In response to Kay Hymowitz’s critique of responsibility-dodging single men, (see “They won’t grow up”), Dr. Helen argues that “men are on a marriage strike, not necessarily because they are perpetual adolescents or avoiding deep attachments to others but because the reward for being an adult in our society is so low, especially for men.”
Nowadays, for many men, the negatives of marriage for men often outweigh the positives. Therefore, they engage in it less often. Not because they are bad, not because they are perpetual adolescents, but because they have weighed the pros and cons of marriage in a rational manner and found the institution to be lacking for them. It’s a sensible choice for some and the video games, magazines, and humor websites that Hymowitz disses are a way to fill one’s time with fun activities that don’t tell you that you suck, are an “unfinished person,†emotionally detached or on your way to jail for fake domestic violence charges.
I don’t think it’s really that tough to be a man or that marriage is such a bad deal compared to living on take-out in your parents’ basement. Men, feel free to comment. And women, of course.
Update: Male models with muscles are unemployed, reports the New York Times. Ninety-pound weaklings are the height of fashion.
In terms of image, the current preference is for beauty that is not fully evolved. “People are afraid to look over 21 or make any statement of what it means to be adult,†(Kelly) Cutrone said.
. . . (Model Demián) Tkach said that when he came here from Mexico, where he had been working: “My agency asked me to lose some muscle. I lost a little bit to help them, because I understand the designers are not looking for a male image anymore. They’re looking for some kind of androgyne.â€
Well, the fashion world always has been nuts.
A hypothetical question for the women:
Suppose you’re in love with a man and the two of you are considering marriage. As you’re getting close to committing, he tells you that he’d like you to sign a pre-nuptial agreement. The agreement states:
1. If the marriage results in children, he will stay home to care for them or take a lesser career move to be more free to care for them.
2. You(the wife) will be primarily financially responsible for the support of the family — even if he’s working.
3. If the marriage ends in divorce, he will retain custody of the children. You may see them four days per month.
4. You will pay him (at least) 40% of your take home pay every month if the marriage results in divorce. This amount will be set as a dollar amount and will remain in effect regardless of any change in your personal financial circumstances.
Would you sign that, or would you judge that to be a bad deal? Because basically, ALL men in the Western world are signing that pre-nup when they get married.
“The truth of it is, the way everything’s arranged these days, we’re really NOT members of our own families. We’re sort of like second stringers. As men in today’s world we are really only members of our own families at the discretion of the children’s mother.”
Bing.
Touchdown.
So.. in short.. “Don’t you want a wife?”
Yes. That’d be wonderful.
And if you meet any women who vaguely understand what one is, PM me her number.
If I wanted to be a sperm donor so some chick’s ratbag mom, and the rest of HER clan, could make cooing noises at the fruit of her little jewel’s baby barn and treat me like a cross between an ATM and a mild interruption to her endless fascination with the word “gramma”, I’d fill out an appurtenant form.
Hint:
If you aren’t going to move in with your husband and be part of your new family, don’t take the ring.
We love ya, ladies, but we’re dirty sonsabitches if we’re going to exist to legitimise your need for ovarian fullfilment and cater to your preconcieved notions so you can play house with actual kids and actual money and then sue us for “mental anguish”, once you decide that you got what you came for.
*hug*
Take care.
I find that most of the generalizations directed at women stem from some one’s personal experience (either them, a friend, or a family member) of getting shafted in a divorce.
Most of the anger directed toward “selfish women” are really directed toward which ever particular woman that shafted them.
I am sorry for all the divorces out there and the examples of people behaving dishonorably. But the majority of women can’t be like this, or else, our species would fail.
It is my hope that there are enough happily married couples out there to serve as an example that marriage and everlasting love is an endeavor worth pursuing.
How would our species fail, if most of the aggressive and ugly changes in a marriage happen after children are born? If one looks at all these articles about women wondering where all the men have gone, several things come to light:
– They have come down with a bad case of baby-rabies, or are about to.
– They couch everything in terms of what they want. Never at all about what they offer a man except more responsibility. They don’t even mention the word ‘love’ in these articles.
– They honestly think that men will respond to the marriage call by shaming language and tactics. Yeah…that’ll work.
Wake up, women…The Clue Train made it’s final stop where all the men are standing, and they are climbing aboard in ever-greater numbers. We have every conceivable right to pursue happiness in our own fashion, without being responsible for yours.
And for the record, if all of these angry responses are the result of personal observation and experience, and if there are so many of them, that speaks to the notion that a large number of men have been screwed over by a large number of women.
Get over yourself.
Deal with it.
ns-
But I think it’s also a valuable insight that many of these aren’t really generalizations directed at women as much as they are observations about how our culture and society are now constructed.
To reiterate — men are not really part of their own families anymore — we’re members at the discretion of our children’s mother. If she’s a good, kind woman who’s committed to family come hell or high water, then that man may never gain an understanding of his place, and he’ll be happier for that.
But on the other hand, if she convinces herself for whatever reason that 4 days a month is enough for her children to see him, he really has no recourse. And look around you: there are plenty of what are considered “good women” who have created this arrangement in their families lives. I’ll bet I could name 20 right now, all who are typically thought of as fine people and a “great catch.”
“I find that most of the generalizations directed at women stem from some one’s personal experience”
Welcome to how it felt to listen to forty years of “all men are…”
By the way, we’re the same species. Homo sapien.
So what you’re saying is.. “I’M not like that!”
Okey doke. Then again, you’re not supposed to be.
“It is my hope that there are enough happily married couples out there to serve as an example that marriage and everlasting love is an endeavor worth pursuing.”
Everlasting love IS worth pursuing and working for. As far as the other half of that equation:
It’s also worth playing fairly to keep, on both sides, once you assure your significant other that you have, indeed, found it.
Unfortunately, the topic is the decline of marriage and most men will readily agree that misandric entitlement princesses have shooed eligible men away from anything that can be litigated, in droves. If enough men – all with no good reason to lie about it — all state the same circumstances, does it matter if it was just “whatever woman shafted them”?
Saying it was “just that woman” isn’t quite accurate with a 57% divorce rate and an entire generation of men who see marriage as the equivalent of pouring gas over everything they own and then taking up cigars.
We all say we want the same thing, and… great, but the figures state otherwise and when the system is no longer rigged against one of the available genders, we might get back into the game.
I wish you love. The everlasting sort. As far as marriage, I’d have to see your resumè and get some references, because you wish marriage on two people.
@ns: Yes, it IS my personal experience, but it is also the majority of my peers, my family, and my co-workers. More and more men are finding out that there is no reward in being a decent and honorable guy, especially when there’s a conflict.
I’m glad to hear that you’re in a successful partnership. They are very rare, these days, and yes, I think that you’re likely a rarity, yourself. We are raising generation after generation of women to think that men (fathers, especially) are useless and unnecessary, and that women have every right to expect some impossible fantasy marriage, showered with gifts and affection for simply existing and allowing their incompetent dufus to bask in their glow. The coaching from tv, women’s groups, etc., tells women that they need to run things, and if he doesn’t like it your way, tough, no compromises. From the sound of movies, tv, magazines, female politicians, feminist blogs, every man and husband out there is, at best, a useless pain in the ass, however the generalizations directed against men are far worse. We don’t typically write off every woman in America as a violent sexual deviant who can’t cook dinner without burning the house down.
Much like Kay Hymowitz’s take – it’s ok for women to refuse or delay marriage – they’re ‘finding themselves’, but men are perpetual adolescents, shirking their social responsibility. The double standard is extremely grating, but unfortunatly, very normal in today’s “Men Suck” culture. ANYTHING that men like must be labeled as misantrhopic, mysoginist, exploitive, juvenile, or perverted trash.
With “MEN SUCK” coming from every angle, 24×7, no rebuttal, no wonder young men are reacting with “what’s the use?”
For short term gain, it helps to be a jerk, starving artiost, strung out member of a rock band, or some other sort of emo, hip, edgy trainwreck. Being a nice guy just sucks. All of the jerks have dates, judging by the amount of time I hear women complaining about how the cute dude with the nose ring treats them.
From a male perspective, there is no long term gain, only a substantial amount of risk. I don’t know anyone who’s been married longer than 10 years. Anyone who is in the 5-10 year band is currently at the “please kill me now” state of desperation, with mounting bills and a spouse who’s willing to escallate any conflict as much as possible to make any normal petty disagreement a screaming match until she gets her way.
“The end justifies the means” is the operating phrase when it comes to our adversarial divorce system. I have seen too many cases of the non-working spouse delivering the ultimatum: “you can give it to me, or you can give it to the lawyers, or I’ll just destroy it now. Your choice.”
Child support (for men, anyway) is like the protection racket scene in “Goodfellas”. Lost your job? Awww, too bad, pay me. Oh, ha ha, yes, you can pay to retain an attorney, and we’ll have hearing after hearing for six months while you try to look for a new job, but we’re not lowering your payments in the meantime, so pay me. Car broke? Too bad, pay me. Got hurt or sick and have medical bills? Too bad, pay me. Got married again and have a new family that’s suffering? Too bad (you didn’t learn your lesson the first time), pay me. The only thing that matters is that child support payment. Your ex spends it all on the new, edgy punk boyfriend and drugs, instead of the kids? Too bad, pay me. You’re a victim of paternity fraud? Sorry, the kids are more important, pay me. Ex won’t let you see the kids? Too bad, pay me.
The attorney general will gleefully come after men (not women) for non-payment of child support. If she’s not letting him see the kids, he’ll have to retain an attorney and take her to court. The results will be mixed, he will likely NOT recover his legal costs, and I can tell you that the ex will retaliate by calling the police with a false charge at the next exchange, if she doesn’t make a tearful plea for protection during the hearing.
I think we need to start telling boys when it comes to sex ed that the biggest risk in their life is NOT herpes, aids, hepatitis, syphilis, ghonnorea, chlamydia, HPV, it is the Family Law court.
I think that we should be educating school age boys that they forfeit any future decision making once they have sex, plus all of the financial and legal consequences. Let them know that they’ll be paying higher taxes for all the social programs to support the single mom’s that the cool kids are knocking up, too.
You know what, ns?
Men aren’t angry.
Seriously.
We’re just sort of gaping at women in dull suprise that they’re still trying to tell us how things must be or we’re .
We’re not angry.
We’re not selling any notions.
We’re just.. not buying any.
That’s all… no animosity, no wild gesticulation and posturing indignities.
We’re just sort of “Huh..” And yeah, that’s kind of sad.
That should read “or we’re (insert shameful notion here)”. It truncated while looking for an HTML statement. My apologies.
It is very sad indeed to find so many people so disillusioned with marriage to choose not to engage in it anymore. Even more sad is that those of use where marriage has ill served, applaud others who choose not to marry.
When it works, marriage is a wonderful, fulfilling, and satisfying experience.
What can each of us, as individuals do to change this? Each and every one of us has to accept personal responsibility for our part in creating this aversion to marriage – either through our actions or inaction. Instead of blaming each other, blaming the other sex, let’s look to what we can do to change the situation? The courts? The selfishness? The entitlements?
Please don’t say, “tell the women to stop being self serving b*tches.” Because that’s not what YOU can do. That’s what other people can do… and you can’t make other people do what they don’t want. But you can make yourself do anything.
Some of you would ask, what can *I* myself do, since I am so high holy announcing that we all take personal responsibility? I can make my marriage work. I can act honorably if I get divorced. I can learn from my mistakes if I get divorced and choose more wisely next time. I can teach my children to be honorable human beings in the face of adversity.
But then again, what we say we will do is sometimes different than what is actually done when faced with hardship. I guess venting has its uses.
But I do hope everyone here that has had it with marriage will give it, and themselves, another chance. I guess I am naive to think that since marriage has made me so happy, that wishing the same happiness for others is desirable.
Sorry to have offended.
You neither offended, nor are being “high holy”.
That’s sort of assumptive.
I agree with this: “and you can’t make other people do what they don’t want. But you can make yourself do anything.”
And, believe me, when the other half of this equation does the anything that they can do, and things change, we’ll know, but we feel absolutely unobligated to dash ourselves against the concrete wall presently in place, anymore.
ns –
There’s one gaping big hole in your call for personal responsibility: marriage requires responsibility from all parties involved. That means the man, the woman, and the state must act honestly and justly.
If I go into a marriage with a woman who represents herself as honest, only to find out that she considers me as a starter husband and takes me to a divorce court with an extremely anti-male bias, I’m hosed, doubly so if I went in trustingly without a prenuptual agreement.
The big problem here is not the men or women getting involved, it’s the vicious bias of family law courts. Until this is fixed, marriage will not be desirable to men, no matter how personally responsible they are.
I’ve got more thoughts here.
I figure I will drop my 2 cents in. As a young guy just 23, I have seen a few divorces. My uncle got divorced when my aunt went a bit nuts. Her life now is messed up. He is a farmer and had to agree to pay her 30,000 a year in alimony, so he wouldn’t lose half his land that he needs to make a living. Thank God his boys were old enough to have input and choose to stay with him. This is in Kansas by the way were 30,000 will leave you pretty comfortable.
I have a co-worker that saw a long time buddy get buried by his wife. The buddy’s wife’s mother had been divorced 6 times and was giving her daughter advice to get the most out of the divorce. She quit her job so to get more money from him as she wasn’t working. Then he took out a Temporary Restraining Order to kick him out of his own house and obtain de facto custody of the kids.
Marriage can be nice for a guy, but a divorce will DESTROY him. Especially if kids are involved. One man said it best. However many years you are in the marriage that is how long it will take to get back to the point you were at during the beginning of the marriage. Married for 5 years? It will take 5 more after divorce to get back to the starting point.
Marriage doesn’t offer much that a guy can’t get by cohabitating. Sex is easy to come by. You still have control over your life and things that gets taken away by marriage. If a girlfriend has taken away sex? Get a new girlfriend. Wife taken away sex? TOUGH! Girlfriend demanding you pay for everything and expensive stuff? Break up with her. Wife wanting more things? Either get divorced and lose half, listen to her constant nagging, or watch as she goes out and buys it anyway with your credit card.
Marriage pretty much means you ceding control over to a woman for most things in your life.
Marriage used to be how you got children. Not anymore… Now you can have them out of wedlock. You can still get married for kids, but she can take them away at any time, no real extra rights there. Just more hooks into you by the law.
And GOD the women today!!! Most are jaded, entitled, whores. And yes I mean whores. Most they seem to offer to a relationship is sex. They all have a laundry list of things they expect out of the man. Money, half the housework, a house, better paying job, ect. What do they offer back? Sex… How is that different than a whore? I don’t count kids among the things she brings, because she can take them away easily.
Sorry for the rant, it just ticks me off to see so many women always miles off the reason most men are afraid of marriage.
As I like to say, “Men are not afraid of commitment. It’s just women don’t know what commitment is.” Men are willing to put up with a lot from a woman and ignore flaws in their wife. Many women are not. They instead will divorce when things get rough instead of working through it anymore. It is not till death do us part. Now it is till I feel bored or inconvenienced.
Well that’s it for me. Good luck to all of you out there to find one of the good caring people left.
In the course of feminist ideology, everything from radical lesbians proseletysing their “sisters” away from those darn, oppressive men – so they can score with them – to the idiotic notions expressed in vanity mags and television shows that parade an endless lists of codified complaints about the other gender, there has been a shithouse full of bad ideas postulated, argued and implemented in the name of “womynliess”, and other linguistically overwrought twaddle.
And some very useful and past-due ones, too.
But the preponderance of the billion dollar industries – that were once a simple set of requests and demands to give women equal footing in society – have, sadly, not served any single thing more than the people who profit from stapling the tatters of it’s fabric of intent to whatever they’re selling. It has led a lot of women to make decisions about their lifestyles (that’s marketing wanker talk for “brand allegience”) that they have demanded be implemented as litigable precepts and gender entitlements.
Men simply wish to remove themselves from the consequences of those decisions, and the fastest and most effective way is to remove ourselves of the miasma of biased social and legal constructs surrounding marriage.
“I don’t think it’s really that tough to be a man”
What a ignorant statement , made me completely disregard the rest of your post. It’s a sad reflection on the modern American woman that men would rather play video games , then engage in a meaningful intimate relationship with them.
Quoth ns:
Crieth the woman, “Be fair! Do not shirk!
Hold nothing against she who has not hurt you… yet.”
Men say “We’ve too long had the worst of that bet.
For there to be fairness, both sides have to work.”
The femini-Marxists long ago wrote the song
And, true to form, gave it their clichéd best
Captured as jokes: “If a man speaks in the forest,
And there is no woman to hear, is he wrong?”
“No fault” means “It’s always our fault”, don’t you see?
We’re tired of being the scum of the earth
We’re just walking wallets, and objects of mirth
You wouldn’t take what you want us to be.
You want to reverse this aversion? Do you
Ever think what a movement toward FAIRNESS might be?
When bad actors suffer and good ones are free
From the burden of hearing some liar say “Screw you”
And having to take it. Do you want to be fair?
Change the law so emotional vampires can’t skate
So false accusations are punished, and hate
Is no cause to punish one half of a pair.
At this point I’m all versified out, but I’ll give you a few possibilities for making the system fairer:
Serious penalties for false accusations of abuse, including perjury prosecution for the accuser and disbarment for any attorney suborning same. Civil penalties including compensatory and punitive damages to the accused, with the accuser’s attorney considered as a co-defendant (for insurance purposes). (Yes, I know that this is so common that the courts would be tied in knots over it. The point is to get rid of what is called “the nuclear option”.)
Completely sex-blind support payment schedules.
Enforcement of custody/visitation as strongly as support, with deviations investigated as cause for impeachment of judges.
Make child support deductible to the payer and taxable to the payee.
Limit child support to reasonable consideration for basic, incremental living expenses; e.g. a two-bedroom dwelling does not cost twice as much a one-bedroom, and a non-custodial parent’s financial obligations should not include money which would have normally gone toward gifts to the child, frills such as sports, and so forth.
You can start with that. Call us when you’re done.
Dammit, that was supposed to be a bullet list, but the system stripped my HTML (and HAS NO PREVIEW! C’mon, this was standard practice in the last century already).
Well, JJ, here is your second book.
A man gets married because that is what a man does.
EP,
That’s a good start, but may I suggest something simpler, like my comment about taking away the commercialism from divorce?
Also, either amend no-fault so that the filer loses all rights, or get rid of it.
I like your suggestion that judges be impeached, but perhaps we could take it further? A public flogging, particularly for the so-called examiners, if any hint of a mistake is uncovered. Likewise for the attorneys; additionally, since we want all children to have competent parents, such attorneys should lose custody of their children.
Don’t you think that’s fair?
If that’s supposed to be humor, I suggest you don’t quit your day job.
We have read about the failures of marriage, now let’s have a treatise on the success of shacking up and begetting bastards.
If I can’t sit down at a kitchen table with you, look you in the eye, and know who I am speaking to; I don’t want you for a friend, a president, a partner or a wife.
It’s pretty much that simple.
That being said: “It is a woman’s perogative to change her mind.”
No mention of the degree of import upon which matters she is given this freedom – with impunity as to the consequences.
No mention of scope, scale or gravity of the matter.
Just a blank check to retract her word at a whim.
Let’s apply this liberally:
“As your (friend / employer / employee / business partner / co-worker) I will, in the course of our interaction under the given mutual responsibililties which define our relationships and duties, promise t0 agree and adhere to the rules and obligations that present themselves and do my share. However, I may simply change my mind, at any time, for any reason or lack thereof, thusly leaving you high and dry and not only will I be free to do so without any concern for recompense for such actions on my part, it bloody well may cost you everything you own. Sign here.”
Any questions? Any answers? Anybody care for a mint?
I’m 26 y/o, male, fit, college-educated (aiming for a top-tier MBA soon), debt-free, 780+ credit scores, gainfully employed, and straight. I’ve never cheated on any of my past girlfriends, and I would always remember birthdays, anniversaries, etc.
I am, along with my close buddies, currently avoiding marriage like the plague.
Ladies, the marriage strike is a reality, and it is gaining serious traction amongst young male professionals. I have marriage avoiding friends who work in corporate finance, law, medicine, architecture, and other lucrative fields. We didn’t get to be so successful by being idiots, and we have woken up to the fact that marriage is one hell of a risky proposition.
We don’t worry about lonliness, as scoring pretty, younger girls has become way easier with the trappings of success.
One day, I’d love to find that special one and only, but I’m not going to bother with that kind of commitment until the divorce and custody laws in this country get a major overhaul.
And there you have it.
Best of luck, ladies. Have a great day. Don’t forget to get your parking validated.
Coffee and doughnuts in the lobby.
@Engineer-Poet
Your reply only contains what *other people* can do, including me, to make the marriage situation better. It doesn’t illustrate what you, yourself, can do to make the situation better. Maybe having other people fix marriage is the solution you prefer. That is fine if it is.
It is perfectly fair if you think what I intend to do to improve things is not good enough. And I accept that. Neither of us can make the other do things they are unwilling to do.
You may not agree that there is hope for marriage. You may not agree that marriage can ever be fulfilling and satisfying. You may even think I’m just deluded and am not *really* in a satisfying marriage myself.
Our world is whatever we believe it to be. And no one can force you to believe differently.
The purpose of my post was to just give a voice of hope. I wanted to let disillusioned people out there know that a truly satisfying and fulfilling marriage does exist and is worth seeking.
Thanks for listening, everyone.
ns:
“It is very sad indeed to find so many people so disillusioned with marriage to choose not to engage in it anymore. Even more sad is that those of use where marriage has ill served, applaud others who choose not to marry.
When it works, marriage is a wonderful, fulfilling, and satisfying experience.
What can each of us, as individuals do to change this? Each and every one of us has to accept personal responsibility for our part in creating this aversion to marriage – either through our actions or inaction. Instead of blaming each other, blaming the other sex, let’s look to what we can do to change the situation? The courts? The selfishness? The entitlements?
Please don’t say, “tell the women to stop being self serving b*tches.†Because that’s not what YOU can do. That’s what other people can do… and you can’t make other people do what they don’t want. But you can make yourself do anything.
Some of you would ask, what can *I* myself do, since I am so high holy announcing that we all take personal responsibility? I can make my marriage work. I can act honorably if I get divorced. I can learn from my mistakes if I get divorced and choose more wisely next time. I can teach my children to be honorable human beings in the face of adversity.
But then again, what we say we will do is sometimes different than what is actually done when faced with hardship. I guess venting has its uses.
But I do hope everyone here that has had it with marriage will give it, and themselves, another chance. I guess I am naive to think that since marriage has made me so happy, that wishing the same happiness for others is desirable.
Sorry to have offended.”
NS, I’m one of the people who’ve been through the marriage/divorce cycle. I’m not applauding people for avoiding marriage, I’m cautioning men that marriage is a bad investment of your time, and that any concept of fairness and equality before the law does not exist, but rather a gross double standard in expectations and accountability does. I’m warning men who may be considering marriage that they may be facing a disaster from which they may be unable to ever recover from, that the life that they’ve worked so hard for can be taken from them, simply because their partner is dissatisfied.
Google “grey divorce” and japanese “wet-leaves” for more examples.
I’m genuinely happy to hear that your marriage works. It’s probably what most men would be delighted to have, myself included. I’d *wish* the same for others, too. Unfortunately, with our divorce rate, it is not likely to happen, and the outcome is not in men’s control. Further, there are several entities external to his relationship that have a vested financial and political incentive to undermine and destroy it.
I’m saying that men’s standard of behaving honorably will be used against him. I’m not advocating that men start behaving in a dishonorable fashion, but instead realize the person he’s likely going to get divorced from has zero incentive for honorable or ethical behavior.
Certainly, there are a number of issues that need changing, both culturally and legally. Unfortunately, while men do give women the benefit of the doubt, and are generally willing to be honorable and fair, women do not extend men the same courtesy in divorce court. “All’s fair in love and war”, “the end justifies the means” are the rallying cries. You’re asking men to engage in this adversarial system with their arms tied behind their backs. That’s some pretty blatant sexism, there. Smile nice and say ‘thank you’ when you get kicked in the ‘nads.
I’m not offended by your comments, and I doubt few people here are. I can see that you’re trying to say that we could all use a little ‘dispute resolution’ training, it would be wise to stay focused on the benefits of long-term, stable relationship, etc. It sounds like you and your spouse are realizing those same rewards, you’re a nice, ethical, motivated person, and likely your spouse is, too. Yes, there are benefits, but only when both partners have an incentive to see things out. That goes right out the window for men, when their partner discovers/decides that antagoinism goes farther than co-operation and mutual support. The reverse is rarely true, and most feminists decry marriage as detrimental to women on the presumtion that the reverse *IS* true.
As far as the “what can *I* do” – most men have discovered that means a one sided capitulation, with the demands and antagonism increasing with each appeasement. Do a little game theory on the marriage game, taking into consideration the different rule sets for the different sexes. I’ll simplify the rule set – Men: responsible for everything. Women: accountable for nothing. The warning for men is clear: Doing the right thing does not affect the outcome. You don’t get points in court for it, and the other council appreciates it as much as doing the wrong thing. With the outcomes and probabilities that exist, the only smart choice at this time is not to play. So, as is shown in the basic thread, yes, the action taken by men is to have withdrawn in large numbers from the marriage system, and are dealing with being marginalized.
NS, members of your gender have declared a cultural and legal war on men. Men are starting to figure this out, and realize that (among other things) the marriage deck is stacked against them. Twenty four-seven, in every venue available, there is nothing but “Men are awful, violent, perverted, cheating, immature, lazy, adult children who owe you for every past injustice ever done to any woman anywhere, and they should feel lucky just to be graced by your presence.” Who would want to engage in a lifetime contract in that environment?
“Your reply only contains what *other people* can do, including me, to make the marriage situation better. It doesn’t illustrate what you, yourself, can do to make the situation better. Maybe having other people fix marriage is the solution you prefer. That is fine if it is.
:-/
Sorry, I’m OD’ing on all of that irony.
“Our world is whatever we believe it to be. And no one can force you to believe differently.”
That is absolute claptrap. That’s “aww, poor widdow deluded boy” bull***, best served in small doses to 9 year olds.
Sorry.
The results of our behaviours and actions make up this world. And it’s a pretty pathetic mess, atm.
Let old unkie bunner school ya:
Nobody wins.
There’s no patrician, grey haired bloke in a white suit, smiling munificently at the gates to the marble orchard with a quill pen saying “You took way more than you gave! Woo! you win!”
No luggage on the hearse.
Anybody who would betray one of the few things that makes this veil of tears bearable, love… deep, profound devoted love, for a shot at a fully paid dollhouse and a hearty “nyah nyah!” is beneath contempt.
The fact that it’s been turned into an industry and a football in the political arena is beneath disgust.
It’s not all Oprah and Hallmark and Kodak moments.
Those are corporations.
The successful people, the ones who “win” let the sort of moments, that these people try and sell you like a product, just come and go and unfold and pass and cherish the memories.
The people who think they have to keep up with some imaginary scorecard, instead, run around looking for the remote or the camera or the late night greeting card store like they’re going to miss something and then stick those memories in a box – when the relationship that created them fails from suspicion, avarice and neglect – and tell the other person who helped create them: “nayh nyah”.
There is no “what WE can do”.
Thirty years of feminism have taught us that the only way not to get screwed out of our forty acres and mule is to farm them ourselves. It is NOT incumbent upon men to restore trust between men and women.
And frankly, if women can’t be bothered, we believe them.
We didn’t book this dog and pony show.
We’re just tired of cleaning up the dog and pony crap. : )
Gee, feminism’s worked wonders for the world, hasn’t it?
No fault divorce is only a tiny piece of the problem. The real problem is feminism’s demands that “equality” that women degrade themselves until they met the level of men-as-pigs, rather than “equality” meaning men live up to high standards of gentlemen while women lived up to being ladies in both the home and work spheres.
As a result, sex is a commodity, not valued by men, and not valued by women. the side effect of children aren’t valued either, which is why abortion and single parenting are taken for granted. Women no longer demand a man show their willingness to marriage before sexual intimacy; women who do want to wait lose their place in the dating game to women who will sleep with anyone. Men know this, so they dont’ even have to be responsible for the children they father in any emotional or time sense, and the women respond by believing that fatherhood is irrelevant.
the working world of women now means women expect to be able to work any job they want, no matter how LOW PAYING or financially irrelevant to the household even as someone else is responsible for child rearing and their spouse is responsible for picking up the financial slack with respect to the mortgage and retirement and lifestyle.
women don’t behave as equals to gentlemen/fathers/responsible husbands. they don’t take on the pain and worry of being the breadwinner, they don’t recognize the value of the breadwinner and agree very often to stay home and run the household–they expect the breadwinner to do that as well as they do. they outsource most of their own childrearing and demand their spouse behave in new ways while carrying old burdens.
in short, they behave as equals to the single pigs who have little invested in family, society, or decent culture.
this is what feminism created. if you want to buck the trend, stay a virgin in your teens and 20s and find a husband, your chances are slim. if you want to buck the trend and being a stay at home wife and mother, your chances are slim. why? because you’re competing for men against sluts. and the young men who are no longer being civilized by a society that demands they keep their fly zipped will choose sex-without-consequences with the young woman who’s available, and nearly all of them are.
“A starter husband”.
You know, some guy you marry so you can say “I’m married” and wear like a shoe until you get bored.
A thinking, feeling human being that you spoke marriage vows to, as a temporary hobby that you can have pay bills for you once you decide to opt for a different one.
And men are thoughtless?
Men are immature?
Hey, ladies:
This is a starter husband.
I cannot not speak for all women. I can only speak for myself.
I am sorry for what many of you have gone through in your relationships – if not you, maybe someone close to you have. I am sorry that you have encountered women like you have described, I am sorry that they even exist. You may not think my apology is worth anything, but that is all I have.
I don’t know how to change other people. I don’t know how to make them be something they choose not to be.
All I know is how make *me* not be like what you have described. And hopefully, I can show others that it is possible to choose to have love and fulfillment in marriage by being a decent honorable person. If I can show others that, maybe they will choose to be decent honorable people too.
As Socrates once said, “Let there be peace… and let it begin with me.”
“I cannot not speak for all women. I can only speak for myself.
And that is as things should be. I feel you have nothing to apologise for. I’m a bit surprised you would take the statements made, here, by the men responding to this subject personally.
Men don’t want apologies, anyhoo.
Just somebody next to them who meant what they said when those words were spoken.
And the present social climate has very little of that and encourages women to take what they can get, ask for more whenever they want and offer no regard for the vows they spoke or the men whom they spoke them to.
We’re just saying we noticed.
Only and idiot walks through a minefield twice if they know it’s a minefield.
I think you’re brought something positive to this exchange.
Thank you.
But neither you nor I can tell the world to re-assess that which it values and why. That’s what history is for. those who do not learn from that history, etcetera…
We’ve learned.
And we are loathe to stick our hand back on that stove until it stops glowing red.
This isn’t misogyny or immaturity, it’s pragmatism.
I wish you all the love in the world.
Men are just to the point where they are not willing to trade a broken back, their life’s chattel, every dime they make or their dignity for it, because we’re pretty sure that love doesn’t demand that.
“I cannot not speak for all women. I can only speak for myself…..I don’t know how to change other people. I don’t know how to make them be something they choose not to be.”
Then let me tell you how. You presumably have female friends, acquaintances, etc. Instead of preaching to the men here who HAVE behaved honorably, why don’t you point your platitudes at some women who haven’t? How about a little old fashioned shaming or even shunning of women you know (and odds are, unless you’re Amish, you know some) who have decided they need to dump their husbands to discover their inner self, or because they’re bored, or women who are cheating on decent husbands. A little social disapprobation might help, but to be truly effective, it has to come from within “the sisterhood,” because, after all, when men call an adulteress, or woman divorcing out of boredom, a whore, it’s just sour grapes, or their innate immaturity talking.
Here you are, ostensibly an honorable women, and when you see honorable men complaining about dishonorable women, and opting out because, the majority of women are responding to social and legal incentives to be dishonorable, you presume to lecture the men that they should continue to lay their head on the chopping block.
“And hopefully, I can show others that it is possible to choose to have love and fulfillment in marriage by being a decent honorable person. If I can show others that, maybe they will choose to be decent honorable people too.”
Unfortunately, history shows us that most people have to face a little negative reinforcement from being dishonorable. I and many of my male friends have cut off male and female friends for whorish marital behavior, and I’ve seen women cut off male friends for it, but often see even the most honorable of women refuse to utter a harsh word about or at another woman for such things. Clean up your own gender house before lecturing ours.
Might I suggest that the reluctance to address the other side of this stems from a well founded fear that the feministas won’t be nearly as tolerant in their responses as we were?
“As Socrates once said, “Let there be peace… and let it begin with me.—
That was St. Francis of Assisi
In my years of existing, I have learned many truths. For me, the two top truths of life are….
1. Being right or wrong has nothing to do with winning or losing.
2. The most negative person in any relationship takes control.
I never thought offering a message of hope equaled to saying, “please continue to allow yourself to be abused.”
Shaming and punishment is not a method I choose to encourage others to be honorable. It may be a method you choose, and by all means, if it works for you, keep doing it.
Serving as an example and offering hope has been more effective in my experience. You don’t have to agree with that, as our life experiences are different.
All I offer is hope: give yourself another chance, give marriage/love another chance. This statement is different than: allow yourself to be abused and dishonored. If you feel these statements are synonymous, then a marriage strike is right for you because inevitably, it will end in abuse and dishonor.
“Shaming and punishment is not a method I choose to encourage others to be honorable.”
Then clearly you’re not into methods based on empirical reality. Back before your new age, no shaming approach came into vogue, you’ll notice there was far less of this dishonorable marital behavior. The no-fault divorce laws that place all the power in the hands of the party seeking NOT to honor their commitments grew largely out of that no shame thinking.
“Serving as an example and offering hope has been more effective in my experience.”
Then your experience is at best anecdotal, at worst, a self delusion. The larger objective statistical reality is far different. As social shaming has fallen out of fashion, the frequency of dishonorable marital behavior has increased. That is the real world, sorry if it doesn’t fit your emotional template.
“give marriage/love another chance.”
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Insanity is repeating the same steps and expecting a different outcome.
The people commenting here can’t AFFORD another go round – for many of them, the first nearly destroyed them.
“If you feel these statements are synonymous, then a marriage strike is right for you because inevitably, it will end in abuse and dishonor.”
Not inevitably, but the cultural and legal deck is stacked against them, and thus, that’s the smart way to bet. It sounds like you live a very sheltered life – you’ve clearly never swam in deep business waters.
I would repeat my suggestion that your time would be more productively spent preaching to the women who CAUSED the marriage strike, rather than the men who simply made a rational economic response to the circumstances, but now I’m not so sure that would help. You would probably approach them with the same fuzzy feelings based emotional material that has led to the current climate of divorce as personal growth strategy, and make the problem worse. As it is, it’s probably better that you peddle that smarmy pablum to the men, as it will only stoke the fires of resentment, and thus expand the marriage strike, bringing us closer to the day that it becomes so blatant that the women wise up and take responsibility for their role in it, and THEN maybe we can get closer to your proposed marital nirvana.
Yep, shaming is a good tool to help maintain social cohesion and ensure proper behavior in most people. Jails/executions were reserved for those who refused to respond to the social stigma. Now, there is no social stigma attached to even the basest of behaviors in the name of “not hurting anyone’s feelings.” That is what marxist brownshirt feminism have brought us.
ns, it is too late to right this ship any other way. It has to be painful to make people see the need for a massive change. Even if these laws change the beastly behavior has become ingrained in many women needs further social stigma.
Essentially these misguided egalitarians have a created a gender war, racial war and class war that no one can win. Because in order to win, you have to become a depraved, narcissistic, dishonest, ruthless beast. And when you become such a creature you have LOST your very humanity.
As bunner said, this society encourages young women to imitate the basest, most id driven behaviors of the worst of men(behaviors that have NOT been socially accepted in men historically, but that doesn’t stop the feminists from mythologizing the way things were.) Then the feminists turn around and demand men behave more like women: get in touch with their emotions. change diapers, mop the floor etc.Why? Feminine women and masculine men go together and complement each other well. Let each gender perform the tasks for which they were created (and are best suited.)No other combination works.
History was not one big conspiracy by men to deprive women of the fun world of the workplace and childless sex. Western civilization was built by requiring strict adherence to a set of social mores different (but usually equally restrictive, if anything men were more restricted as they often had to risk their lives to defend civilization of women and children as on the Titanic, in war, etc) for each gender. Monogamous marriage has always benefited women more than any alternative arrangement.
When this little social engineering experiment of gender role reversal and elevation of the worst behavior womankind has to offer is over, I fear Western Civilization will be as well.
Yeah, when you’re all done smirking and shouting and going home alone, the sum of the parts of feminism was a failure of a scope and scale that has been heretofore reserved for the notation of aftermaths of war.
Facts are staggeringly non malleable by way of pseudo-political horse*** and marketing baloney. Let’s face it “Yeah, well you suck cause you’re a man!” really is a woefully inadequate response to “why are you sitting there on the curb with your ass hanging out, drunk, vomiting on your shoes, with a dozen condoms hot glued to your shirt and asking strangers if they’ve seen your kids?”.
However, a lot of people are making a buck off of it so they’re gonna keep selling it to women who think they’re -this- close to cracking the code.
We’re just not interested in playing along, anymore. Hell, even just looking at it is depressing.
You really wanna know what the most attractive thing about women is, to worthwhile males?
What really melts their heart?
What gets them hooked?
Dignity.
Not available at your local pharmacy, bookstore or legal office.
By the way, for all of you “marketing” cats:
Please kill yourselves.
Do you know what the essence of marketing is?
“Strip away anything that impedes people from following their most base instincts, see what they do and then make a buck off it”.
ns –
You said that it cannot be all that bad – if it were, then civilization would be dead.
Not dead. Dying. The “evil” male patriarchy, as it turns out, was that a man was more about protecting and providing for his family than about tearing down and taking. The “liberated” feminocracy is not aboutbuilding up or protecting at all. It’s about tearing down (the family) and taking (from the nearest male). The patriarchy, even with its problems, builds civilations. Feminism is about teaing down and selfishly taking. Fine. Men have wised up and are not willingly signing up to be pawns at the hands of women who ae entitled to irresponsibly reneg on their agreements and “change their minds”, destroying a man at her very whim.
A woman who will tear apart her family for selfish gain, turning her own children against their father is one of the most irresponsibly things a person can do – and you would call men irresponsible? Ironic. No, overwhelmingly it women who have been irresponsible.
As a result…
The marriage strike is very real indeed. You have seen the young men posting, after seeing the smoking wreckage of the men who went before them, vowing never to be a pawn of an irresponsible woman – vowing not to voluntarily give away their children and all for which they have worked. Last count was 28% of the marriage aged men between 15 and 44 are HARD CORE MARRIAGE AVOIDERS. Another 12% of marriage aged men took foreign wives, hoping to increase the odds that he might actually get to keep the family for which he paid, and hoping to avoid the “entitled” American woman – now at least two generations of women raised to hate and fear men. That makes an aggregate 40% of American men who are quietly voting with their feet. It’s approaching half.
Granted, not all American women are bad. But the problem is, you can’t tell by looking. Worse, a man can do absolutely nothing to prevent the devistation nor avoid it when it nevitably comes his way. He must give in to all her wished lest she ruin him with a silver bullet.
Young men are not irresponsible; they are wise to not voluntarily play a game they cannot win and cannot quit.
The Marriage Strike is alive and well.
What an interesting discussion. A few other factors at work in Marriage avoidance:
1. Lots of Western people have now grown up in broken families. Consequently, they have no positive mental model of Marriage. Many of the males will have learned to distrust women at their father’s knee (like me).
2. Some of this is an Anglo-Saxon problem. Because Anglo-Saxon culture is in essence Puritanical, Anglo-American women grow up with a sense of entitlement second to none, because they ‘own’ sex in a culture where it is an elusive commodity.
3. Because of point 2, Anglo-American women are typically rude, abusive and endowed with an offhand sense of entitlement. Men will avoid this if possible – hence the Marriage strike.
4. The Internet revolution has opened up lots of alternatives to marriage with Anglo-American women – swinging, prostitution, foreign brides, you name it. Men do not need to marry any more.
5. Women have squared rights with privileges, because Anglo-American feminism is still an emerging movement. This is at the core of the Divorce problem for men – the Law is stuck in 1958, picturing women as penniless damsels and men as ogres. Yet women have gained many rights since then.
6. Rival lifestyles – being gay is now acceptable. Guys that might have denied their sexuality in earlier generations now ‘go for it’ – being Gay is now super-hip in the media.
7. Women, while they have rights still retain archaic expectations that male partners should earn more than themselves. This is biological and unlikely to be erased, ever. This explains why they erroneously ’see’ such a shortage of single men.
That’s about it from me. Unless this situation changes, Anglo-Saxon culture will be swamped in 20 years. A civilization will die if it cannot reproduce itself – and yours cannot, with these issues in place.
That, or the amount of bastard children with no notion of fatherhood, the stability of a two parent family – or what it offers – or why it’s important, will just deconstruct that civilisation into something tribal, fraught with mistrust and childish notions of the importance of the individual, as opposed to a greater good of a functioning culture, until it is subsumed into something less than it could be.
You know, like now.
Whatever the **** extra golden eggs you gals thought women were ENTITLED to, it’s now moot.
You’ve strangled the goose, the goose pen is a shambles and the gilt is off the shell.
Any more bright ideas?
Don’t forget to go home, tonight, hug your little tattooed, pierced, spoiled, dipshit kids and tell them how important their sense of self-esteem is. Even if they can barely read at 16.
How they’re entitled to respect.
Just for showing up and eating and shitting and sleeping. Cause.. you know.. they’re unique.
Drop that bar a little lower… they’ll magically morph into doctors and lawyers, one day.
And if you just CAN’T DO IT ALONE!… *snif* don’t worry… Maury Povich will save you.
Heheheheh.
S u c k e r s .
Men: “Dont Date American Women, Dont Have Children, Earn More Money!”?
Listen to American Women, take the hint!
American Women dont need us!
They are very Strong!
Go for what you want! Sex and Money!
http://menforjustice.net/cms/
(Never married, never will – but almost looked over the edge once)
Reasons I would not get married much less date:
To avoid divorce – Marriage returns are minimal, and you can risk more than you have.
To avoid financial and emotional bankruptcy.
To avoid being conned into paying child support for a child that is not mine.
To avoid being thrown out of my home with fabricated DV claims.
To avoid not being able to see my children (might as not not have them to start out with since the result is the same)
I can cook better than any I have met so far.
I don’t have anyone yelling at me to pick up my socks.
I can enjoy my hobbies.
I can make more money and keep it.
I can sleep better alone than when sharing a bed.
There is nothing in common I share with any of them.
To avoid all the stress related disorders I once had because of being in a relationship.
I can live where I want to and do what I want to.
They (women) have nothing to offer me (and I reciprocate by offering them nothing in return).
If that makes me an adolescent, so be it – I off to play CastleWolfenstein and later play with my model trains.
Have a nice day
“I don’t think it’s really that tough to be a man or that marriage is such a bad deal compared to living on take-out in your parents’ basement. Men, feel free to comment. And women, of course.”
I’ll be frank. It’s largely because of women like YOU that more and more men don’t want to marry. It’s because of your smarmy, overly-critical attitude (not that you’ve offered any real criticism). It’s also because of your obvious penchant for blaming men for all problems in a society that refuses to hold women accountable for their own behavior.
Eating takeout and living in their parent’s basements? I think not, sister. Why would you assume that because a man doesn’t want to marry, he lives like an irresponsible miscreant? No no! Many men I know who refuse to marry happen to have great jobs, nice homes, and rich, fulfilling lives. They’ve simply counted up the beans and decided that they do not wish to get raped in a family court one day because their wives simply tired of them. Women, as you probably do not know or do not want to admit, file upwards of 70% of divorces. A huge percentage of these divorces are no-fault divorces, meaning that these women simply decided they were sick of being married to a particular man and decided to get rid of him. When a real man, a responsible man, takes a look at these numbers, what do you think his decision will be?
I think I know your real agenda. You want to continue the women’s “Let’s have our cake and eat it too” game, right? You’d love that, wouldn’t you? It’s awesome that women can have great careers, achieve so much, and shout their grrrlll power to the hills, but still get married and have a guy pay for everything. Well, I’ll tell you what? The next time a successful career woman asks ME out on a date to an expensive restaurant and SHE pays the bill, I’ll believe the whole girl power myth. Otherwise, tell your story walking.
The real issue is that more and more men are starting to see what a racket marriage is, right? That’s what’s worrying you. C’mon now, be honest.
Yes, the game is up: Anglo-American women have squared rights with privileges, opportunities with entitlements, all sans responsibilities – but now, everyone knows it. Only deadbeat Anglo males with low incomes and IQs (i.e. with nothing to lose) get married or breed any more. In the near future, the Anglo-American middle class will be replaced by a sino-caucasian elite; the Anglo-Saxons will just become a moronic underclass across the Western Anglosphere. Anglo-American gynophilia has destroyed the Anglo-American cultural compact: your world hegemony is finished.
The times they are a-changin’…
That’s a pretty stiff pronouncement, and like most, it’s pretty broad brush.
I’ll agree that white girls have really got to pull their heads out of their pampered, gimmie gimmie asses or Anglo culture will continue to destablise, but I don’t see the collapse of the white race and it’s contributions to global culture as imminent.
Then again, if there were some sort of racial Jihad against ofays, I don’t think they could have found a better way to subvert their culture than to convince it’s women that their men are out to enslave them in nice homes, prevent them from living life to the fullest (I.E: working their asses off, paying all their bills, binge drinking, screwing every guy who grabs their fancy) and that they should treat them like sperm donors, ATM machines and belittle and ill use them at every turn.
What worries me isn’t so much the obvious failure of the “women can do it all” premise being sold to vain, clueless women – certain that if the TeeVee says “you’re missing out” that they surely must be – and it’s resulting posturing, tempest in a teapot politicisation of EVERYthing along failed gender ideologies resulting in horrid academic constructs, poorly raised, spoiled children incapable of wiping their own asses and the codification of gender mistrust…
What worries me is that they actually have surrendered objective thought for pissy vanity to the point where they either don’t really notice that they have been conned or think just saying “It’s because of MEN! Give me more stuff!” will somehow fix it.
Women have been told that the ultimate feminist statement is to act like the ridiculous, piggish cartoon characters that the media has made men out to be. The only way to let them know that they’ve been had is to ignore their complaints as to the results of their behaviour. Sad.
There’s no “Woo! We won!”, girls.
Honest.
It all ends in the marble orchard, hon, and if you don’t want us around for the ride, um… ok, but stop complaining when the train just passes your stop.
There’s more at stake in your self-important baloney than just having the next, snotty, “ha ha” moment with the girls over coffee.
The stuff you think you’re going to “win” by abusing and discounting men and demanding everything on your own terms – with neither effort nor culpability – is the stuff we built as a team
And it’s disappearing.
And there’s no Deus ex Machina that’s going to put the lustre back on your Malibu Barbie house and magically re-create the society that provided all of the things you want as you deconstruct that very society.
We shall see what we shall see.
We shall indeed. But the Anglosphere is already too feminine to compete with the masculine Orient. From a biological perspective, the surplus of males in China and India must lead to highly competitive and innovative cultures: men in male-heavy societies must triumph in order to reproduce. And as we know, men can move mountains given the motivation.
By contrast, the West in general and the Anglosphere in particular are hobbled by feminist, feminine values that devalue male dynamism and originality – just look at the education system, degraded into spoon-feeding the masses politically-correct cant; where women’s studies are accorded more status than engineering. This also explains why the West is increasingly ‘porous’ – why, for example, indigestible Jihadists enter Europe, refuse to assimilate, exploit the Welfare state and finally respond with terrorism. It is hard to picture any of that happening with a more ‘masculine’ socio-political ethos abroad in the West: after all, the primary male instinct is to maintain a territory. For example, Victorian England accepted mass immigration without any cultural concessions to the incomers – none whatsoever. The same was true of the United States until relatively recently.
We are entering ‘interesting times’; with environmental degradation soon to destabilise large parts of the globe and probably unsettle populations as well as the global techno-industrial infrastructure, it will strain the West’s hegemony to the absolute limit. Given the Anglosphere’s gynocracratic values, its ability to ‘ride’ these catastrophes and emerge with any degree of cultural coherence will be massively ameliorated. The gynocratic porousness, lack of vitality and reliance on sentiment that now characterises the West is the worst prevailing philosophy if it is to survive the storms ahead.
Perhaps.
However, sadly, the viral aspects of even terribly failed ideologies often continue to weave themselves into the fabric of the cultures that did not originate them.
This is carried out with great speed in the information age, due to endless barrages of infotainment, non-news reporting and the new line of gender clichés enforced by the writers for film and television. As the east becomes more westernised, a lot of the idiotic notions that have poured out of American media and the between the lines socio-political and gender non-issues focus that have ridden that river of bad ideas and utter malarkey, are going to be custom fit to the cultures that haqve access to the media.
In other words, as feminism has evolved into nothing more than an industry that is designed to keep people at each other’s necks, not all of the kool-aid is being passed out locally. Eastern women are more and more sipping on the fashion of faux feminism and walking it around the block.
Inasmuch as feminism started out as a simple, useful idea regarding work / pay issues for women and, only afterwards, devolved into a knife to the neck sort of misandric, idiot’s delight – in order to keep the burgeoning industry of gyno pundits, sob sisters and and they-who-smirk-last posturing making a profit – it has seeped into other cultural constructs. The elite who saw a wonderful diversion tool to keep the masses aiming their hostility at the bloke up the street as they deconstructed the economy to their advantage, are finding themselves facing a market that has women controlling more of the money supply and they value only “value”. They value having, not utilising or investing. This has come back to bite them in the arse.
The deconstruction of the family became a brief respite from scrutiny for the ruling class and banking elite, but as the rest of the world watched a pack of thieves with a sock puppet mascot rip the fabric of Anglo America to bits, their women started subscribing to the notions that assisted the gutting of the fish. And they did it because they were told they were getting screwed over by their own men.
As more and more fiat money pours into once dominantly agrarian nations, the information grid will be pushed into areas where simpler and more traditional ideologies once stood above the noise floor of faux politics and diversionary entertainment that has hallmarked the last four decades, in the west.
And they will begin to sip the kool aid.
The fact that this serves neither the west nor the east makes one think of refining one’s scope regarding what ends and means may be being addressed, here.
Let’s face it:
The Anglo west’s primary product, in the second millennium, is propaganda. And the people selling it know that there is no way to repair your house if it’s denizens are each pushing outwards on opposite walls.
Perhaps there’s not much to do, if women eschew the notion that education along the lines of history regarding the grit of how cultures evolve and fail, is necessary so long as the bacon dispenser works and it’s “all about them”. Oddly, you never hear of women “in power” in the sphere of those who pull the strings upon the massive economic machines that shift the balances of power. These people wear suits, their wives wear dresses, they smile briefly, dispense sound bites and repair to a waiting car. And we point to these well dressed, articulate, ostensibly munificent people, assume all is well and shut the light out.
What better way to keep the clueless and profitably discognizant reaching for plaques, award dinners and other trinkets than to appeal to the vanity of their women? Tell them that they are entitled to a plaque, too, and then tell them that if they don’t get their 15 minutes of desultory applause and award dinner, that it’s the fault of their men.
It’s working like a charm. If you cast a handful of seeds into a cage full of animals that are told, daily, that they must immediately fight for and eat as many of the seeds as possible – as the other gender/race/religion will snatch them from them if they do not – the planting indsutry stops.
The tautological economic fallacies and cultural subversion that is stripping the fabric from the Anglo-west is a locally built construct. And I think that there’s more at stake than the west as they turn their gaze to the previously drawn, imaginary lines on the globe.
I think your bulletproof Orient will be opening more kool aid stands than not, much to their detriment, in the coming two decades.
As for the feminists who may be following this blog post with their misogyny missles in tow…
Lemme tighten it up for you.
“We want to be EQUAL!”
“OK”
“We’re equal now!”
“Sounds wonderful. Pick up a shovel.”
“No, you gimmie half your stuff.”
“I think you misread the fine print.”
“You just hate women!”
“Yeahhhhhhhhh, whatever.”
“Hey… our culture is collapsing!”
“We know.”
*bows*
*makes a sandwich*
Nice one bunner!