is insane to marry in any of the “western” countries

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 2
Aharon April 25, 2011 at 15:56

“The ones who aren’t sluts are either 1,200 lbs or have personalities so grating they could make helen keller run screaming from the room”.

— That comment above by classic joe is one of the best comments of this century.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
Herbal Essence April 25, 2011 at 15:58

Elusive Wapiti-
I would never accuse you of being a white knight, feminist enabler, or useful idiot. I know that’s not what you’re about. But I still feel like you’re dancing around one of the major problems PMAFT is spotlighting.

If a 1.0 man and a 1.0 woman get married, they are still marrying in a society with a 2.0 system. And that means, if that 1.0 woman does a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde down the road, she can avail herself of the 2.0 system. And there is nothing our beleaguered 1.0 man can do about it. It’s not like he can take her in hand, as husbands were able to in the past. And as TFH points out, 1.0 men can no longer depend on their church to keep the women in line either. I’ve seen this very scenario happen to religious male friends I grew up with. They did everything they were supposed to do to find the right woman, but still got screwed because of the system they married into.

Why is it so wrong for PMAFT to point out that traditional marriage advocates should create an alternate system?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
greyghost April 25, 2011 at 16:08

EW you must think you have a good woman. I am married coming on 11 years now and there is no way in hell I could honestly recommend mariage to any man, no fuckin way. All we need is for men to have a man birth control pill and rest will take can of itself. As stated earlier 41 percent of all kids are born outside of marriage. That number needs to be 4 to 7 percent and 80 percent of those need to be born in the underclass. Don’t marry and starve this beast. BTW EW you are not bullet proof. The laws say you don’t mean shit to anybody. All it takes is a slight change in attitude from honey. you losing a job and you are done. And nobody I mean nobody will give a damn.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 2
Rebel April 25, 2011 at 16:30

@RVT April 25, 2011 at 14:42
EW – Some women in modern America would make good wives. ”

That’s possible.

But I wonder if men still want that anymore…

I’m not so sure now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Herbal Essence April 25, 2011 at 16:50

Rebel-”I wonder if men still want that (good wives) anymore…I’m not so sure now.”

True. Women very well may re-boot 1.0 only to discover the men have loaded a new operating system.

Envision a future where millions of women are ready to be dedicated 1.0 wives. They’ve seen what Feminism did to women, and they don’t want a part of it. They’ve been home-schooled, taken their home-ec lessons, and spent three nights a week at church. At 18, their minds are pure, their hymens are intact, their labias are unspoiled, and they quiver at the thought of a traditional man galloping in to sweep them off their feet….and then 65 years later they die alone with cats.

D’oh!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
Elusive Wapiti April 25, 2011 at 17:01

@ TFH,

“Too few exist. And the risks of it ‘not working out’ are all borne by the man.

PMAFT is correct that those seeking to restore traditional marriage have to work towards overturning misandric laws. No action other than that is a serious action in ressurecting Marriage 1.0.”

I’m already on record as stating that I agree that the bulk of men should avoid marriage because, as you say, the costs of it “not working out”–as if a marriage failing is an event that strikes at random with no human input whatsoever–are all borne by the man. I think this is wrong and I openly ack that and agree.

I make exceptions in my avoid marriage counsel for the religious guys, because (a) the risk environment they are in is not the same as that experienced by other men, and (b) their faith requires them to behave in ways that do not constrain most men.

I also agree that those seeking to restore trad marriage must work to reform the law.

But this will take time. A lot of it, as in most of us will probably be dead and buried before the changes we seek come to pass. After all, the “tender years” doctrine came into being in the late 1800s/early 1900s…I suspect it will take approximately that long to swing the pendulum the other way and fully disincentivize divorce for women.

In the interim, what is offered by the manosphere at large as a ameliorative for all these men striking from marriage? Presently, nothing, as far as I can tell. Nothing that is, other than to avoid marriage, bang all the chicks one can successfully game (or wank off to porn for those who can’t game), and make sure that a man maintains strict control over the disposition of his genetic material.

In other words, other than pushing for revised legislation as a tiny oppressed minority that the majority doesn’t give a shite about–and let’s face it, MRAs are a very small, undercapitalized, and politically powerless minority–nothing substantive is presented other than enjoying the ride on the Carousel while hoping that the society we live in craters.

Not much of a plan.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 14
Elusive Wapiti April 25, 2011 at 17:14

@ Herbal,

“And that means, if that 1.0 woman does a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde down the road, she can avail herself of the 2.0 system.”

I don’t disagree. I myself have been ensnared by such a scenario.

“Why is it so wrong for PMAFT to point out that traditional marriage advocates should create an alternate system?”

It’s not wrong. What I objected to was the accusation that my support for marriage was on par with pushing feminism. And also that it was not possible to have a non-feminist marriage in our present legal climate.

What I would like to know is what are these “private marriage systems” that PMAFT speaks of. I’ve been away lately, and may have missed where these were discussed here at SH. Does anyone have any examples?

In the meantime, I push trad marriage in the context of growing a patriarchal culture from the ground up. So while folks are working the marital laws, especially requiring a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting (which takes away much of the incentive to divorce because it doesn’t allow either spouse full control of the post-divorce climate and kids and the $ that come with the kids), I advocate for marriage-minded trad men to re-build patriarchal civilization, one family at a time.

We become the change we want to see, and we raise generations of young men and women who choose to reject Mammon in favor of a patriarchy that honors and treats both sexes better than the present system. You (Herbal) capture what I’m getting at perfectly with this:
“Envision a future where millions of women are ready to be dedicated 1.0 wives. They’ve seen what Feminism did to women, and they don’t want a part of it. They’ve been home-schooled, taken their home-ec lessons, and spent three nights a week at church. At 18, their minds are pure, their hymens are intact, their labias are unspoiled, and they quiver at the thought of a traditional man galloping in to sweep them off their feet….and then 65 years later they die alone with cats.”
I was with you until the “cats” piece, because for this to work, both sexes are going to have to sign onto it. That means us guys. And that means those guys that are enabling the present system by f*cking and chucking gotta knock that crap off. Behavior such as that prevents the return of a patriarchal system where all those beta, delta, and gamma men can look forward to wives.

The focus on church is crucial, the homeschooling is crucial, and changing the expected flow of life for girls from HS-college-marriage-babies-divorce to family-marriage-babies-college-stillmarriedafter50years is crucial. For boys it will change too, to family-job training/college-marriage-babies-stillmarriedafter50years.

My support for marriage is in this context of a ground-up restoration of patriarchy.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 10
Common Monster April 25, 2011 at 17:42

Speaking of bigamy…

“When you marry you’re not just getting a boss. You’re getting two. You’re getting the law, the State, as a silent second spouse. And since it’s the law, this bigamy is legal.”
– Jed H. Abraham

I suppose that’s why it being version 2 is appropriate after all: To unfix this will generally require reforming two wives.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Oilsands April 25, 2011 at 18:31

There’s no need IMO, to worry too much on marriage.

The economic momentum will take care of this in a hard and natural way.
The false premises, and false culture will fall in the face of this onslaught.

The focus should be on being prepared and ready to take advantage of it. This can be on a personal level such as advocated by E.W. or as some sort of movement.

Be thinking, exactly what are the terms ( and you WILL construct them ) that I will agree to any sort of union?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
greyghost April 25, 2011 at 18:32

No way man, women are going to pay for this shit with big time indifference from men. I have a ten and seven year old daughters and if it means both get to 45 childless and never married so be it. I like the idea of 65 year old women showing up on animal planet with animal cops cleaning out their houses full dead and dying cats. The more the better. If empowered cunts get gamed out of their child bearing years by a bunch of gamers on birth control pills,good. Rather than try to make women marriage 1.0 let them make themslves marriage 1.0 . Like was said earlier MRA’s are a small “fuck those guys” minority. So instead of fixing society we “fix” society. Our effort should be to give as much alternatives for men possible. We should make a male birth control pill and then an artificial womb. Rather than making or looking for a wife that does not exist men will find a carousel riding skank and buy an egg off the bitch to put in his fake womb. I would much rather work in that direction than saving a bunch of ungraitful cunts and manginas with their whiteknight heros. MGTOW on a global scale that last long enough for women to fight each other is what it is going to take. Maybe when the female suicide rate gets to the male rate plus 8 percent (feminist equality standards) I may think about maybe taking a look. But until women themselves rush the government to change the laws fuck them and leave them childless and too old to want.
I wouldn’t wish marriage on any man. It is nothing but a cruel sucker deal.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 2
TFH April 25, 2011 at 18:33

EW,

I make exceptions in my avoid marriage counsel for the religious guys, because (a) the risk environment they are in is not the same as that experienced by other men, and (b) their faith requires them to behave in ways that do not constrain most men.

Except, again, a lot of women who are sluts go to church and pretend they are ‘reformed’ in order to get a provider. The church is not taking into account that a lot of women there are not genuine, and doesn’t seem to care that men get swindled in the process.

Presently, nothing, as far as I can tell.

That is right. There is zero push to overturn laws.

Personal choices to reduce risk and non-compliance with the system are all that exists. That is powerful too, as more unmarried women miss the chance at a husband, but there is probably going to be no real push for Men’s Rights in the judicial space (I have said this often, which offends some people).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader April 25, 2011 at 18:39

Keyster
In my neighborhood of about 60 homes, most are single inhabitants; retired or close to it white folk (like me). There are about 10 homes with hispanic families and their kids. Mexican kids are the ONLY kids in the neighborhood. There are NO caucasian families. Interestingly, many of the singles are siblings living next to, or across the street from each other.

How many of those families include married parents? I have friends and relations all across the Southwest and the tell me the same thing: lots of children living with their mother and grandmother and maybe the mother’s boyfriend. Married parents are as rare in the poor Hispanic zones as in poor Black areas of the South. And for many of the same reasons.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
TFH April 25, 2011 at 18:52

If a 1.0 Man marries a 2.0 woman pretending to be 1.0, he gets swindled. The church does nothing to keep women in line.

The good news is that feminist women abusing the church will cause the fascade to collapse rather quickly, as more and more men see the church as incapable of living up to the ideals that it claims.

Why is it so wrong for PMAFT to point out that traditional marriage advocates should create an alternate system?

Remember that a lot of socons have no capacity to hold a woman accountable for their actions. They can no more face shaming language from a woman than a Muslim can eat pork.

A lot of church-going socons are exactly the same as lefty manginas – they are only cloaking their pedestalization in religion.

EW is not one of these socons, of course. But he does seem to give insufficient attention to the fact that many sluts conveniently pretend to be religious in order to get a man, only to take advantage of Marriage 2.0 laws down the line.

Now a real solution would be if the church mandated pre-nups, signed in the presence of many church heavies, that mandates any divorce to be resolved by a church-appointed panel of parties representing both sides, effectively would bring great shame on anyone who tried to use the courts to extract money/custody. That would at least deter some women seeking a marriage 2.0 payout.

But the church is not interested in this, as it would incur shaming language from women (again, their biggest fear in the universe).

A young man who thinks the church has his back, will find himself swindled.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
Elusive Wapiti April 25, 2011 at 19:12

@ TFH,

“Except, again, a lot of women who are sluts go to church and pretend they are ‘reformed’ in order to get a provider. “

I am also on record as telling men to not marry sluts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech April 25, 2011 at 21:04

@EW

You’re not a “marriage pusher”. That’s a description for the Laura Woods, Mark Richardsons, Altes, Paiges, etc., all those who refuse to admit that there are real dangers to men. No one is accusing you (or guys like you such as Dalrock, to give another example).

There was a commenter on Richardson’s blog who put it right, “Laws matter”. What determines whether you’re in a marriage 2.0 marriage or a marriage 1.0 marriage is the law, not your desires, not if you married in the church. You may be married in the church, but if you’re wife does a Jekyll and Hyde then you won’t be divorced in the church. The state handles the divorce. This means that any marriage happening in a western country is a marriage 2.0 marriage, a feminist marriage. As a result marriage in the West is a feminist institution.

The marriage pushers are pushing for men to get married RIGHT NOW regardless of the state of modern marriage and the state of marriage law. The net effect of this is to make feminism more powerful by feeding feminism more men to suck dry. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about religious people or not. The divorce rate is as high in the church as it is outside the church.

Does this leave religious guys in a quandary? Yes, but not the quandary you think it does. Even if a religious guy chooses celibacy, it won’t matter as far as the church is concerned. As the churches have become centers of whiteknighting, female ego boosting, and misandry, everything a man does is a sin in their eyes. To them if you’re a celibate man, you’re denying a woman a marriage and are either fornicating or masturbating and playing video games. (Masturbation and video games are even actual sins. They were just made up as a form of moral entrapment for men.) There’s no legitimate option of being celibate as far as they’re concerned.

Marriage even in the church has its own dangers. Women in the church aren’t more honest than women outside of the church. The divorce rate is the same both inside and outside the church. If there’s a problem in your marriage the man will get blamed regardless of the circumstances. A man’s wife could commit adultery in a gang bang with 20 guys and videotape it and the church will still blame the man for it.

It’s also important to point out that many men who are celibate haven’t chosen celibacy. It’s been forced upon them. The women and white knights in the church are accusing the men who are forced into celibacy of all manner of sexual sin while all of the “reformed” sluts, who have actually engaged in a huge amount of sexual sin, face no criticism. The women and white knights of the church will insist that the “reformed” sluts are all pure as the driven snow. This is why saying, “don’t marry sluts” is not enough. It’s meaningless without a willingness to identify sluts and massive numbers are sitting in the pews.

As TFH said, the church is failing to hold women accountable. In addition, the church is holding men accountable for things that they haven’t done. (The men who are able to bed lots of women won’t be found in church.) In a way, the religious man’s morality is being used as a weapon against him by the church.

If socons and tradcons were actually interested in doing something then they would encourage men to expat to get marriage 1.0 marriages or setup some type of private marriage system. What I mean by a “private marriage system” is getting married in the church without getting a marriage license with the state and the church handling all of the marriages and divorces/annulments. I don’t think this strategy will work in the long term because the state will come in and declare cohabitation as the same as marriage (which is already in the process of happening). Plus the state will come in with “the best interests of the child” and women who start complaining that they were victimized. (Also, given how feminist the church is now, I’m not sure it wouldn’t be institutionalizing marriage 2.0 in the church being just as bad for men.) The point of bringing that up is that it is an example of what socons and tradcons could do to fix marriage. However, they don’t do that. (A priest or a minister won’t marry you now without a marriage license from the state.) They don’t do a thing to fix the problem.

This is why you get increasing numbers of men refusing to have anything to do with the church. This is why you get Paul Elam writing that traditional women are just worried about losing their privileges. Socon and tradcon men look just like a Christian variant of the “conscious” men.

What is the answer for men here? I know you don’t like the idea of avoiding marriage but every other option is a painful multi-decade seppuku for men. The church is of no help. It’s as misandrist as any place else so it might as well be an arm of feminism.

Jeb April 25, 2011 at 21:31

You can get close to marriage 1.0 by obtaining children via surrogacy and leaving the wife out of the equation. Marriage 1.0 was about father-custody of children. (Note that shared-parenting is not marriage 1.0 either, nor marriage 1.7 – shared parenting is like marriage 2.3, even further away, and involving more of the state than even before). Women don’t need a husband to have children. All the “alphas” out there love to sport-fuck bareback as much as the women riding the cock-carousel do. A woman can get knocked up easy. Men, however, have usually only been able to obtain children through marriage and a wife.

There is no advantage to a man to take on a wife. Those who have studied game should know this completely. She is not your companion – if you make her one, she will leave you. She is not your equal, if you make her one she will leave you. She is not there to satisfy your emotions, just the opposite actually, as she will constantly “test” your emotional state to make sure you are “strong.” When you get old, you get weaker, and lose your “alpha-cred”, and most likely her too, along with your pension. It goes on and on. Taking on a wife is almost a pure liability – even in marriage 1.0. The only thing a wife contributes (and only in marriage 1.0) is a man’s own children. (In marriage 2.0. the children are hers, so what’s the point?) Even in marriage 1.0, the wife provides little of value except her womb, and still comes fraught with liability. Does anyone think it was a great deal for husbands in marriage 1.0 to be legally liable for the actions of his wife? She was a liability back then too, and could be just as miserable and soul draining as they are now. The only difference was that the children in marriage were his and if she left, she couldn’t take the kids – and so, very few women actually left. Men love women, women love children, and children love puppies – it is a one way street and does not work the other way around.

You can have all the patriarchy 1.0 you want by getting your own children through surrogacy, and leaving “the wife” completely out of the equation. Hire a nanny. It’s still cheaper than supporting a wife, or going through a divorce. Let alone not having to put up with all the bloody drama day in day out. Then you date via game to get your sexual needs met. Never marry, and certainly never marry and allow her to adopt the kids. If you must have a woman living with you, get her an in-law suite in the basement or convert your backyard garage into a studio, and charge her $50/month in rent. Make sure she’s childless and you are fixed.

Surrogacy is very close to marriage 1.0, and it puzzles me why this is one of the major issues of the MRM. Changing father-custody to mother custody was one of the first things the suffragettes went after – now you can see why.

Back to basics.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Avenger April 25, 2011 at 22:09

Omega-I remember the Lee Marvin case and what was so ridiculous about it was that it wasn’t even based on law. The judge just sort of decided that Marvin was a wealthy guy so he gave the female $100k. I guess that Marvin didn’t care much and was just glad to be rid of her annoying him but it set a bad precedent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Meritocracy April 25, 2011 at 22:11

The really sad thing about marriage, for me, is that even if I found a woman that perfectly matched me and made me feel good nearly all the time I would still not marry her. I have seen too many of the rare decent women ruined within 5-10 years by the constant barrage of other women which slowly infect her with the “It’s all about me” disease.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Alcuin April 25, 2011 at 22:14

“growing a patriarchal culture from the ground up”: Isn’t that what Muslims in western countries are doing?

Don’t bank on the churches building patriarchy. They’re the ones who lost it for us.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Avenger April 25, 2011 at 22:21

btw, I seem to recall that the Cal. Supreme Court ruled against the female and said she was not entitled to anything so I’m not sure how she got the $100k. Perhaps Marvin just gave it to her to get rid of her and it wasn’t a judge. There’s no common law marriage in Cal. and Marvin did not have any contract with the female promising her anything and of course that couldn’t be payment for sex since prostitution is illegal. I also remember that the female Michelle Triola(?) was calling herself Michelle Marvin so the case was Marvin vs. Marvin even though she was not married to him.
Anyway, at the time everyone thought the whole idea of palimony was absurd.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
TFH April 25, 2011 at 22:32

EW,

I am also on record as telling men to not marry sluts.

Yes, you are.

But the point that the church has many sluts in disguise, duping religious men into marriage, only to leave them swindled down the road, needs to be given more attention.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Avenger April 25, 2011 at 22:32

Merit-it’s not just any female influence that may cause her to change. It’s just that after awhile the female may be bored and want someone and something new and in today’s legal climate the odds are all against the man. There is no benefit in marriage for a man, it’s all liability. But if you’re insane enough to marry always be sure that the female has at least the same assets as you and preferably more. We all know very well who makes out like a bandit when the CEO marries his secretary and they divorce.

btw, some good news. Liz Taylor who recently died was married and then divorced from her last husband who was a construction worker and younger than her. He got $800,000 from her Will :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
ThousandMileMargin April 25, 2011 at 22:34

Don’t forget about jurisdiction shopping.

The courts in many countries are happy to handle divorce or child support claims concerning relationships which were created in other countries.

For example, you might move to Poland and marry a Polish girl who seems all nice and traditional. You’ve done your research and found Polish divorce laws are quite reasonable.

One day she leaves you, takes the the kids and moves to London. Commences divorce proceding under UK law. You get screwed. UK courts are happy to hear the case becase she is an EU citizen and legally resident in the UK. The same applies to child support law for unmarried couples.

The only way to prevent this is if you file for a child support or divorce hearing in another country first – the UK court won’t hear the case if it has already been handled by another jurisdiction. But of course, you’d have to know ahead of time she was about to leave. Chances are you would never see it coming.

Another example – you move tho the Philippnes and marry a local girl. They don’t even have divorce there. You have kids who are now US citizens. One day she flies to the USA with the kids and applies for residence. She can stay because the kids are citizens. She files for divorce and alimony etc in the USA – naturally she picks the state with the most favourable laws. Again, you are screwed.

It’s a global problem.

The only “solution” to this problem is for the Western countries to return to the marriage laws that existed in 1800. Father custody at all times, no division of assets if a wife leaves, no divorce without fault, no obligation to support a wife who has left the man’s household.
Basically a married man has no obligations to his wife other than food and clothing so long as she chooses to stay in his household, and the childen are his without condition.
Oh, and prostitution was legal in most European countries back then as well. Marriage was a practical arrangement, often arranged. So a wife didn’t control her husbands sexuality.

If this were the law lots of men would get married. And few women would leave if they could take the children with them. Explicitly giving men all the power would help game a lot, obviously.

But nothing like this would be possible unless women gave up the vote. There would have to be a widespread recognition that giving women the vote lead to the collapse of Western democracy, and a desire to return to a limited franchise (e.g. men who have a trade or property qualification).

And you’d only get such a recognition AFTER it was widely recognised that modern democracy was a failure. Because it was impossible to deny that failure, because it was discredited in the same way that communism was in Eastern Europe in the 90s. You’d have to see the western democracies fall apart and regress to a standard of living that made 1910 look good. People would have to be shocked at how far they had fallen and be desperate for answers.

I don’t expect to see this during the next twenty years. There’s a lot of ruin in a nation.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
TFH April 25, 2011 at 22:38

BTW, I am not Christian, and have only been to a Sunday church service one, because a girl I was dating at the time begged me to ‘check it out’.

But I know what is going on. The only two religions that still hold women accountable and that shame sluts are Hinduism and Islam. Islam goes too far in the other direction, in fact.

Both religions have many other problems, of course, but they are not dominated by pedestalization the way American Christianity now is.

Feminism is the dominant ideology in America. This is evidenced by the fact that it dominates the legal code, the religious institutions, and both political parties.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
TFH April 25, 2011 at 22:39

EW,

I am also on record as telling men to not marry sluts.

But if 60-70% of women are sluts, then you are effectively telling most men not to marry. There are just not enough non-sluts (who are also not obese) to go around.

Telling men not to marry sluts = telling most men not to marry. Period.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
continent April 25, 2011 at 22:44

The British Royalty still can afford to get married (at taxpayer’s expense). Link to the controversy and at the end link to the guest list.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Wedding+guest+list+causes+controversy/4667062/story.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
InT April 25, 2011 at 23:43

I agree with the notion that calling this version of marriage “2.0,” in the sense of progress, is somewhat misleading. It think a better analogy would be that of invasive DRM rootkits vs. free, non-patronizing media content.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
ThousandMileMargin April 26, 2011 at 00:02

I mentioned above that the only real solution is a return to father-custody.
Which can’t be maintained if women have the vote. They’d have to give up the vote to guarantee father custody was maintained.

But it also occurs to me that you can buy votes if you have enough money and influence. So if if you want to maintain father custody you also need to limit how much wealth women can own or inherit in the form of shares and property. If women own major corporations or sit on the board of family companies they might be able to buy enough congressmen to change the law.
Consider someone like Oprah who is a billionaire and has her own propaganda platform.

So if you want father custody to last, you need laws preventing women from amassing any form of power – public office, directorships of companies and NGOs, university boards and department heads, church leaders.

You need male inheritance laws to prevent women holding inherited wealth, together with the kind of cultural resistence to having women as leaders and opinion makers that you had prior to 1800. Otherwise you’ll just end up back where you started.

But it gets worse. If women make most of the spending decisions, and corporations know this, won’t they tend to pander to women in their advertising and marketing and push for more female independance and power? I think that’s a big part of how we got where we are today.
So men have to make sure they don’t hand over the household finances to women. No credit cards in their name, no joint accounts.

You really do need the whole 18th century patriarchal culture of women being denied property rights in place if you want to maintain father custody.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
E April 26, 2011 at 00:28

escaped slave said…
“Meanwhile, Yahoo’s top headline is “hollywoods hotest 40+ actresses”

I noticed that they are all single. Can women get any more delusional?”

You ever hear women say (with great delusion) age is just a number. So according that logic Brigitte Bardot is equally beautiful now as she was in her youth.
young in her 20′s

old in her 70′s

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) April 26, 2011 at 01:09

Lead story right now on DM…shock horror, man has an affair. You men might want to come over and point out just how hypocritical women are about ‘affairs’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380546/Andrew-Marr-abandons-injunction-affair-fellow-journalist.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) April 26, 2011 at 01:13

E April 26, 2011 at 00:28

Even women so beautiful as Brigette Bardot turn into rather unpleasant looking women in old age. So many men make the MISTAKE of thinking I am somehow angry or upset about my divorce. Nope. I am JOYOUS about my divorce. Every time I think that I WOULD have kept my vows and taken care of my ex for the rest of my life I smile a little smile to myself and THANK the good lord my ex was so horrible and nasty that no man could blame me for divorcing her.

As I reported. Even my FEMALE family law lawyer said I was ‘stupid’ not to divorce her earlier.

And the bit about destroying the power of the family courts also appeals to me.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
fmz April 26, 2011 at 01:36

Common Monster April 25, 2011 at 08:09;
I suppose it’s too late to rename it Marriage 0.x, because incrementing the version count makes it sound like there’s been some progress, improvements, bug fixes, and new features.
—————————————————————————————-

Answer is…
with each succeeding devolvement put a minus sign in front of the number revision.

Marriage -2.0.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Pierre Parent April 26, 2011 at 02:02

Hello guys!

I hail from feminist heaven, Qwebecistan. (Quebec)

I have been reading The Spearhead for three months now. I love the site. It has frequent updates of happenings in the MRM world, and I am hooked! Good layout too.

I am MGTOW and I do so from “the high road”

I don’t “game” women. I feel it is as derogatory towards them as their manipulative tactics are against men. I agree with neither, so, pr0n it is for me.

In Quebec, similar events are unfolding here…and worse in some respects. Quebec is unique in Canada from a MRM point of view, the French Canadian Roman Catholic culture has morphed into a rabid anti-church (and I mean you WILL be bitten if you are clergy), pro-nanny state that has embraced feminism….whole. I believe only the Scandinavian countries outperform Quebec style feminist misandry in the world.

Do keep an eye out for Quebec as a MRM interest in the near future. Quebec demographics are the most skewed in Canada……the ratio of baby boomers to young workers is so out of whack……people NOW are beginning to talk about leaving Quebec as their finances from here on in are so horrible, similar to Irish like financial/social suicide and emigration.

Combined with a healthy deficit, a gigantic debt, the highest taxation rates in North America, feminism has literally scrapped our culture and families. 67% of children are born out of wedlock. More than 50% of the population is single (not living alone, but with no significant other) I believe marriage rates are even LOWER here than in the US.

As an as beside, abortion rates are currently 1/3 of all pregnancies. 30k a year!!! And Quebeckers still cannot adopt to their desire, they must go overseas.

Our version of marriage 2.0 is so frightening, men literally cross streets to avoid walking past a female. In the last 2-3 years, I have been quite surprised to be approached by various women desperate to find out what is going on with men. They have NO clue whatsoever. They were brought up to believe they just had to land a male, and life would be OK….much better too if she divorced him. Nowadays, men don’t even want to go out with a woman. I have had women ask me to go out with them, some ask me “why do all men flee”, another asked me last year “why do men no longer go out with women?”

They are all at a complete loss. The feminazis at our government track all these statistics……and say nothing but implement another round of misandry. I tell you, because of MONEY (too poor, too indebted, too many baby boomers, too few young workers) that Quebec will either A) Collapse.
B) Become less misandric.

There ARE no other choices. Asking Canada for another 30 years of “equalization” will not be received in Ottawa. Quebec must sort itself out….Ottawa cannot afford politically to cave in to Quebec once more…and in this scope. Quebec has +- 15 years of upcoming demographics which present a NET LOSS of revenue. Immigration is still too low and cannot offset this. Plus, Quebeckers are the most intolerant of Canadians towards immigrants and has no appetite for more.

By the end of 2011, the government of Quebec must revise its common law marriage laws. A recent common law case, nicknamed “Eric and Lola” saw a common law wife sue, and receive alimony.

In Quebec, marriage (1.0 or 2.0) automatically addresses children, child support, alimony etc…..with your typical dum-dum male being financially and emotionally raped….by his own government.

In 2009, 22,500 marriages were registered. The lowest in recorded history. Qwebecistan’s population is near 8 million!

Nearing 50% (a world record) are common law couples (with 67% of children). Quebec is/was unique in that common law couples went through court if necessary for child custody and child support (male = fucked), but there NEVER WAS THERE A PROVISION for alimony.

The Eric and Lola case AWARDED alimony for a common law couple…contrary to Provincial law.

All of Canada I believe have provisions (rape) for alimony in common law couples….Quebec never had that.

As the decades went by and males lost all their procreation rights, marriage progressed to 2.0……..now you see why almost HALF of Quebeckers chose common law, (along with the entire Western World) it is certainly the men who decide this. I cannot for a moment entertain the thought women actually want common law Quebec style.

Because of the mounting misandry, men began to flee marriage in droves.

Birth rate is roughly 1.72. Immigration is not filling the gap. Quebec may claim anaemic growth (and they do!)….but the truth is, native peoples and immigrants make plenty of babies. White people, no way!

The Quebec government is appealing the court’s decision, but the game is lost. Even the Quebec government wishes to lose this battle, as it would be a boon for most women. ALL of Canada supports alimony for common law……Quebec is bound to follow…….

And that my friend, is when you will hear the Earth split asunder. Quebec males, already notorious for fleeing women, school (filled with women at 87%) will simply flee women ever faster and longer.
Personally, I just can’t see how the Quebec government could make Quebec men accept this modification towards alimony in common law cases. Just the current common law rate (50% of couples) currently are “alimony” threat free…….would half of Quebec males now start paying alimony as well……..it’ll be interesting.

I feel for all the men who post here on The Spearhead. I see so much pain, frustration and anger its mind boggling.

I personally (high road guy) have chosen to go off grid in Qwebecistan. Sometimes, I live here, but when I do, I go on welfare. I will never give the Quebec government any more money with which they in turn, torture me, or at best, neglect my concerns….and evidently all male concerns.

I am surprised not more of the MRM crowd is radical enough to stop sending money to your gov. I see plenty of mentions here of “starving the beast” and fears that a man-tax is approaching.

Considering what you all know and fear, since you are HERE at the Spearhead, why do not more of you starve the misandric monster?
Sure, welfare is poor stuff. I travel by rucksack and rent single rooms only. I work every year from early summer to late fall in B.C. But not here in Qwebecistan.

MGTOW without game is the honourable way to go. You are not ADDING to the current misogyny (no game)…and you “starve the beast”….and you protect yourself.

From what I gather here, most work, and most don’t starve the beast. Perhaps half promote game, and the other half not. To me, this is inconsistent with your opinions.

The feminist lobby would actually welcome MRM lobbying and political infighting. You arrive on their turf. Government is a feminist tool. MRM activism would then be treated on par with any other self interest group…..and fall right into the hands of power. Morsels of bread might then sporadically sprinkle across men’s concerns……but never near the required amounts…..and by participating in the fraud of lobbying with money and threats; I believe the MRM movement is handicapping itself. Money/votes = power. The MRM will not achieve this….another route to find the pressure point is necessary.

I believe the marriage strike IS working. Men are so uninterested in their own health and future; I believe MRM will never approach the size, scope, funding and power that fanatical feminazis have managed to build. Let’s not forget their vengeful natures…..we are paying for men already long dead….

The MRM would be better suited to promoting actively strike actions. As we all know, only a fraction of working males need flee the vessel for it to sink. Going up against gov, on the same footing as feminists or Kraft General Foods…..means bring your bank account….show me how many votes you got. Since large numbers (male apathy) are extremely unlikely, and thus the corresponding funds….this would be a losing proposition.

A full head on strike, with no chatting would hurt them more.

If we await “sufficient” societal anger about misandry….you might as well go do game man.

Marriage strike.
Game if you must, but pump and dump. No girlfriends.
Starve the beast.

Thank you for your great site! See ‘ya guys…….and just say NO!

UTP

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 0
DevilDog April 26, 2011 at 05:03

Blah blah marriage blah. It’s old, tired, and archaic.

We’re entering a new age of technology folks, lets utilize it, forget the old structures.

MRA’s need to promote

Artificial Womb’s (Ectogenesis technology, etc)
Male Birth Control Pill
Sexbots, other technology that can be utilized to efficiently satisfy primal sexual urges
Promotion of single fatherhood
Legalized prostitution (Pay for vagina? If you think about it, legalized prostitution would be a huge market, and with a mass influx of clean prostitutes on the market, eventually price would fall. Other than that, you seriously think you’re paying less money for a regular girl? Overtime a prostitute will cost less than a regular girl)

Forget the old crap, the more I think about marriage, the more I dislike it, even if we were to somehow recreate a balanced, patriarchal society, I would still deny marriage. It’s just not appealing in any form or fashion.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
phil white April 26, 2011 at 07:59

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 22
Anonymous Protestant April 26, 2011 at 08:30

There are two points to add on to what Elusive Wapiti wrote.

First, in a modern marriage there are three parties; man, woman and government or state. The problem is the state is so intrusive into every aspect of life that it destabilizes all social arrangements. It would be interesting to see how the Orthodox Jews, or the Amish Christians manage to avoid state entanglement in their marriages. Because that state ententaclement into marriage is a big part of the problem.

Second, in addition to finding a woman who will cleave to a proper marriage, it is essential to locate where an appropriate church is to be found. Too many groups that call themselves “churches” are really social clubs, and it should be clear to young men now that the women a wife associates with matter a lot.

Elusive Wapiti ought to mention that successful civilizations are built upon rule-by-fathers (patriarchy), and the growing matriarchy in the US is spiraling downhill.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
van Rooinek April 26, 2011 at 09:15

Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech: “…many men who are celibate haven’t chosen celibacy. It’s been forced upon them. The women and white knights in the church are accusing the men who are forced into celibacy of all manner of sexual sin while all of the “reformed” sluts, who have actually engaged in a huge amount of sexual sin, face no criticism. …”

There is much truth in this. I was unwillingly celibate til age 38, when I finally found and married one of the few decent women left in this country. And let me tell you, scathing judgment is heaped on forcibly-single Christian men who break down and look at porn, or who look too long at a live woman, or show any signs of discomfort with celibacy. Whereas women who have slept around, and “repent” (in truth or in pretense) are simply told that they’re forgiven.

(YES, there is forgiveness but, true repentance implies that you’re ASHAMED of your former conduct. Its’ more than just saying, “oopsie”.)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Keyser Soze April 26, 2011 at 14:16

Jeb,

Great post. That is the reality. Refusing marriage and having a surrogate (or only sleeping with single women in E Europe or South America) is the same as marriage 1.0.

Marriage is over. By not marrying you create a de facto “marriage” a lot like marriage 1.o. If the woman acts badly you can leave and if you act badly there will be social pressure to act in a moral manner. It is much like marriage in the 1800′s.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
OliverGuerrero April 26, 2011 at 17:25

I find that even if a man finds a woman to live with, he will still have some obligations in case of having children, etc. I have seen in my other friends who thought they would avoid marriage this way that they have not completely eluded it. Why? Because the woman still will want to upgrade from being the girlfriend to being the wife and for that goal she will employ tactics that will make the man’s life with her unbearable. Solution? Either you find someone rally, really good and worthy as a partner or you just don’t do it or you get your ass out of here…BTW none of them is a success recipe.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
phil white April 26, 2011 at 18:52

@ Herbal Essence

“Men also have to shun white supremacists who are among the most disgusting….”

“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” David Lane
The moto of pro-white dissidents.

This is what people like H.E. can’t stand. The existence of white people and a future for white children.
They say they are Anti-racist. What they really are is anti-white.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6
Trenchmouth April 26, 2011 at 19:03

@Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) April 26, 2011 at 01:13 April 26, 2011 at 00:28

“Even women so beautiful as Brigette Bardot turn into rather unpleasant looking women in old age. ”

Yeah but she’s over 70. You’re the ugliest fucking fat cunt I’ve ever seen and you’re only 46! What will you look like in 3 decades? Coward!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
phil white April 26, 2011 at 19:12

@common monster

And why me? I didn’t break it, so why is it suddenly my responsibility, when “the culture of the West” hates me?

Because that’s what the radical leftist wanted. After the working class refused to support communism they asked themselves “Who can save us from the West?”
Eventully they came up with the coalition of women, minorities, homosexuals and others.
Their goal was to destroy the West, in large part by hyping up women against men.
When we say we should let the West die, they are besides themselves with joy. That’s want they want, the people of the West to commint cultural and racial suicide.

http://europenews.dk/en/node/30205
FRANKFURT SCHOOL

Do you really think marriage and our society got this mucked up without a hidden hand sabotaging it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5
W.F. Price April 26, 2011 at 19:17

This is what people like H.E. can’t stand. The existence of white people and a future for white children.
They say they are Anti-racist. What they really are is anti-white.

-phil white

Oh, bullshit. White nationalism is a goddess cult, plain and simple. HE called it straight.

Since when did white nationalists put the responsibility for “impurity” on the white women screwing around? It’s always the Jews’ and blacks’ fault when white women won’t keep their pants on…

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 9
phil white April 26, 2011 at 19:36

@Ken

” “Men also have to shun white supremacists who are among the most disgusting, chivalrous, self-defeating pussy beggars around”>>>>>>>>>>

*To each his own, but I just warn against buddying with radicals of any persuasion as they typically do not appear to be 100% what they espouse!
I once knew a guy who was overtly a White Supremacist and wouldn’t get into it at work, ”

Herbal Essence is trying to tag pro-white dissidents as supremacist. Don’t fall for it.
Our dissident moto is “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

If “The 14 Words” above are unacceptable to H.E. then he can only be anti-white.
Oh, and by the way, I was told to take down a mild pro-white remark I posted on the office bulliten board. Some men aren’t cowards.
Pro-white dissedents are anything but cowards. Randy Weavers family were gunned down by Feds when he refused to turn government snitch.
His wife was shot through the head while holdng their infant daughter in one arm and with the other holding the door of their home open for Randy to retreat through after the fed sniper (Lon Iriguchi) had wounded Randy.
I’d say pro-white dissidents tend to attract more faithfull women than average. Unto death in this case.
And this is the same fed gov that pushes affirmatiave action for women etc etc.
Pro-white dissidents are natural allies in this fight. Many have been fired, some have been killed. If you throw away allies at the anti-white H.E.’s suggestion you are would be making a mistake.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7
Anonymous April 26, 2011 at 19:41

Frankly, the only use I personally have for a woman is – to keep the surroundings tidy, prepare delicious meals, do the laundry, take care of the mail, etc. If I want to have an expansive, uplifiting conversation, I will find (if I can) a small group, maybe 2 other, well-informed, witty guys.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Attila April 26, 2011 at 19:46

Get married under Sharia law (any one of the four legal schools) – and you will NEVER have any of those problems. Just make sure that the state you live in doesn’t recognize common-law marriages or any other similar arrangement. If Islamic law weren’t so a-feminist or rather non-feminist, it wouldn’t be getting all that bad press.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
phil white April 26, 2011 at 19:55

“@W. F. Price April 26, 2011 at 19:17
” This is what people like H.E. can’t stand. The existence of white people and a future for white children.
They say they are Anti-racist. What they really are is anti-white.

-phil white ”

Oh, bullshit. White nationalism is a goddess cult, plain and simple. HE called it straight.

Since when did white nationalists put the responsibility for “impurity” on the white women screwing around? It’s always the Jews’ and blacks’ fault when white women won’t keep their pants on… ”

So W.F. Price thinks the 14 words, “…a future for white children” are B.S.??
How anti-white can he get??
They say they are anti-racist, what they are is anti- white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

In the video below at the end in the words of “Lord Nelson” “Don’t let your daughter race mix, destroying your gene pool, nor your son.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYNMusziNL0

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10
maaldweb April 26, 2011 at 22:12

@Phil White

I am with you on this. Yes the enemies of western civilisation want to see it destroyed and perhaps they are happy to see white men going on marriage strike because that means no more white babies. But they brought us into a situation where there is no real alternative and you cannot force white men to continue being slaves to feminism and the vices of women who after all don’t even want to make babies anymore. The West cannot be saved at its current state, and it shouldn’t. It shouldn’t because it has morphed into a totalitarian ultra-leftist/feminist monster which seeks to eradicate whites and to impose its paranoid system to other cultures by force.

The end of the West is not the future. The future is now… Whites will survive (if survive at all) in enclaves, close communities in which patriarchy will be restored. Look at the mormons or other “extreme” religious communities, they are the only white groups with high birth rates. The average mormon family has 5-6 kids. Anyone outside these communities will either be absorbed by the islamists (or in the case of the US, blacks and mexicans) or they will form their own close communities.

PS Please use ” ” when you quote other people’s messages, it gets confusing when you don’t!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
phil white April 27, 2011 at 06:24

Thanks, and don’t forget the Amish. :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Epoetker April 27, 2011 at 10:24

Actually, I’ll pull for Welmer on this one by referring to a Jared Taylor article:

Something more serious holds back Southern nationalism: Its support is limited almost entirely to people who profess a certain kind of politics, whereas national movements must be beyond politics. An independent South would need the support of people who may not be conservative, who may not be suspicious of big government, who may not be Christian, who may not oppose marriage for homosexuals, but who are still devoted to the South. The roots of a Southern nation would have to spread widely and not just sink deep.

Take the admittedly unscientific sample of my sainted mother. Born in 1922, she believed Southerners were different from Yankees, and was thankful to have been born a Southerner. She rose when “Dixie” was played and looked daggers at anyone who did not. She turned her back on “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”. When Jimmy Carter was elected—after a campaign in which Democratic radio ads throughout the South actually featured Dixie, incredible as that may now sound—she thought it was wonderful finally to have a President who did not speak with an accent.

She lived in Massachusetts for a year, and loved to drive through the New England countryside. She didn’t know what to make of the monuments to the Union dead that are in virtually every town square until she came up with a good, Southern way to think about of them: as monuments to Confederate marksmanship.

And yet, my mother would not be part of today’s Southern nationalism. She was a professional social worker and a Norman Thomas socialist. She was an early champion of women’s liberation, and campaigned for gay rights. She believed in the redemptive power of government, and went to her grave a committed liberal.

Yeah, that last paragraph makes me REAL confident about the future of a white nationalist movement. Especially considering that most of the white racists who can get away with it now are…liberals.

I.E., Jared Taylor, prototypical white nationalist, is already moving away from anti-feminism for the sake of pro-Southern whitism. (Tribal wars are of course always encouraged by the women, and all that McDonald’s footage of civil mayhem seems mostly female-perpetrated or instigated. Even Epic Beard Guy was teaching a lesson to a kid who was mostly getting egged on by the female cameragirl.)

A low-IQ black man not beholden to the influences of any woman is far more valuable as a model than a high-IQ one who’ll sell his principles to Oprah, Hillary, or the local feministrator on a dime.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
woggy April 27, 2011 at 15:09

Marriage is supposed to be a place of refuge- a place of comfort, though I realize that for many it isn’t that way at all.

Marrying and then siring children just to save “white western culture” is probably one of the silliest notions I’ve ever heard.

Before I continue, let me just say that in my use of the term “white western culture”, I understand that there are many non-whites who, in generations past, adopted “white” western culture as their own.
Anyway…
White western culture- at least that which we’ve come to know- wouldn’t need saving if it was worth saving.
It wasn’t the “white western culture” of last week that began surrendering to leftism, feminism and a bunch of “other” PC nonsense. That actually started at least 40 years ago, so the declenching is nothing new.

I gotta say this too: Just because White Nationalists and White Supremacists might have a few enemies in common with MRA’s, doesn’t mean that we have the same goals.
And…although I’ll bend a sympathetic ear to the grievances of white separatism, the thought of men of other races suffering misandry gives me no comfort. After all, the disenfranchisement of the black man was pursued in order that tactics might be perfected- for use on the rest of us. Apparently, our white western fathers were too mind numbed to see that as it happened before their eyes, and let’s face it, most white men still don’t see it.
If you set about to save white western culture, you’ll have to save all of it- and to re-iterate, most of ‘em aren’t worth saving, they don’t want saving, and if you managed to save them next week, you’d have to save ‘em again the week after next.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Napoleon April 27, 2011 at 21:42

How effective is the marriage strike and where is it headed from here? I am 23 years old and girls/women my age are still pretty attractive and able to whore around so they could care less about a marriage strike at this point, but I am trying to predict where this will lead in the future when they cannot rely on their looks to get by. I have heard that the tables will turn and women will become desperate once they age but right now I am just not seeing it. What would the situation be like in say five or ten years when women my age start to lose their value? What can I expect by then?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price April 27, 2011 at 22:02

How effective is the marriage strike and where is it headed from here? I am 23 years old and girls/women my age are still pretty attractive and able to whore around so they could care less about a marriage strike at this point, but I am trying to predict where this will lead in the future when they cannot rely on their looks to get by. I have heard that the tables will turn and women will become desperate once they age but right now I am just not seeing it. What would the situation be like in say five or ten years when women my age start to lose their value? What can I expect by then?

-Napoleon

I hope this doesn’t depress you, but the tables don’t really turn decisively until about 35, when women hit the wall hard. In the meanwhile, stick to your guns and hold out — you’ve got ten more years than they do to hold off, so if you can maintain some control over your desire (very difficult — I failed in that regard) you will do OK and might land a decent one before that time.

A young man who can master his raging lust – a rare man indeed – will generally find a good one.

I suppose the only advice I can give is don’t get married or get any girls pregnant until you definitely feel your desire for women subside somewhat. 30 might do the trick.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Robert in Arabia April 28, 2011 at 02:52

I can not say that I can recommend Islam because it is true. I simply observe that every shopping mall I visit after the 8 p.m. prayer is filled with fathers with numerous children and most of the time accompanied by their wife or wives;.always in family groups and 99.9% looking happy. There are never unaccompanied teenage thugs in evidence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
Attila April 28, 2011 at 17:21

Islam is “true” because it hasn’t ignored human nature and the hierarchy of needs, not because of any particular belief. It’s customs, including marriage laws, are supremely practical, not a product of ideology or abstract reasoning. Men are men, women are women, and that’s the way it is…PERIOD.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
20thLevel April 29, 2011 at 11:43

This article articulates my own personal reasons for aligning with the MRM. That childhood dream of finding that perfect match and raising a family then living together until old age where hopfully I will pass away leaving a large and fruitful legacy for my kids and grandkids and great grandkids…….that dream is DEAD.

When slow fiscal growth due to the lack of a fast rising population impacts the bottom line of corporations and tax rolls real change to the family law system will be demanded by the ruling class. This is going to take decades to happen though. As of right now its not hitting them hard enough to be bothered.

The only choice we have right now is to spend the rest of your days doing what you love and NEVER give a female a chance to legally take it all away.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
David K. Meller May 5, 2011 at 15:48

@PierreParent–April 26 2011 02:02

Dear PierreParent:

Thank you for your informative and intelligent preview of our future in the rest of Canada, and the USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika), to say nothing of Western Europe, or what is left of it!

The destruction of the family, and of the economy and society, is directly proprotional to the extent of abuse and exploitation attendent upon womanpower–and the manginas who exploit it!

Keep up the good work–and keep in touch!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Murray July 11, 2011 at 22:29

“How much y’all wanna bet Kate is riding some other man’s root before 2012, maybe some pos American sports “hero”?”

If she does, the royals will off her like they did Princess Dianna. A royal princess has *one* job – produce an heir and a spare. Do that, and you can spend the rest of your life doing whatever you please – as much or as little of it as you want. Pop out a ginger as your second child, and it’s an “accident” in a subway tunnel. Maybe this Kate person has more sense than the previous.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Paul Murray July 11, 2011 at 22:50

“I make exceptions in my avoid marriage counsel for the religious guys, because (a) the risk environment they are in is not the same as that experienced by other men,”

The bible specifically, clearly says that women are not to divorce their unsaved husbands. The churches are full of women who have done precisely that. Each of them will tell you that jesus told her that it was ok in her special case.

Religion doesn’t change how people behave – it just changes the excuses that they use. Marry a 2.0 woman, get a 2.0 marriage, always. The women in church are all after alpha males – guys in “leadership”. Men with “faith”. When these faith-based pastors lose their churches, they become used car salesmen. Literally (I’ve seen it twice). But the women don’t care. As they grow older, they go sour on men and fill the gap with Jesus.

Church is great if you are a used-car salesman alpha male. Otherwise …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Murray July 11, 2011 at 23:09

“Frankly, the only use I personally have for a woman is – to keep the surroundings tidy, prepare delicious meals, do the laundry, take care of the mail, etc.”

What??? You let her get at the mail first??? You idiot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
John July 19, 2011 at 19:40

In 2011, for an individual of high worth or of high income, there is NO REASON TO GET MARRIED ! Marriage will lead to divorce 50% plus of the time. The higher earner/worth individual could be ruined or best case lose a portion of their estate. Family courts are setup to protect the “poorer” spouse, and brutally punish the breadwinner. The woman typically can scratch her lifetime lottery card (marriage) anytime and force her soon to be ex spouse into involuntary lifetime financial slavery, with the gracious help of the Family Court on her side.

Specifically, the following will likely occur:
1) In equitable distribution states (haha equitable all right NOT), 50%-80% of ALL the assets brought into and acquired during the marriage, could be given to the “poorer” spouse. Bye bye house(s), cars, cash, 401k, ect….

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

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

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

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

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
jack_melford September 17, 2011 at 22:13

Woman and their WAVA they will need it
They will have two type of men to chose from lossers and abusers as a matter of fact most young woman are already praticing they love losers and abusers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Masked Writer March 15, 2012 at 21:08

Yes, marriage is quite dead in the gynocracies of Western Civilization. Big Sister Government with its man-hater laws should make any sane male run as fast as he can from government-controlled marriage. Any male who desires a traditional marriage because of personal/religious beliefs should become an expat in a society outside of the influence of American Pop Culture where Feminazi/Female Supremacist ideas have not yet poisoned the matrimonial waters.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bill May 5, 2012 at 07:49

Being a man on marriage strike against Marriage 2.0 does NOT necessarily imply we are traditionalists in all aspects. At least one poster implies we strikers are devout religionists.

Well atheist libertarians are on strike too. Marriage 1.0 and 2.0 is essentially sanctioning government as the third partner in a relationship. Marriage 2.0 is different in that it makes the husband the lower caste of that trio.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sick & Tired June 29, 2012 at 07:42

Marriage did not die, women murdered it.

i’m one of those losers that married someone that was around the block several times and was reminded of it frequently during the first years of marriage. There is NO chance of me ever cheating since my self-esteem and sexual confidence are gone, shattered – finished.

i AM a loser and no good for any woman – so i am told.

Here is something for the single guys.

STAY SINGLE!

If you MUST get married, sleep with at least a dozen+ women before you flush your life down the toilet. This way, once your “Loving Wife” starts to tell you about all the REAL men she has known, you will not care.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David July 30, 2012 at 15:19

Marriage is dead. And think about it, why would a man get married? There are tons of women eager to have sex without even dinner. To hell with marriage, just have fun, it’s all over anyway, just play the game. And, to be very honest, I was once very marriage oriented. Not anymore.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
penis enlargement oils and creams December 13, 2012 at 05:52

constantly i used to read smaller articles or reviews
which also clear their motive, and that is also happening with this post which I am reading here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lance January 17, 2013 at 07:56

Why a man would want to get married baffles me. Evolution has already proven that us homo-sapiens are promiscuous to the core. Marriage was an institution that acted has the guarantor of semen before DNA was invented. Men wanted to ensure the paternity of their children before any property was bequeathed. You no longer need marriage or a woman’s bleeding hymen to confirm the legitimacy of your paternity. All you need is a few saliva samples, a geneticist, a lab and voila!

The best bet for all men in the West is to sleep with as a many women as possible to satiate natural sexual desires and if loneliness sets in, find a dog and acquire some savvy male friends. If the desire to bequeath your hard-work to subsequent generations is something you desire, by all means tons of beautiful young women with great genetics will gladly become surrogate mothers for the right price. Get the concept of marriage out of your heads. Forget what your single mothers or overbearing mothers who controlled your fathers’ testicles told you. You don’t need women outside of sex in a money draining, male deprecating institution known as “marriage.” Find a local girl for convenient sex, enjoy yourself, kick her out in the morning and revel in good times with male-friends. Until the law changes, this is how a wise heterosexual man would live his life or move to another country. I don’t care if the bitch has a personality akin to Mother Theresa and the body and face of Adriana Lima, the financial repercussions of marriage and impregnating women is too great. Even if she signs a prenuptial she still gets custody of the children and a check for each child, for 18 years and 21 years if they go to college.

Lastly, I’m not on the expat wagon yet, given that Europe is as feminized as America and what are my options? Asia and South America. China is a communist country that’s booming but still is not a place that I’d move to because of so many barriers to privacy and freedom. Japan has been declining economically for three decades now and probably has similar laws to the West. India is an overpopulated social-caste wreck waiting to explode in revolution and South America is filled with banana-republics. Africa and the Middle East… goes without saying. Simply outside of the West, there aren’t any real options for long term comfortable living as we’ve become accustomed to in Europe and North America.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lance January 17, 2013 at 08:02

I wanted to amend a previous statement, when I said “DNA was invented.” Correction, when “DNA was discovered.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lance January 17, 2013 at 08:49

Finally for all you “mama’s boys” who still believe in chivalry and squandering hard earned fiat currency on Vera Wang wedding dresses and Tiffany’s rings, if you must get married then play the same game women do; move up! Hold women hostage the same way they do us. Find a woman who has a substantially larger income than you and dare the bitch to divorce you and abscond your children! Alimony works both way gentlemen, just make sure you don’t make any quick financial moves whilst married. The wealthier they are the better! It’s a reason why wealthy women marry amongst their own class. They know the games women play with men and won’t dare make the same mistake. Besides women are biologically attracted to men with resources.

However, if some of you are alpha enough, you can pull a Kevin Federline. And why was he castigated by our feminazi media? We supposedly live in an “equal” society where women do this to men everyday, but when a man returns the favor and receives alimony, he’s a “scumbag” and “loser” yet when women do it, they are “heroines”? Lastly, for you suckers who believe in a woman’s “honest personality” or “goodness of heart” fail to learn from history. Women evolved and developed cognitive mechanisms to coax men with their vaginae and good-will all whilst plotting behind their backs. You wonder why they change when they get married? Because they have already secured your bank-accounts, mission accomplished; you are disposable. When you have the power, they have no other option but to acquiesce and be the superficial bitches nature made them to be. Believe a woman’s “good-will”? Never! And now that the law is not only on their side but actually gives them special rights and privileges, you think you can beat the system and female psychology weathered by centuries of coaxing men in patriarchal societies, by “trusting” a woman who’s “not like the others.” Please, wake up and smell the coffee of realism.

Like I said if a woman with the last name of Vanderbilt, Rothschild, Mellon, or Carnegie wants to marry you, by all means marry that woman and procreate as much as you can. 99.9 of all men will never acquire those kind of fortunes so you’ll have nothing to worry about by moving up the financial ladder on your own. You can even have affairs and get away with it in this arrangement because if she divorces you, you get paid. Too bad most men in the West are dumb white-knights who fall for every two-bit broke bitch or woman with a mediocre job who has nothing to fall back on but her temporary looks. Disregard this at your own peril, and find out how your “sweet-innocent” girlfriend who superficially laughs at your every joke and who’s probably had 200 penises in her, will act after 5 years of marriage. Go ahead…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 8 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: