The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has the following handy chart showing the long decline in men’s employment in the US (shaded areas represent recessions):
During this same time period the strength of marriage as an institution has declined as well. Out of wedlock births are up (source):
The percentage of the population which is married is going down:
Median age of first marriage is going up (Source):
The closest to good news for marriage is that divorce rates stopped increasing after reaching 22 per 1,000 couples (per year) in 1980. However, remarriage rates are in a steep decline:
Conventional Wisdom
Conventional wisdom is that the decline in men’s labor force participation and the weakening of marriage as an institution are linked, but only in one direction. The standard narrative is that as men have (for whatever reason) worked less, marriage has been weakened because men are no longer filling the role of breadwinner. There is certainly some logic here, and this must be a least part of the explanation. However, in asserting that the connection works in only one direction the standard narrative requires a series of incredible assumptions.
The first assumption conventional wisdom requires is that a marriage based culture doesn’t create powerful incentives for married men to work hard and maximize their earnings. Denying the incentive marriage provides to men to work harder has left a cottage industry of sociologists and economists scratching their heads trying to figure out why marriage makes men more productive and doesn’t do the same for women. This incentive is denied despite the fact that we implicitly recognize that it is a powerful motivating force in other contexts. Every family court judge in the land knows that marriage creates strong incentives for men to work harder, which is why courts feel the need to assign income quotas (imputed income) to divorced men in order to keep them working as hard after the divorce as they did while married.
The second assumption is that the desire to marry in a marriage based culture doesn’t create an incentive for young men to work hard to signal breadwinner capability or at least breadwinner potential. To believe this, one would have to assume that young men aren’t aware that women place a high value on a man’s employment and earnings status when selecting a prospective husband. This is absurd. The reality is that sex is a powerful motivator for men (young and old); just ask any marketer.
The third assumption is that feminism and the sexual revolution never happened, or at least that they didn’t fundamentally change marriage patterns. Under this assumption, the only reason women are delaying or forgoing marriage is because women simply can’t find men with jobs. Yet we know this isn’t true. Feminists have completed a long and wildly successful march through all of our institutions, and young women are quite open about their plans to maximize their period of casual sex and only marry once they start to see their window of fertility close. The reality is that women are delaying marriage not because marriagable men are scarce, but because they perceive them as so abundant they don’t feel the need to hurry and lock one down.
Conclusion
In a marriage based society, getting sexual access to the most attractive women requires men to work hard to signal provider status. After the wedding, men feel the responsibility which comes with the position of head of the household. Both of these are extremely powerful incentives for men to work hard and maximize their earnings. However, we have moved from a marriage based/incentive structure for men to a quota/coercion based society. As a result, we are seeing a shift in men’s attitudes about work.
Tying this back to the chart on men’s employment, what this means is one of two things is going on:
1) The entire reduction in men’s earnings and labor force participation is due to the loss of incentives which were in place when we were a marriage based society.
or
2) Structural forces have reduced men’s participation in the workforce (a shifting economy, global trade, an increase in welfare/disability payments, etc), while at the same time men’s incentive to push past these obstacles has been greatly reduced. Put another way, we have reduced men’s incentive to work hard at exactly the time we need them working their hardest. Even worse, each of these two problems feeds the other in a vicious circle. Weaker incentives for men to excel results in a weaker economy, which weakens marriage, which then further weakens the incentives for men to excel.
No matter how you view it, we are paying a huge price for our decision to move from a marriage based family structure to a child support family model. Moreover, this price is going to continue to increase as the inertia left over from the former model fades away.
See also: How the destruction of marriage is strangling the feminist welfare state.
Edit Oct 6 2014: Updated the remarriage chart to one showing the correct time scale.
Pingback: Fewer men are working, and marriage is dying. | Manosphere.com
I think the economic decline, wailing and gnashing of teeth from semi-marriage-minded women is what Heinlein referred to as “bad luck.” Whocouldaknowed?
Nothing like some graphs to drive your point home Dalrock. A couple of things worth pointing out:
1) The drop in white male remarriage rates is truly startling. It was nearly 100% in 1960, and now its just above 1/3. That is a huge drop, one that has to be making a significant impact.
2) The difference in median ages of first marriage between men and women are surprisingly even. It never varies much at all, but stays level at about a 2 year difference. Given what we know about female preferences for the age of potential spouses, that is proof that women are the ones driving age of marriage these days.
The irony here is that the utopia that the feminists are going to create is ultimately self-destructive. The closer the feminists get to their (stated) ideal of the burdens being split 50/50 in society, and of driving men out of power and traditional roles and occupations, the closer we will get to the whole thing crashing down.
A friend of mine – less of a friend lately because he’s increasingly a low beta drip – quit his lucrative $120k/year job so that his $150k/year wife could provide for the family while he stays home to raise the kids. He’s a *great* house dad, though he’s not exactly setting an awesome example for how his two boys should grow up. On the one hand, it’s working out okay for them financially, on the other, there’s an insecurity about him and I presume they will be slackers like their dad is. He doesn’t know how he’s contributing to the crash of the system, and I’ve lately taken to calling him John Galt, much to his befuddlement. I will put him in contrast with another friend who is a house dad – sort of – he works independently from home in a consulting gig, makes a solid living, and also has the flexibility of being a full time home parent. His wife is an engineer who has to travel a bit for work so he has to do more of the parenting than she does sometimes, and man does he get shitty looks from local stay-at-home-wives, who assume he’s a slacker and gold digger. He’s Alpha as hell, and is being a good provider and setting a good example for his son. Not all work has to be in a factory or a downtown building.
The difference between the two guys is that one of the guys is working and setting a good example for his son, the other is acting as a free rider and setting the example that if you can get it for free, you should take it.
Dal you’ve shown graph’s before that showed a one for one of women in and men out of the workforce.
Women are displacing men .. just like a higher minimum wage has caused losses in jobs. You can’t as business afford to employee men if they can’t pay the bill. So, as we increase the price a business pays per employee you will see more men lose jobs due to having to maintain a ratio of minorities and women on the pay-roll.
Sad really.
Joey:
Your friend who quit his $120 k per year job should probably plan on becoming a frivorced man. She will probably lose attraction for him and seek other… companionship. Your friend became a kitchen bitch; no woman likes to be married to a kitchen bitch. If and when that happens, encourage him to give equality to his wife HARD — tell him to seek half the assets AND child custody AND child support AND liberal alimony.
donalgraeme wrote:
“The drop in white male remarriage rates is truly startling. It was nearly 100% in 1960, and now its just above 1/3. That is a huge drop, one that has to be making a significant impact.”
That’s the way I initially read that graph too, but the vertical axis is number (not %) of remarriages/1000 divorced people (per year? That part’s not clear.). Whatever it is, you’re right, there’s been a huge drop.
1) The drop in white male remarriage rates is truly startling. It was nearly 100% in 1960, and now its just above 1/3. That is a huge drop, one that has to be making a significant impact.
I was in an unhappy (not “bad”) marriage. I knew my ex wanted to get divorced, but thought she’d wait until the children were grown. So, if you had asked my while I was married if I would marry after the future divorce, I would’ve said, “Yes.”
Having been through the family courts, it’s far less likely I’d ever get married again. If I did, there would be serious vetting, starting at her relationship with Christ and her views on marriage.
I think the change in the family court system is what drove down remarriage for men. You can’t hold someone to a “lifetime” contract she committed to and can’t stop a court system from punishing you for her breaking the contract.
What sane individual signs up for that again? It’s an old piece of leather chewed here, I know.
donal:
actually the male remarriage figure/graph isn’t a percentage; it’s a number per 1000. So in 1960, for every 1000 divorced men, 97 remarried; in 2010 that same number was down to 36.
It’s not a percentage drop, but it is a steep drop nonetheless. Men aren’t remarrying because they can’t in turn because they don’t believe they have the assets or wherewithal to do so.
Or, they aren’t remarrying simply because they don’t want to; in turn because men 45-64 have more SMV than women at the comparable ages do; and they can attract somewhat younger women probably from 35-45, and they don’t have to remarry to get sex, which is what they want.
I suspect it’s a bit of both.
“Having been through the family courts, it’s far less likely I’d ever get married again.”
I haven’t been through a divorce, but I’d have to agree. If I’m ever single again, I won’t remarry.
@Anchorman
Having been through the family courts, it’s far less likely I’d ever get married again. If I did, there would be serious vetting, starting at her relationship with Christ and her views on marriage.
NO. A thousand times, NO. You start with her eligibility to marry. Matthew 5:31-33. If she is a Christian “legally divorced” from her Christian husband, the divorce is illegitimate. According to 1st Corinthians 7:10 she has merely separated from her husband (c.f. Romans 7:2 and 1st Cor. 7:39) The so-called “pauline privilege” allowed both believing men and women to be free from their unbelieving spouses if their spouse refused to live with them. Other than that, no divorced Christian woman is eligible to re-marry.
Look at what The Lord said- if you marry the woman who is illegitimately divorced (she’s still married) you commit ADULTERY. There is a reason why 2nd and 3rd marriages have such a dismal rate of success. God is not mocked.
Other than that, I think your comment is spot-on.
@deti
they can attract somewhat younger women probably from 35-45, and they don’t have to remarry to get sex, which is what they want.
When looking at the cohort of 35-45, the issue of children is most unlikely to be on the table. Therefore, sex and companionship are the only real reasons the man would marry. Those who desire to be obedient to God must remarry if they want licit sex.
Roughly, every one of the lines on the remarriage graph declines by about 1/3 from 1960 to 1990, and by another third (of the 1960 amount) between 1990 and 2010. But 1960-1990 is a thirty-year interval, while 1990-2010 is a twenty-year interval, so the decline is in fact accelerating.
I’m going to suggest that affirmative action for women is part of the problem here as well. AA at every level (college, grad/med/law school, initial employment, advancement) for women assures that women will have access to more and better careers than even men who are objectively far more qualified. Take, for example, the deranged individual who just the other day vaulted the fence around the White House and forced his way in, while carrying a knife. He was confronted at the door by a female Secret Service agent, whom he easily “brushed past.” Here is a woman who has been given (not earned) a prestigious career position for which she is not only not qualified, but which in point of fact she is physically incapable of performing. I would posit that her example is in no way unique in our economy.
This has two immediate ill effects: 1) Women are in jobs/careers that would in an objective framework belong to men, and as a result fewer men are able to gain such positions. 2) Women refuse to marry because hypergamy demands they marry “up”; but their own positions have been falsely inflated by affirmative action.
What we are seeing is a “bubble economy” of female employment. This bubble, as with all such false economies, is not sustainable in the long run. Placing unqualified individuals into vital/prestigious career fields forces out truly qualified individuals while also placing a drag on the economy as a whole as those unqualified individuals fail to perform the duties for which they are being paid.
This is especially pernicious because these women are not having children, resulting in a baby bust amongst those women who normally would be the “best” of the mother candidates… High I.Q., sound education, etc… All the things that used to be considered prime qualities for a woman of good breeding to further breed are now indicators that she most likely will neither marry nor breed.
If you want to lower a population (and what ‘elite’ doesn’t at this point)…this is how you do it.
Thanks for catching that error folks. I was looking at the graph with percentages of those married right before, and missed the switch to # per 1,000. Still, the relative drop stays the same proportionally. Only 1/3 re-marry as much as did before.
Interesting charts as usual, Dalrock.
I noticed that the difference in marriage rates between blacks and whites increased by 250% between 1960 and now. Prior to the “Great Society” programs the black and white rates were within a few percentage points of each other. Now the white rate is lower than the black rate was in 1960, and the black rate fell off a cliff. It’s almost like you get more of what you subsidize… who knew?
[D: Indeed.]
I thought the “Percent of US population 15 and older who are married” would be significantly skewed by the fact that people frequently used to get married right after high school in 1960, but such unions are rare now, but once I cross-referenced the population by age distribution, I realized that using “median age of marriage” rather than “15 and older” would only move the lines by an insignificant amount – a percent or two at most.
The Remarriage chart was the most surprising to me. Part of it surely has to do with the fact that women typically outlive men, and the life expectancy has risen by about a decade since 1960, but any way you look at it the drop in the remarriage rate among 45-64 year old men is HUGE. In 1960 a woman in that age cohort had about a fairly good shot at finding another husband (then again, she was probably a widow rather than a divorcee), and now it’s down to less than half of what it used to be. The “EPL – Trade Up – Plan B” strategy is a sucker’s bet for women. Also, I suspect the average middle-age guy looking to remarry in 1960 was probably a widower whose wife died young, whereas now he’s a frivorce victim paying his ex-wife’s bills by order of some judge. Frankly, I would have guessed that the remarriage rate among the older set would have increased rather than decreased simply because people are living longer. The fact that it is close to zero is surprising to me, especially since the men in that cohort grew up under the old social compact. I would have been wrong to guess that.
Consider the declining marriage rate, the rising median age for first marriages, and the plummeting remarriage rate… then toss in the employment implications mentioned in the last post, and it looks like feminists are only now starting to reap what they have sown. The inertia of the old societal order on the behaviors of Boomer and Gen-X men is artificially propping up the numbers and masking the extent of the damage. The implications of these charts are ominous indeed.
“When looking at the cohort of 35-45, the issue of children is most unlikely to be on the table. Therefore, sex and companionship are the only real reasons the man would marry. Those who desire to be obedient to God must remarry if they want licit sex.”
True. But when we get to the issue of remarriage for men in the 45-64 age cohort, one of the least religious in history, I think that one of the last things on the minds of most men at that age is obedient to God’s requirements for licit sex. The fact is that a 50 year old man has more SMV left than a woman of similar age and station. Said another way, it’s why a 50 year old man often won’t date or have sex with a woman of the same age. He’s looking for sex and companionship, and most likely he won’t have to marry to get it from a woman in the 35-45 age cohort. If he had to marry to get it, he probably would, But since he doesn’t have to, he doesn’t.
It’s different for women in the same age group. These women don’t remarry as easily, simply because they can’t. They have a lot less SMV to work with, though they desire remarriage probably more than similarly aged men. The imperatives of remarriage are different for women at this age — it’s not about resources for kids; it’s about resources for self-care. She doesn’t want to marry because she needs a guy to take care of her kids; she wants marriage so she can lock in a man and his money to care for HER.
Remember the three female imperatives. The first is alpha sperm for kids; the second is beta provisioning to care for the kids. The third kicks in if she fails in the first and second. The “tertiary” imperative is for the woman to secure provisioning for herself by any means necessary.
You know the old saying about Socialism; Eventually you run out of other people’s money.
We are at this point in the US. That’s why the Liberal’s in government, and all of the European countries are screaming about companies relocating to save on taxes, and are trying to tax people who expatriate – well, they are taxing people, but expect it to sky-rocket just like it did when the Nazi’s were blaming the Jews, so they were leaving. These days the Liberals are blaming men, and the productive members of society – so they are leaving. The ones who don’t – well, we all know how well that worked for the Jews that stayed in Germany and Poland….
If you take the annual remarriage numbers and spread the probability over 10 years (say a 40 year old man gets divorced what is the probability he will be married at 50) the numbers are (assuming a constant remarriage rate; which is not true based on the graph of any 10 year period):
Annual remarriage rate probaility of remarriage by 10 years @97/1,000 64%
@36/1,000 31%
(So, the odds have dropped by 50%.)
Annual remarriage rate probaility of remarriage by 15 years @97/1,000 78%
@36/1,000 42%
Annual remarriage rate probaility of remarriage by 20 years @97/1,000 87%
@36/1,000 52%
At this point our man is 60 years old and should have more sense than to remarry.
Formatting errors for my table. I don’t know how to fix it Dal?
I am single and don’t date. I work 50-70 hours most weeks because it is mostly enjoyable, i’m good at it, and I have big aspirations. I’m not bad looking or in bad shape but I could do a lot more to improve my physical appearance.
Were I interested in sex I would work part-time and spend the rest of the time either in the gym or running game. I know that women would find the latter hypothetical TMG far more attractive for sex, whereas the “real” TMG who is a dedicated worker is only good for the provider role.
MD5,
What’s the formula for figuring out the percentages based on #-per-unit-per-year? I know how to calculate it manually and got the same answers as you when I did, but I haven’t used the formula for so long that I forgot how to do it the easy way. Thanks.
I’m surprised any young men are still marrying. Marriage in it’s current form needs to die. Men who want children should find a girls willing to live separately while raising a child from the outset. Any woman who insists on marriage definitely does not care about you, she is asking you to become her slave. That’s the law.
Avoid marriage at all cost, at least until the law enforces equality for men/fathers.
Just remember, deti, you will never be “single” again. You would only ever be “divorced” until such time as you marry again, if you do in fact marry again. Sorry to quibble as I’ve made this point before, but the perception you have of being “single” is an erroneous propagation of feminism and EXACTLY why so many women frivorce. They want that status back. But it can never be regained. If you are going to get divorced, you need to understand that being “single” ended the day you got married.
After doing the calculations manually (…friggin’ formula I can’t remember…), I calculate that a divorcee in the 45-64 age cohort who wishes to get remarried has about an 18% change of finding a husband in 10 years, so fewer than 1-in-5 middle-aged female divorcees will remarry in ten years. If a frivorcee wants to “get her groove back” she’d better be looking among men who want a Green Card, just like the real-life woman who wrote “Stella Got Her Groove Back” did.
Kate;
OK: Call it “unmarried”, whether “divorced” or “widowed”.
This is so much simpler than you make it out to be. For whatever the reasons, a lot of men have decided they don’t want to be husbands and fathers. That’s all there is to it.
The reasons hardly matters because there is nothing to be done. Social forces are disorderly and uncontrollable.
I really have doubts about the whole women are delaying marriage narrative. This is mostly you go girl hamster talk nonsense. Its men who don’t want to marry.
@Squib
Wow, you truly haven’t been paying attention for the past five years or so, have you? Maybe before you spout off you should do some research/reading and familiarize yourself with the topics at hand.
@Kate
Just remember, deti, you will never be “single” again. You would only ever be “divorced” until such time as you marry again, if you do in fact marry again. Sorry to quibble as I’ve made this point before, but the perception you have of being “single” is an erroneous propagation of feminism and EXACTLY why so many women frivorce. They want that status back. But it can never be regained. If you are going to get divorced, you need to understand that being “single” ended the day you got married.
Without mentioning it, the issue you’re discussing is the *eligibility* to marry. From the Christian point of view, no woman ever had the right or authority to lawfully divorce her husband. The only exception is in 1st Corinthians 7:12-17. If her unbelieving husband is not content to live with her, she is free. Other than that, once a woman marries, she’s married. She can walk into the courts of this world and “legally” divorce her husband, but that isn’t a lawful divorce in God’s eyes if they’re both Christians. She has (c.f. 1st Corinthians 7:10) merely separated herself from her husband. She is commanded to remain single or be reconciled to her husband.
A woman will *always* be either married but separated, a divorcee or a widow after getting married. A man whose wife frivorced him (assuming they’re both Christians) is still married (just as she is), but in his case he has the option of marrying another wife. She doesn’t. If his wife separated herself from him (frivorced) he’s now “single” in the legal sense of the word but since men can have more than one wife, he can legitimately remarry.
“I really have doubts about the whole women are delaying marriage narrative.”
They aren’t exactly breaking down doors to get married until they notice the hot guy attention is waning and 30 years old is creeping up.
HUSsies are stupid. Throw facts at them…
hookingupsmart.com/2014/09/29/hookinguprealities/newest-pew-report-on-american-marriage/
I always thought the “marriage strike’ was not marriageable men not marrying but men not putting the effort in to be marriageable. This is the correction that doesn’t go well. MGTOW and gay marriage with the surrogacy that will follow with bring MGTOW/family men. The marriage strike is about the bitch and family law not about not wanting kids. The luckiest man alive is the father of 3 abandoned by his wife.
Rollo
HU$$ies are stupid.
FIFY
Artisanal Toad says:
October 3, 2014 at 5:15 pm
I realise your comments are not directed to me but I would like to say that the ‘pauline privilege’ you are promoting isn’t always seen in such light. Consider how the New Living Translation interprets 1Cor. 7:15: But if the husband or wife who isn’t a Christian insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is not required to stay with them, for God wants his children to live in peace.
Holy Bible, New Living Translation, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1996.
There are other translations and paraphrases that put 1Cor. 7:15 in the same perspective. Churches today are so desperate for members they are looking for loopholes regarding divorce and remarriage everywhere. And this is just another example of that. Never forget that whosoever marries a divorce woman commits adultery No exceptions under any circumstances. If you interpret 1Cor. 7:15 as grounds for divorce and remarriage the ensuing guilty party policy will be a mess every time.
Looking through my Trans-Atlantic telescope, whatever the figures may appear to show, the idea that The United States of America is about to succumb to Third World status, does not, with due respect, seem very plausible.
This week we sent out two of our Tornado fighter-bombers from their base in Acrotiri (it is useful to have the vestiges of an empire – cheaper than a carrier) and succeeded in destroying a truck load of fruit and vegetables. We have more than two Tornados of course but we have only two Aircraft Carriers (when we eventually launch them) and though they are the largest ships The Royal Navy has ever sailed, they are at 75,000 tons each dwarfed by your dozen or so carriers.
I see the occasional reference on this blog to the salaries some of you losers earn and can only gasp at the size of them.
The news of the demise of America is I suspect somewhat premature.
@TFH:
You run into a common issue: you’re not looking far enough into the stats. If you take out government debt spending, the economy is almost utterly flat since 2006. (2005 is actually when the real-economy blew up on the collapse of commercial real estate) And it doesn’t help that pretty much everything from 2002 on was a debt-fueled bubble.
Did a graph a while back, added some points to smooth it out. Estimates that Dalrock will have a different message in 2030.
If the graph fails to load here is the URL:
https://xjlvqa.dm2301.livefilestore.com/y2mjZ0p4evtlpOpMEpe40u-GkZA8OwY3ONtI2FzRmIiYWh4ySEryffUym9LO17gsQbKZ-l3c7cjTnxeL-2nEfUhKuDU43dYl8wnZzGWVHC8S5T8VrUpLLGasJZ2KmMBeBDy/USARemarriagerate4565.png?psid=1
Also if it dosn’t work can anyone tell me how to insert an image into a wordpress comment ??
@Okrahead,
“This is especially pernicious because these women are not having children, resulting in a baby bust amongst those women who normally would be the “best” of the mother candidates… ”
True.
But, even among friends of mine who are home schooling, committed Christians with SAHM’s, I see them sending their daughters off to large Universities to pursue 4 year degrees and careers. It does not appear to me that they are training their daughters to follow in their SAHM’s, had 5 or more children footsteps.
Rollo T ..
Your link to HUS is rofl funny ..
BUT it’s her (i.e. the author) comments that are priceless.
What serendipitous wonder is this? At almost the exact moment I spotted Dalrock’s latest post, this popped into my inbox (always wise to keep an eye on the enemy).
A finer combination of hamsterbation, Hipster Churchian lunacy and white-knighting Seppuku from a former Obama staffer would be hard to find. My favorite quote (from so many), perhaps this:
“The case for Obamacare was not just about the benefits an individual would receive directly, but the indirect benefits received through family members. It’s not just college students who appreciate being able to stay on their parents’ plan until they were 26 but also the parents who no longer have to worry about their child going without care. Men benefit when their wives and daughters can no longer be denied health-care coverage because they are pregnant”.
Of course they do. Frivorced men just love having the little darlings on their Health plan until they’re 26. It’s the cherry on the cake.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/the-family-is-making-a-comeback/380956/
http://www.michaelrwear.com/bio/
@Don Quixote
Churches today are so desperate for members they are looking for loopholes regarding divorce and remarriage everywhere. And this is just another example of that. Never forget that whosoever marries a divorce woman commits adultery No exceptions under any circumstances. If you interpret 1Cor. 7:15 as grounds for divorce and remarriage the ensuing guilty party policy will be a mess every time.
I must sadly disagree with you. Churches are no longer “looking for loopholes” as you put it.
I have stated my opposition to divorce repeatedly and at length. So I’ll just sum up.
1.) The “certificate of divorce” was a judgment of Moses, found at Deut. 24:1-4. It was not part of God’s Law as given by God.
2.) Jesus confirmed this in Matthew 19:3-9. “What God has joined together, let no man separate.” “Moses permitted you…” “But from the beginning it was not so.”
3.)Context. Jesus was speaking to the keepers of the Law, the Pharisees, in Matthew 19.
4.) God will not accept an illegitimate divorce. Matthew 5:31-33. She cannot commit adultery unless she’s still married.
5.) In 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul takes pains to inform us the command to the married believers is from the Lord. The wife is not to separate from her husband, but if she does she is not to take another husband. She is to remain chaste or be reconciled to her husband. The husband MUST not divorce his wife. No divorce between married believers, the judgment of Moses was overturned for Believers.
6.) Paul, writing with Apostolic Authority then states that if the unbelieving spouse of either husband or wife refuses to stay with them and leaves, they are free. This is the “Pauline Privilege” I mentioned earlier. A woman whose unbelieving husband refused to live with her and left is free to remarry. Scripture clearly states that.
7.) Both Romans 7:2 and 1st Corinthians 7:39 state that the wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. Point #6 is the only exception to that. Women do not like this.
* “He abused me, so I divorced him!” Sorry hon, you’re still married.
* “He cheated on me, so I divorced him!” Sorry hon, you’re still married.
* “The Bible says the government is ordained of God and the government says we’re divorced!” Sorry hon, when the government and God disagree, you’re to obey God.
8.) Polygyny is not a sin because God does not regulate sin, He condemns and prohibits it. Polygyny was regulated in the Law (equal treatment of wives, not to marry sisters, not to marry mother and daughter, etc.).
9.) Point 8 means the man is always authorized to take another wife. Unless the divorced woman is *legitimately* divorced, she is not authorized to remarry because she is still married.
Take-away points. God made men and women differently and He treats them differently. This argument always devolves into everyone arguing their catechism. It’s pointless unless the person is more interested in what the Scriptures say than in what their tradition says.
Add me to the “never remarry” contingent as well, even though I consider myself one of the lucky ones in a fairly happy, stable and ongoing 25+ year marriage.
TFH,
“Now, is the entire West going down? Again, no. A few of the weaker countries may, but not the West as a whole…”
Keep whistling past that graveyard…
Kate,
“the perception you have of being ‘single’ is an erroneous propagation of feminism and EXACTLY why so many women frivorce. They want that status back. But it can never be regained.”
Soooo money. The cult of youth.
@Artisanal Toad: I understand where you’re coming from. I was presenting a secular perspective that I think men who are being asked by their wives to divorce need to hear. Some men are ready and willing to walk away when it comes down to it because they are very unhappy too. There is a lot of talk in the sphere about how great it is for men after they get over their divorce. I think that’s a bit of a divorce fantasy, myself. I think it is also very hard for them to remarry (if they want to). Its definitely not impossible, but its not so easy to attract women as a divorced man, throwing in the variables of age, finances, children, etc.
“If her unbelieving husband is not content to live with her, she is free.”
What does this mean???
I see them sending their daughters off to large Universities to pursue 4 year degrees and careers. It does not appear to me that they are training their daughters to follow in their SAHM’s, had 5 or more children footsteps.
Sadly this is what I see too. I don’t see very many families preparing there daughters to be wives and mothers. There are a few, but most of the church going families that I am personally aware of are rearing their daughters up as if they were sons. It’s really sad.
Pingback: Dark Brightness | The affirmative marital bubble [quotage]
@Opus
Agreed. But this wasn’t the point of the post. The point was that moving away from a marriage based model is very expensive. Only 65% of adult men are currently working. Some of this is no doubt due to an aging population, as 16% of all men are now over 65. But even here, the changing demographics means we need working age men to be working more than ever. As I showed here, men who aren’t married are much more likely to have no earnings whatsoever, and much less likely to be earning over $75k.
So yes our economy is still strong enough that we can afford to be stupid (today), but it is incredibly wasteful, and the trend is only getting worse.
JDG says:
October 3, 2014 at 8:29 pm
“I see them sending their daughters off to large Universities to pursue 4 year degrees and careers. It does not appear to me that they are training their daughters to follow in their SAHM’s, had 5 or more children footsteps.”
Sadly this is what I see too. I don’t see very many families preparing there daughters to be wives and mothers. There are a few, but most of the church going families that I am personally aware of are rearing their daughters up as if they were sons. It’s really sad.
Indeed, JDG. As I’ve been saying for years now, “live like a man does, expect to give birth to as many children as a man does”.
Artisanal Toad says:
October 3, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Remove 5 points I agree with.
Ok, here we disagree.
The way you are interpreting 1Cor. 7:15 [aka pauline privilege] is the standard loophole approach for accommodating remarriage. This method is loved by feminists and white knights alike to declare any woman an “innocent party”. A much coveted status for divorced women.
In my previous post I quoted the New Living Translation, which puts that verse in a different light see above, now here is the Living Bible [paraphrase]
15 But if the husband or wife who isn’t a Christian is eager to leave, it is permitted. In such cases the Christian husband or wife should not insist that the other stay, for God wants his children to live in peace and harmony.
In both these examples of 1Cor. 7:15 it is doubtful the apostle Paul is giving grounds for divorce and remarriage. When he explicitly states; ‘a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives’.
meanwhile, women get to keep all their worthless government makework jobs, or remain in their AA placements, where they produce less than an automated machine or a severely retarded man.
millions of men and boys will pay the price.
“In a marriage based society, getting sexual access to the most attractive women requires men to work hard to signal provider status. After the wedding, men feel the responsibility which comes with the position of head of the household. Both of these are extremely powerful incentives for men to work hard and maximize their earnings.”
I concur with the above incentives for men to maximize their earnings but with those removed, for the various obvious reasons, they’re are still plenty of other incentives to work hard and earn, at least there has been for me. I’m not sure why more men don’t see them but for me the chance to accumulate wealth and therefore look forward to an early retirement, leisurely lifestyle or even luxuries has been more than enough motivation. I’ve made a modest fortune doing something I’ve grown rather tired of doing, just as well I don’t have to do it anymore eh’? Then there’s nothing quite like indulging in a rather expensive, enjoyable hobby to the point of satisfaction then losing interest, been there, done that now I’ll do something else. How about rolling around in vehicles most people would consider ‘dream cars’? Oh, “life’s purpose” you say? I can spend my life accumulating wealth, when I die my fortune will be left to charities I deem worthy. There’s more to life than devotion to a slippery wet hole, however rarely accessed it might be, and most peoples kids seem like more burden than blessing to me. God bless those who choose to marry, raise families and actually make it work but when trying marriage 2.0 is just too risky there’s still plenty of incentives. Consider the words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:38:
“The man who marries the virgin does well but he who marries her not does even better”
Truer words have never been spoken but I’ve rarely met a Christian woman who was a virgin, even when I was dating girls who were 17.
One of the reasons I encourage MGTOW/family through surrogacy is that it restores male labor effort and productivity with a valid reason of raising HIS children. The man can live without the threat point and the huge financial loss and waste of a divorce over some selfish cunt. As soon as men start down that path the women will follow.
Pingback: Feminism has removed all incentives to marriage | Observing the Decline
“So yes our economy is still strong enough that we can afford to be stupid (today)”
Sure, give or take $1 trillion per year.
Exactly how many kids do we have to sell into slavery before conservatives (sic) start to suspect something might be up?
Only one ready to start a family
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=912742
Monogamy is unnatural
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=912854
I think the high marriage rates of the baby boomers are masking the serious decline by millennials. As the boomers die off I think the real rate of marriage decline will show itself. As Dalrock has shown in his past posts about single women piling up, every marriage delay increases the chances that the marriage never happens. As the reduced production of unmarried men asserts itself in the next two decades, I think tax revenues will flatten and then decrease.
I will never buy that polygamy is productive for advanced civilization. There is a good reason many religions and societies mandated controls on female hypergamy, so you could keep society together. Those societies don’t last; they were always exterminated by superior monogamous civilizations, which become technically more advanced with more cooperative males.
The crumbling and collapsing infrastructure goes hand in hand with the crumbling and collapsing family structure. One only needs to look at the Middle East to see the affect of an Oil Hungry West propping up a society of polygamous billionaires. Those Islamic radicals are slowly winning the long game for control of their region; they are ruthless and determined.
Dalrock’s statistics show to me the average working man needed for society are doomed to extinction. Moral law abiding tax-paying men will cease to exist. No advanced technical civilization can last long term with large numbers of disenfranchised and unproductive young men; violence and mayhem will be inevitable.
It will only get worse after President Hillary Clinton trounces and emasculates some pathetic Republican White Knight loser (who won’t connect with women either; just like the uncharismatic Mormon that didn’t “tingle” the female vote.) It will be embarrassing.
Joe Average will be a casualty of the demographic winter, an evolutionary dead-end in a feminist society of ‘equality’ and ‘freedom’ (cough cough). Joe will be taxed, divorced, and child-supported into extinction. Then there won’t be any tax revenue to pay for all the goodies and welfare; everything starts to come apart. The White Knights and Manginas who sold Joe Average up a river will next follow him into extinction as women turn to the thugs to provide goodies.
Nobody will mourn Joe’s passing, not his wife the ex-Alpha Widow or his stepson Jack Neck Tattoo Meth Cooker. At least the stepson will have a flexible career that lets him bang his post-wall female lawyer between bail hearings and gunfights. Jack’s mother will rationalize her son having a meth harem isn’t so bad; her woman’s studies degree will allow her to manage them.
The irony is the “dark age misogyny” feminists claim they are fighting against is what their unchecked hypergamy and spinning hamster will likely create.
This year marked a turning point. Married people are now a minority.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-09/single-americans-now-comprise-more-than-half-the-u-s-population.html
I don’t think there is any turning back now, marriage is pretty much kaput. The trend for an increasing percentage of single adults… its pretty linear at this point. In all likelihood, the majority of my children, Dalrock’s children, Elspeth’s children, and SSM’s children… will never marry. They will not have any options. I expect by 2020, 55% of the nation will be single.
IBB, do you not think its just government defined legal marriage that is kaput ?
@JDG,
“There are a few, but most of the church going families that I am personally aware of are rearing their daughters up as if they were sons. It’s really sad.”
Very sad indeed.
Puzzling that Christian SAHM’s and their husbands are not perpetuating their own deliberate family choices. Is the Christian SAHM movement a one generation blip?
TheRhoubbhe
+1 here
This is where the end lies That man is despised only a male child molester is more hated. BTW the inner city black community looks like that
I am not sure if you answered it in another thread greyghost, but how does a man become both a mother and a father in a parenting situation? Or are you claiming that a child does not need a mother at all?
See how that works out in a few decades.
I have noted it before, but it seems just as selfish as a woman having a child with no intention of having a father present. Why is one better than the other?
I am going to also guess that the man won’t have it quite as good as the fairy tails I am sure some MGTOWs tell. Doing your own thing is not possible when you have children, so I guess they would no longer GTOW.
BradA says:
October 4, 2014 at 3:56 am
I have to agree with this point.
GYOW and raising children are two different things in my mind. How can a man pursue his own interests and raise children at the same time? Unless his interest is raising children, but that would bring him back to a system/routine that forces him to act in the children’s best interest not his.
TheRhoubbhe says:
October 4, 2014 at 12:53 am
I also agree, but the devil is in the detail here. When we try to define “superior monogamous civilisations”, the arguments begin. If we trace back western civilisation to its roots it was the church that established monogamous marriage as a foundation. That aint coming back any time soon. I suspect the coming changes will be the usual war, famine and death [aka horsemen of the apocalypse on a global scale]. I kinda hope I’m wrong.
MGTOW with children is doing your own thing. Your thing is raising children. MGTOW is not following the cue of a woman. The way women are any man step off and handle his business and sure enough women will follow. It is not the ideal (maybe) But it is damn sure better than where we are going.
I will say unapologetically That a child is better off with out a mother from todays pool of women. She is a helper if she is not a helper get rid of her. Women that understand that become good helpers. Open your eyes and look at the laws feminism has passed. All are based on sticking some body or company with the burden of a woman. It is like playing hot potato. Everything from Title IX to AA to what ever is tied to what somebody else is doing (man or boy)
Our role in this point in history is not to enjoy good lives we are the generation that makes a marriage based society red pill.
Or as Don Quixote said the church is going to have to run this and right now the church is following the culture Looks like war it is
I agree greyghost. I remember a work trip into Philadelphia several years ago, the northern part was nothing but abandoned buildings, criminals, and heroin addicts. That is sadly what society raised by single mothers will look like everywhere.
In cities all across American one can take a driving tour of America’s future; assuming thugs don’t yank you from your car and shoot you for a pair of sneakers.
“I expect by 2020, 55% of the nation will be single.”
I’m not sure we’re even gonna make it that far.
God thankfully delivered me from my desire for a wife a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like the same can be said for an old church buddy of mine. She’s in her mid-twenties and dating a guy from a law firm who doesn’t appear to be a born-again believer, which Paul warned against in Corinthians. I suspect she was bitten by the Hypergamy bug and has a bad case of Babies Rabies to go along with it.
I worry for them.
You may also want to address the generational feedback loop. As future children will have lower familial savings (and other positive familial resources), the society MUST become more leveraged privately (like exploding student debt) or publicly (budget deficits), leading to…
I will state this…Holy Matrimony is still a great thing for a man and woman to engage in. It is a sacrament and when properly act upon, both get great rewards.
Marriage in its current state due to government intrusion and various other secular influences on most people is not a good option now for men. Celibate single or religious life for a man are much better choices…and if he happens to find a unicorn to marry, more power to him.
The losers in this scenario are women unless they start getting their act together.
I am 54 and never married. Never even tempted to get married. It is a stupid risk that has destroyed the lives of four men I knew from college and high school, and it offers me nothing but insane risk.
Look around you. Look at the magazines young women read. Watch the TV shows young women watch. We are raising a generation of the most brain-dead females the world has ever known. I sat through an episode of The View two weeks ago in a doctor’s waiting room. It would take a fecking lobotomy for me to sit through another episode of that fecal drek.
Whenever people yap about the “rise of women” I want to scream. The future is not female. It’s male, and his name is Abdullah.
“Whenever people yap about the “rise of women” I want to scream. The future is not female. It’s male”
Consider those at the forefront of some of the most influential forces in society today, Tech (think Silicon Valley). Are these males like “Abdullah?” If you read some of the far sighted writers on the subject, they appear obsessed with AI and machine intelligence. Why?
Interesting link related to the OP, courtesy of Wintery Knight, riffing on themes of Dr Helen Smith and The Elusive Wapiti’s commenter ‘Gaza’. It questions the motivations of young women towards marriage.
Are young, unmarried women sincere when they say they want to be married “some day”?
I can see it now .. the fembots saying ..
“It’s ALL you marriageable able-bodied high value men’ s fault for not participating in our hypergamy that caused to do this .. *sounds of crying*”
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/10/destrehan_high_school_teachers.html
Please read this and tell me if the rolls were reversed if the charges for these women predators would applied to men ..
Fact these women were his teachers. Fact they’re both 10+ years older than him. Fact he is a minor (i.e. he is 16 -v- age of constent @17). The fact that rape charges haven’t filed is further recklessness.
This goes well with the whole CDC changing definitions of rape issue. Another win for feminists when skewing the data.
So women can’t find good men. Does this excuse them? Is this a rare occurence with women teachers preying on male students? Why is this not shocking news?
If you missed my sarcasm .. please refrain from operating heavy machinery until further notice.
Sorry for the off topic post .. I can see more hamster spinning regardless of whatever the facts say about the number of men available for marriage. Because women will find simeone to screw if you say no.
“Whenever people yap about the “rise of women” I want to scream. The future is not female. It’s male, and his name is Abdullah.”
That was well said Zorro. You can’t defend a civilization if your line of defense depends on Jack Meth Cooker and his meth harem.
What makes it worse Honeycomb is one of those teachers was married with three young children. That would be completely emasculating and humiliation to be that husband; his own wife banging a 16 year old in three ways sex while he was likely babysitting the kids. It would be hell as thousands of people comment posts all over the internet and “high-five’ a 16 year old kid for banging his wife. His life must be imploding right now.
There is no way to “save that marriage”; very much justifiable grounds for divorce, only a fool would even try.
I remained convinced that women having happiness as the primary goal continues to be an devastating factor, a corrosive poison. Men continue to work and provide and simply view the emphasis on women’s happiness as an acceptable reality, but it is obvious that female happiness is an empty, unstable, and unfulfilling goal in which to invest one’s entire life.
Just found this, thought it was marginally relevant…
All you fathers out there should take a hard look at your future son-in-law. Fun to think about, no?
I love watching those kinds of videos Boxer, nice post. I really like watching programs about lost civilizations or extinct species; this is the exactly the kind of male that will cease to exist in the future. I don’t think my daughter or anyone’s daughter will see him as husband material. Connor will never be ‘considerably awesome’ with women, but he will be a productive tax-payer that society depends needs and not a gun-toting heroin dealer.
“it is obvious that female happiness is an empty, unstable, and unfulfilling goal in which to invest one’s entire life.”
Very sad indeed.
Puzzling that Christian SAHM’s and their husbands are not perpetuating their own deliberate family choices. Is the Christian SAHM movement a one generation blip?
I don’t know and I don’t care. That was mostly female lead anyhow. How many SAHM actually submit themselves to their husbands? I’ve seen a plenty who rule the roost from the bottom.
We don’t need a SAHM movement, we need men and women who profess to be Christians to wake up and see what’s going on around them. We need those who profess the faith to live as if they truly believe it. We need Christians who will make the hard choices to follow Jesus and His teachings over the ways of the world.
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. – Rom 12:2
I agree greyghost. I remember a work trip into Philadelphia several years ago, the northern part was nothing but abandoned buildings, criminals, and heroin addicts. That is sadly what society raised by single mothers will look like everywhere.
This is a fact. Female lead communities deteriorate into chaotic, crime laden waste lands.
I will state this…Holy Matrimony is still a great thing for a man and woman to engage in. It is a sacrament and when properly act upon, both get great rewards.
Marriage in its current state due to government intrusion and various other secular influences on most people is not a good option now for men. Celibate single or religious life for a man are much better choices…and if he happens to find a unicorn to marry, more power to him.
What is practiced today is state enforced servitude for mostly men. I think it is a misrepresentation to call it marriage when women can abandon their commitments with out so much as a reprimand all while the state forces men to keep their part of the deal. That’s not marriage.
So, I went onto Facebook today (1-2 times a week on that silly thing), and saw that someone was engaged (she’s 20).
The comments fell into two categories: 1) congratulations, or something similar; 2) you’re too young (e.g. “if you were drunk you can change your mind,” “I’m praying that you reconsider,” etc).
The same people talk about a marriage crisis. Also worth noting is that no one said anything about the man changing his mind.
[M]ost of the church going families that I am personally aware of are rearing their daughters up as if they were sons. It’s really sad.
You’re making the classic mistake here of conflating “church-going” with “Christian/Christ follower.” They are absolutely NOT synonymous, as your example above clearly (and painfully) demonstrates.
…I sat through an episode of The View two weeks ago in a doctor’s waiting room. It would take a fecking lobotomy for me to sit through another episode of that fecal drek.
Whenever people yap about the “rise of women” I want to scream. The future is not female. It’s male, and his name is Abdullah.
If a full episode of the view doesn’t phase a room full of people, they are truly comatose. This is a big fat indicator of the moral and mental condition of society at large.
Are young, unmarried women sincere when they say they want to be married “some day”?
And they do, after having wasted their youth and virtue on self gratification, and career building, and after having soiled themselves with numerous men (giving to them what should have been saved for the husband they eventually settle for).
I remained convinced that women having happiness as the primary goal continues to be an devastating factor, a corrosive poison. Men continue to work and provide and simply view the emphasis on women’s happiness as an acceptable reality, but it is obvious that female happiness is an empty, unstable, and unfulfilling goal in which to invest one’s entire life.
Happiness – the ever elusive carrot at the end of a wicked stick. Happy is the man who discovers that happiness is fleeting and learning to be content in all situations is much better. I’m not sure if learning to be content is something a woman can do without submitting herself to a man. Yeah, call me a sexist. I wear the badge proudly (but not too proudly).
You’re making the classic mistake here of conflating “church-going” with “Christian/Christ follower.” They are absolutely NOT synonymous, as your example above clearly (and painfully) demonstrates.
No I’m not. That is why I deliberately used the phrase “church going” instead of the word “Christian”. Who knows if these folks are wheat or tares. While I can see the fruits only God can see their hearts. Some genuine Christians need to just grow up. Other folks aren’t really Christian at all. “Church going” covers it all.
Of course they will. He’s exactly the type of loser who will raise another man’s thugspawn, while not reproducing himself. He’ll also likely work hard to pay extra on top of the alimony order when sweetie takes his ass to the cleaners. 🙂
Opus @ October 3, 2014 at 6:37 pm:
“…the idea that The United States of America is about to succumb to Third World status, does not, with due respect, seem very plausible.”
You might have missed the ethnic cleansing in the American Southwest, where illegal immigrants are actively encouraged to flood in and crash our system Alinsky-style. Or the way our leaders are deliberately sabotaging our economy. I remember twenty-plus years ago, hearing the manufacturing unions scream at the Democrats they supported over the damage of free trade. Sending business to China was so important to the Dems that they decided to forfeit serious quantities of votes and campaign funding instead of protecting their own supporters. Several politicians lost their careers but the Dems still won.
It’s fascinating in a very sick way. The American government wants to kill America.
“I see the occasional reference on this blog to the salaries some of you losers earn and can only gasp at the size of them.”
I wonder about them, too. As a rough measure, I make one-quarter what these guys self-report and consider myself a success. It should be noted, however, that I could triple my salary overnight by signing on to a gov’t subsidiary. There’s a mind-blowing gap between the public and private sectors of the Cali economy.
Just like the average Third World country.
…
“And don’t forget that 70-80% of government spending is a transfer from men to women.”
This keeps coming up. Last I checked, pre-Obama, 40% of annual federal spending was mere interest on the national debt. Most state gov’ts have similar payments to make.
“He’s exactly the type of loser who will raise another man’s thugspawn, while not reproducing himself. He’ll also likely work hard to pay extra on top of the alimony order when sweetie takes his ass to the cleaners.”
If I could mentor the kid I’d give him 3 tips:
1) Lift some weights
2) Quit talking out of your nose
3) Stop wearing effeminate clothing
His chances of raising another thugspawn and not paying alimony will decrease by 77%.
Earl’ sound advice to a young man:
1) Lift some weights
2) Quit talking out of your nose
3) Stop wearing effeminate clothing
This reminds me of the youth pastor I encountered last summer. It’s not a big deal to wear glasses, but nerd glasses on a pudgy man who is 25 or more pounds overweight, who leads songs in a nasal voice, and who puts his hands on his hips backwards (thumb forward, fingers pointing to his rear cheeks) and the package is pretty pathetic. The nervous high laugh that bordered on a giggle? Just ribbon on the package.
Yeah, he was married to a pudgy, nerdy girl. But this is the role model that particular church had hired for young men, to mentor them from Youth to Manhood. Yet I wager that Joseph of Jackson would not be welcomed there at all.
Just one special datapoint from the snowdrift that is “feminization of the churches”.
OT
If the sex consent rules are not already bewildering enough, how the hell are students supposed to negotiate some of the scenarios suggested at the University of New Mexico’s Sex Week?
That is absolutely lewd, and if I had a child at UNM I might be pulling them out.
(h/t Mark J. Perry at the American Enterprise Institute, http://www.aei-ideas.org/channel/carpe-diem/ )
Ooooooook, puppets for college students who are adults (whether they like it or not) and get to vote in elections.
It’s fascinating in a very sick way. The American government wants to kill America.
I reached the same conclusion a couple / few years ago. Since then I’ve also realized that the majority of the American people also want what the government wants. I think I stopped caring about what happens to this nation after that. At least I try not to care. I still pray for the US and it’s leaders, but sometimes I wonder if I should because we may very well be under God’s wrath awaiting judgment.
Brass Cat it appears that university got more flak than expected, maybe “safe 3-ways” is still a bit radical in some parts of the country as an educational topic? There was an apology, sort of.
UNM issue sex week apology
One of the organizers didn’t like that
It looks like off campus organizations and on campus orgs got together to create this event without bothering to keep the university administration informed, and then it became controversial.
Of course, if one showed up at a “Sex Week” with pamphlets urging mongamy – not even religious, just in terms of GISS data on N, std’s, etc. – that would be likely even more controversial.
DiffT; “If you read some of the far sighted writers on the subject” Unless you’ve been to The Future, and are reporting back, I suspect the term you ought to employ is “imaginative”.
MoreT;“they appear obsessed with AI and machine intelligence. Why?”
Probably because they have not the slightest idea about anything else outside their comfy bubble. And even if they did, wouldn’t have a clue how to set about doing it and would likely come a cropper if they tried. An extended spell of bad weather, for ex., would probably do for them.
Better to think happy thoughts about stuff they know about. Then the boogieman can’t get them.
When you look to the State, and not to each other, don’t be surprised when everything around you begins to crumble.
All those men not working are heroes! Every job they quit is now available to a woman. It’s a brilliant strategy to fight inequality, sexism and the patriarchy. Well done, men! Men should continue to quit working until all feminists are happy.
(sarc)
What wimminz don’t get is this ..
A government that can give you everything .. can also take everything if they so desire.
@Anonymous Reader
From the first article you provided:
I wonder how many students knew exactly what “educational purposes” entailed? On second thought, if you are giving money to the “Women’s Resource Center” you already have a pretty good idea.
Fixed the article. The common pattern of excuses I see can be summarized as ‘controversy for a good cause.’
Honeycomb says:
That they best be making me my sammich, dammit!
Note to newbs & lurking feminists: j/k. We stand amongst the ruins laughing because crying is for bitches.
Brass Cat, the main reason for student orgs to become recognized is to get access to student fees, as there generally is not a whole lot of accountability required on the spending of that money. In this case who can be opposed to “educational purposes”? Note that the Women’s Resource Center also claimed that the event was intended to “raise awareness” regarding sexual assault on campus. Who will oppose that in the modern world? Not anyone sitting in a university administrative office, nope. Never mind that campuses are awash in “men bad! Bad men!” rants, aka “awareness”, there’s always room for more.
It appears that the event violates UNM’s own speech code
I did not notice the first search through that this is the first “sex week” at that university,no doubt that accounts for some of the backlash.
Minesweeper,
Well it does matter to me. If a man and a woman are living together without the piece of government paper, they are living in sin. If they live together and have children without the piece of government paper, their children are bastards. Basically, the reason why they wouldn’t marry is because one (or the other, or both) are hedging their bets (against government laws)…. for life. So, yeah, government defined legal marriage (which is the only marriage to me) is kaput.
I’m not saying that it is wise for all people to get married. It may be wise for them NOT to get married specifically BECAUSE of the government and its laws that destroy marriage. But… that is the only marriage that I count.
Opus brought up salaries. I’ll look at my own field, computer monkey.
UK:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-2269520/Best-paid-jobs-2012-Official-figures-national-average-UK-salaries-400-occupations.html
IT professional – #49 £43,025
US:
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Information_Technology_Specialist/Salary
An Information Technology Specialist earns an average salary of $51,503 per year.
The exchange rate is $1.60/£1.00, so my salary is equivalent to £32,189, but in purchasing power parity, the World Bank says the GBP is 1.1 times the USD.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPPC.RF
So, on a PPP basis, the UK computer monkey is doing better than his counterpart in the US.
Of course, I don’t know anyone who works for anything close to the average unless it’s desktop/tech support, so in lots of ways the data is about worthless.
All the computer monkeys I know make six figures or as near as doesn’t matter.
That is the average IT salary in the US is equivalent to £32,189. I make considerably more than that.
Men are over. This just charts our decline. We used to be essential, but as the world got civilized, we became more of a problem than we’re worth. Now, women can do just about everything that machines cannot. More and more men are checking out, in part because society has progressively given up on them. School, work, marriage, etc. The military is the last refuge and that too is shrinking. Automation is wiping out many job categories. This affects both sexes, but disproportionately hits men. Truck and taxi drivers’ turn is coming early next decade. Even attorneys are in decline. I see no way of reversing these changes. Once we start designing babies, we’ll either take the beastlieness out men or dispense with them altogether.
But, does it all even out in the end where US and UK IT salaries are concerned when the high cost of living and taxes in the UK are taken into account?
@Lyn87:
Prior to the “Great Society” programs the black and white rates were within a few percentage points of each other. Now the white rate is lower than the black rate was in 1960, and the black rate fell off a cliff. It’s almost like you get more of what you subsidize… who knew?
This is part of the story, but not the whole. Figure 3 of this document, based on decennial census data, shows an interesting detail:
https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-13-13.pdf
It shows that the black marriage rate was very close to the white rate until 1950, and then began a steep decline that has continued ever since – apart from a pause between 1990 and 2000. The pause was probably a response to the Clinton-Gingrich reforms, but it is notable that these reforms did not stop the decline of either black or white marriage for very long: they merely delayed the continuing decline.
The collapse in black marriage rates did not begin with the “Great Society”, but between 4 and 14 years earlier. Does anyone understand why?
Blame feminism. Destroy feminism and get back on track again
Before reading any of the comments and just responding to the article:
There are about a million changes going on in society over those times. Decreases in fertility, changes in laws and incentives, tax rates, government regulation, decreasing religiosity, the internet, and on and on and on. All of these have some impact so that it gets impossible to attribute these trends to any one cause. I think Darlock is right to highlight a contributing factor – but what proportion to assign these things in what proportion of people. Who knows?
Europe and Japan are about 40 years ahead of the US on this path. Do we have the data to look at how they have done that might answer these questions?
We no longer cheer a career as wife and mother. A marriage creates a team that, working together toward a common goal of bearing and rearing children, requires commitment by both spouses. The old model of the stay-at-home mom served the community well. We do not yet know how the new model will turn out, but early indications are that young males from fatherless homes are a social problem.
This article, and most of the comments, have a tone that suggests that the decline of marriage is a bad thing. I would dispute that. It is the best thing that could happen to men. It means we will no longer bear the yoke of provider, working ourselves to an early grave, and punished by losing access to children after divorce because we were not the “primary carer”. Screw marriage, screw enslavement to a woman and the state. MGTOW is gaining momentum fast. We are finally free brothers.
@IBB
Well it does matter to me. If a man and a woman are living together without the piece of government paper, they are living in sin. If they live together and have children without the piece of government paper, their children are bastards.
Nice try at playing God. Meister v. Moore (1878) says that marriage is a right and you don’t need the piece of paper from the government. Laws requiring a marriage license are “merely directory.” Were Eve and Adam living in sin because they didn’t have the piece of paper? What about Abraham and Sarah? Isaac and Rebecca? Were they all living in sin? Marriage belongs to God. It was created by God (Genesis 2:24), and hs His regulations for it. It is obvious to me that you are a religiostatist. A worshiper of the state. In Biblical terms, that means you’re an idolater.
It appears that the event violates UNM’s own speech code
Their rules are for the lishenets like us. Much of Marxism requires lies to gain partial acceptance (e.g. equality).
Don’t care. We don’t live in the Garden of Eden nor is it 1878 (where you might not be able to find any clergy or JPs to legally marry you.) Its 2014. If you want to get married, get married. If you don’t want to get married, then don’t. But don’t just live with someone and then the two of you say “you are married” when I know that you aren’t.
@IBB
You seem to have a reading disorder. No, perhaps it’s a comprehension disorder. God created marriage, He gave it His command (be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, take dominion over it) and regulated it (1st Peter 3; 1st Corinthians 7 and Ephesians 5). The state did not create marriage and has no authority over it. While the state claims authority over marriage, it has no legitimate authority over marriage. The cite to Meister v Moore was a recognition of that.
From a Biblical perspective, what is marriage? Where is there a command to get a piece of paper? Where is there any reference to the church? Go study Genesis 2:24 and learn. What are the Biblical elements of marriage?
1) The permission of the father of the bride.
2) The agreement of the two to marry
3) The consummation of the marriage
4) Cohabitation as husband and wife.
Who are you to say the couple living together are not married?
IBB,
If a man and a woman who are Biblically-eligible to marry go to a church, take life-long vows that comport with what the Bible specifies are the attributes of Christian matrimony, then consummate the marriage and live as man-and-wife… are you saying that you KNOW they aren’t married if they didn’t fill out a permit from the county clerk? That hardly fits with your dichotomy of “just live with someone” versus “get a permit form the county clerk.”
Or… if you and your spouse received a letter next week telling you that there was some sort legal reason to declare that your marriage was not valid (the authority of the person officiating had expired, for example), would you consider yourself married? If so, why, since you would not have a valid state-issued license? Would you consider your children to be bastards or legitimate? If not, would you be completely morally free to immediately begin dating other people and marry someone else, since you were never married? If not, why not?
I should point out that a ceremony is not required for marriage from a Biblical perspective – I just added that in since that’s how Christians usually enter marriage and some people think it’s a requirement.
Maybe Opus can help me out. I read someplace that Henry VIII (the dude who made divorce fashionable) was the inspiration for the common law marriage. The Catholic church had a long history of ripping off people in return for performing marriage ceremonies. The civil law was a reaction to the grifting of the priest caste, and declared that marriage was recognized, provided the couple went to some public place and made the declaration. This is, supposedly, the origin of secular marriages on the courthouse steps (can’t get more public than that).
Anyway, it’s silly in this day and age for sensible folks to get all legalistic. In an environment where an “official” marriage carries such dire penalties for people (including children), entitling the families money to be split between grifting lawyers (the modern day priest caste), leaving all parties peniless at the end of the divorce, it stands to reason that the old tradition is brought back.
If people live together and call themselves husband and wife, who am I to demand to see documents? People know enough to describe themselves and their own relationships.
Boxer
Toad,
I have neither a reading nor a comprehension disorder. The only disorder here is yours because you didn’t like the direct answer I gave you. Too bad. Live with it. Or don’t. Its not marriage if the government doesn’t sanction it. End of story.
Your position would be fine if we had no government (the time of Genesis.) We do. And government got in the business of sanctioing marriages (for whatever reason.) You can be upset about it. It can make you angry. I hate what government has done with marriage because it has destroyed that which it sought to control. But it is what it is.
Lyn,
We were married because we got married. We had a ceremony. There were witnesses. I said “I do.” She said “I do.” We turned to the people at the cermony and asked if we were married and every single person in the room said we were married. That’s it. We are married. And the state WILL sanction that marriage. Your gobblydy-gook is just meaningless rhetoric.
A man and a woman go and live together they can SAY whatever they want. They can say they are married until they are blue in the face, I want to see the piece of paper. And if they don’t have a piece of paper, I’m just going to say they are living in sin. Because if they are NOT living in sin, then tell me Lyn, what exactly IS living in Sin??? (That is a serious question.)
As far as your comments about bastards go, what exactly IS a bastard Lyn? Seriously, what is that? What is Lyn’s personal definition of a bastard? That is an important question and I do not want you quoting me anything from any dictionary. I want you to seriously sit down and think about it because the answer is very objective. There is a reason why that word was created, a reason why the word is so intentionally hurtful.
Boxer,
Common law marriage has had many different roots/beginnings in different countries for different reasons. I don’t know about England but we in the United States had “Common Law” out West (in the 19th century) mostly because there was so few clergy and JPs available to marry people. If you were a prospector or a farmer or whatever trying to start a family out West in the 19th century, it was not uncommon to just go off and say you were married to your sweetheart NOT because you didn’t want to have the cermony or because you didn’t want the government involved, but instead, there was no possibility that anyone could marry you. You were (basically) alone with her. This type of behavior was not all that uncommon even in the early 20th century.
Common law today has morphed into a sort of “legal protection” for women who live (in sin) with their boyfriends who REFUSE to legally marry them. That is where we are at with “Common law” in the 21st century, a certain number of years of living together where the girlfriend instantly becomes a wife who is NOW eligible for cash and prizes. In most states, that number is 7 years. You can look it up, I’m too tired to do so (spent too much time watching UCLA and Utah tonight.)
I am not surprised… but seriously, this is frightening.
IBB’s wife is on his computer again, sucking corporate/government dick… again…
Come on fh, you don’t mean that…. you’ll like this one.
It would be interesting to see the marriage/remarriage charts broken down by income bracket. I suspect we’d see large variations between income classes with middle class and above marriage/remarriage rates significantly higher than the lower income brackets. I suspect at the upper-middle class and higher income levels, marriage rates are not much different from historical averages—corrected for the later date of first marriage. Anecdotal of course, but my 30-year-old son and his same-age wife will attend four weddings of their peers in 30-day period this fall. Among our friends and relatives we have seen a steady schedule of weddings among the 26-31 age group children in the past two years with more weddings scheduled for next summer.
Since I have been asked by Boxer I will say what I understand constitutes a valid marriage: a valid marriage is (or was) under English Law a sexual and economic union for life between one man and one woman, both over the age of sixteen (and if under the age of majority with parental consent) , who are not otherwise married or within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity and who are united in marriage either according to the rites of the established church (or some other recognised church?) or in a Register Office by a functionary of the state. Common Law marriage is an urban myth and it is no longer acceptable for a marriage to be contracted at sea before the master of the vessel. I won’t go into the grounds for annulment, the distinction between void and voidable marriages, dissolution of marriage or recognition of purported foreign marriages or the intricacies of domicile. If you want to know more consult the two volume Rayden.
Henry, of course, sought an annulment, after which he went matrimonially postal, separated from Rome, dissolved the monasteries, which in turn released money, led to the industrial revolution, the American colonies, British Empire, fewer men working and the decline in marriage. Truly his first divorce is the pivotal event in world history.
@IBB
I’ll post this because I think you truly don’t have a clue on this issue and why it’s so important.
First, a license is permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal, unlawful, a tort or a trespass. In other words, if you have to get a license to do something, you don’t have a right to do it. I pull out my handy Black’s legal dictionary and look up marriage license, only to discover that it’s a special license issued to a couple who desires to intermarry. I look up intermarriage and it says “See, miscegenation.” I look up miscegenation and discover that it’s the mixing of the races, as between a white and a negro.
So, just going by the definitions, only a very, very small percentage of people would “need” the license because the vast majority of people marry someone of their own race. However, the supreme court said in Meister v Moore (1878) that marriage is a right and any laws requiring a license to marry are merely directory. That word, “directory” means the law requiring a marriage license is nothing more than a polite suggestion.
Jesus said to render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render to God that which is God’s.
Believe it or not, the state claims that by virtue of getting a marriage license, the state becomes a party to the marriage and thus gains an equitable interest in all assets of the marriage. The most valuable assets of any marriage are the children.
God created marriage and the family is the first of the three covenant entities He created. He gave it a mission and provided his rules to govern it. God says He is the one who opens and closes the womb. God says children are a gift from Him. Marriage belongs to God.
Getting a marriage license is the modern version of offering a pinch of incense to the genius of Caesar. It’s modern-day idolatry because marriage belongs to God, not the government.
IBB – Show me in the Bible where it says the state has to sanction a marriage or else you’re not married. Otherwise you are just putting the state before God.
Yes we are to obey the governing authorities, but not to the point of opposing God. The state does not recognize God in marriage. That alone is reason enough to not involve the state in your marriage. The state sees itself as the dominant partner in a three party contract. It sees your children as property of the state. The state sees marriage between two men or two women as legitimate. Never mind that same sex marriage is an oxymoron. Then you factor in the other evils (no fault / his fault divorce, one sided contracts, undermining authority for husbands, ect.) and you realize that government sanctioned marriage is a sham and not marriage at all.
I think AT may be correct in that you may be idolizing the state.
IBB dodges my question… now there’s a big surprise. /sarc What I wrote:
…if you and your spouse received a letter next week telling you that there was some sort legal reason to declare that your marriage was not valid (the authority of the person officiating had expired, for example), would you consider yourself married? If so, why, since you would not have a valid state-issued license? Would you consider your children to be bastards or legitimate?
IBB’s evasive response [my responses in bold]
We were married because we got married. We had a ceremony. There were witnesses. I said “I do.” She said “I do.” We turned to the people at the ceremony and asked if we were married and every single person in the room said we were married. That’s it. We are married. [Then you just directly contradicted yourself, because you said that THE requirement for marriage was a form issued by the state, and not ceremonies, vows, or witnesses.] And the state WILL sanction that marriage. [Not necessarily. Within living memory some US states prohibited Christian marriage between believers if the couple were not of the same ethnic composition as defined by the state. Some such couples probably did everything you did, but were ineligible for your precious piece of paper, why do you think you and the state get to play God and call their marriage a sin?] Your gobblydy-gook is just meaningless rhetoric. [Your historical ignorance is only matched by your legal and Biblical ignorance. My father the pastor officiated at my wedding. Although he was legally authorized to perform weddings in the state where he lived… because it was in a different state he had to fill out papers at the last minute to get permission there. A paperwork error discovered later could have rendered that permission retroactively invalid… those sorts of errors happen all the time in non-wedding situations, and legal actions are declared invalid on an ex post facto sense every day. I’ve seen it happen – it happens to pre-nups on a regular basis. Perhaps you should answer the question rather than evade it because any answer you give would demonstrate the absurdity of your statement.]
A man and a woman go and live together they can SAY whatever they want. They can say they are married until they are blue in the face, I want to see the piece of paper. And if they don’t have a piece of paper, I’m just going to say they are living in sin. Because if they are NOT living in sin, then tell me Lyn, what exactly IS living in Sin??? (That is a serious question.) No, you’re going to say they are living in sin because you choose to bow to the state even when the law of man contradicts the Law of God. (Rendering unto Caesar that which is God’s may be a good example of living in sin, by the way.) A couple needs to get the paper to be married in eyes of the law, but not to be married in the eyes of God.
As far as your comments about bastards go, what exactly IS a bastard Lyn? Seriously, what is that? What is Lyn’s personal definition of a bastard? That is an important question and I do not want you quoting me anything from any dictionary. I want you to seriously sit down and think about it because the answer is very objective. There is a reason why that word was created, a reason why the word is so intentionally hurtful. Too easy: a bastard is a child born to a woman who was not married to the father. I don’t care if you don’t want me quoting from a dictionary: YOU deal with that, since that is how we agree on definitions, which is why it is absurd to ask for my “personal definition.” I don’t have one… that’s why we have dictionaries. And the word was not made to be “intentionally hurtful” anyway – it was a word to describe the legal status of a child relative to his/her father. Before the guy who pulled off the Norman Conquest became known to history as “William the Conqueror,” he was generally known as “William the Bastard.” It didn’t keep people from flocking to his banner in sufficient numbers to allow him to become a conqueror. One of my favorite nieces is a bastard, and I think far more highly of her than I do of most of her legitimate siblings and cousins. If bastardy is an insult, it is an insult to one or both parents, not their unfortunate children. Now go have a nice cup of warm milk the soothe your fee-fees – you are among men now.
IBB has a vested interest in ensuring that the State sanctions marriage because he has two daughters that may need a Plan B and need to be able to frivorce a “bad man” should the need arise. Her/his motives that are very transparent.
@manlyman hit the nail on the head, it may have been ibb who said to bring your a game if u meet his daughters. I bring my A game for early 20 something woman, not 30 year olds.
There may come a time when Christians begin to eschew state-sanctioned legal marriage in favor of church marriage, increasingly so as states broaden their definitions of marriage beyond what the culture can accept.
What marriage benefits cannot be arranged separately via alternative contracts? Last names can be legally changed. Bank accounts and property can be owned jointly without legal marriage. Medical guardianship can be established without legal marriage. If your state has anti-cohabitation laws (not that they are enforced) have the wife sign a 100-year lease agreement for $1/month. Having to purchase separate health plans may be a cost, but increasingly they offer coverage for “significant others” requiring only proof of cohabitation (ironically, this was intended to benefit gay couples but they cannot discriminate).
My point is there are workarounds to not having a state-sanctioned legal marriage. Couples will have to decide for themselves what a marriage is exactly. Is it a poorly-constructed government contract legally binding a man to a woman that can be unilaterally broken at any time? Or is it a religious and cultural joining of a man and woman to create a new family unit?
If people were to eschew legal marriage we would see the official marriage rate fall off the chart. It would be quite funny though to witness marriage become passe in the gay community. Marriage would be seen as something for those icky religious weirdos in flyover country. After all that fighting for inclusion they would find it a hollow victory.
@IBB
He pontificates (his usual mode of speaking) that one cannot be married without a piece of paper from the government. I used to be stupid exactly like that, too. Then, I lived in Mexico, and learned better. IBB is really wrapped up in his own opinion, isn’t he?
My wife’s best friend in Mexico says half the couples she knows are living in free union, as they call it. Free union is merely a private marriage, much like when Rachel and Leah married in the Bible. Her aunt and uncle were in a private marriage for over 70 years, and died within 72 hours. If you went down there and accused such people of being unmarried and their kids of being bastards, you would need hospital care very soon.
Marriage originally was implemented when the couple slept together. And, the penalty for adultery was death. Look in the Bible for references to the marriage licenses and marriage certificates. Take a full lantern when you search.
As time passed, the Catholic clergy realized, hey, we represent God on earth. We decide who gets married and who does not.
Later, the governments realized, hey, we are the government. No one does anything without paying us money. So, they implemented the marriage license and the marriage certificate, followed almost immediately by the divorce courts. That was a fairly recent development. Pioneers and the pilgrims were married by religious clergy.
Up until that time marriage was indeed a sacrament, but that went away with the governmental marriage license. So, Pope IBB I supports the system which destroyed the sacrament of marriage!
What is marriage? That is when a man and a woman believe they are truly married. And when the family and neighbors agree with them. Anything else is purely cultural in nature. and folks like IBB are prisoners of their specific culture as I used to be when I was dumb.
By the way, before anyone talks about common law marriages, be aware that common law is not a universal thing. Mexico does not have common law at all. Opus might tell us more, but by memory from my own non-law school studies I believe common law came from the UK, and Mexico’s system is not derived from Britain’s.
In Mexico, the Free Union married couples do refer to each other as husband and wife, and so does everyone else. IBB I simply cannot change that fact, no matter how he huffs and puffs.
Pingback: News of the Week (October 5th, 2014) | The Political Hat
@Anon 72
I claim no knowledge of other systems of law, and only a hazy knowledge of the history of the English legal system, but following the end of the Pax Romanus (A.D.409) and after a few centuries of Anglo Saxon rule, Common Law – that is to say Judge made law by Justices of the King’s Bench – appeared. It’s inadequacies led to the Court of Chancery easing the rigours of Common Law with the Law of Equity. Both types of law still exist but in practice are largely replaced by Statute and Statutory Instrument.
Judges are supposed to interpret the Law and Counsel may not in presenting his case criticise the weaknesses or otherwise of the existing law – that at least is the theory. The figures for marriage might look somewhat different were cohabitations – which in practise is treated as pseudo-marriage – taken into account.
Just about any excuse:
Toad, JGD, & Lyn,
There is only ONE REASON (and one reason only) why a couple living in sin (and yes, if you don’t have a marriage license and you are living and sleepng together, you are in sin) say they are married but refuse to get the “directory” license: One or the other or both are hedging their bets and they don’t want the government to come in and sieze their assets should the marriage end in divorce. That is it. That is the only reason why a couple (any couple) that claims that they are married without actually going to government and getting the paper. Now having said that, let me say this: I understand. I understand and can even empathyze with people doing this particularly if one or the other has substantially more assets or income that could be lost by goverment authority. I get it. But that doesn’t mean that I am going to recognize their relationship as a married one. I don’t, and I won’t. Nor would any pastor, rabbi, or priest (people who just happen to have power to marry people vested in them not only by God but also by the state.) They are living in sin and any children they might have would be bastards. I don’t care what you all think about that. You are not changing my mind.
Lyn, my wife and I saw the county clerk 3 days before her cousin married us in our ceremony. I paid the $50 and (as far as the government was concerned) we were married. In the ceremony, my wife’s cousin checked with every single one of the almost 100 people who were present and they all smiled and nodded in agreement, we were married (now before God.) Done. Now I’m telling you that to tell you this, if my wife and I did not get the $50 piece of paper that Wednesday, her cousin would not have married us on that Saturday. He was clergy, and even though he claimed to be a man of God, he insisted that government be a part of our marriage (or he would not.) Try and find a clergy member (any clergy member) that will marry you before God without getting married in the state.
Marriage is a gift from God. I get it. I get why you are all going bonkers about this, but that doesn’t change the fact that marriage is also (now) state sanctioned. God created create marriage before there was government. God created marriage before there was clergy (and the first marriage was an arranged one I might add.) We are past that. We are past that specifically because life today for men and women is very different than what it was for Adam & Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Rachael and Jacob. Sorry if none of you get that, but you better because the more you dig your heels in on this, the more the world will marginalize US (yes US) because I am one of you…
…as you are about to see.
Manlyman and Oblivian,
This is not entirely about my children but yes, of course, when they are old enough to get married then sure, I want them married. The problem is (as I said to Dalrock, and Elspeth, and SSM) our children are inheriting a nation (dare I say a world) that is more and more empty of marriage.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-09/single-americans-now-comprise-more-than-half-the-u-s-population.html
So it is entirely likely that some of them (maybe even most of them) will never be able to marry.
I am trying (in some small way) to hand out enough red pills to people to ordinary people in an effort to change the divorce laws we have in this country so we can reverse this terrible trend of government destroying marriage. Here I am trying to do this very thing on another forum, please go to this linkie….
http://goatpen.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=176&start=18000#p113368
…you’ll note, the person who YOU are all picking a fight with HERE is doing his very best to bring the manosphere to other places with unassailable logic. Just scroll down on the GoatPen and look at some of the exchanges I am having with that white-knight-mangina Professor Tiger and try and understand that you are coming after the wrong person. I am on your side.
That is some first-rate comedy, MarcusD.
greyghost, TheRhoubbhe and others:
You have shown that a female-only parenting culture has problems. How does that prove a male-only one would work fine?
I guess all of you who assert that are ultimately railing against God since He setup the “one man and one woman” rule.
It would be bad, perhaps in different ways, but intentionally depriving a child of their mother would be just as bad as the reverse in the end.
What would you do with any female children that came out in such a situation? Abort or practice infanticide on them? They would not have a future in your ideal world either, except as breeding stock.
Idiotic.
BradA
You don’t need her. The Men Rights movement will fail as long as women are needed to change who they are. The feminine imperative will run your shit until the day you die. Have faith in the truth of female nature.
Teach them to be good wives. No need to abort them or kill them (not my style I’m not female) The would have a future in my ideal world. My ideal world would be just as it is now with a male pill and red pill home economic classes for all males starting in the 6th grade. When me no longer have to use a woman to carry out he instructions from God. MGTOW/fatherhood you have fully productive men raising families. PUA on birth control and you don’t think that will have a greater effect on the behavior of women than the church today. Besides that how can you look at society today and speak so highly of mothers.
There will still be marriage MGTOW/family is not a way to run a nation just as actively fighting a war is not a way of life. It is far batter than what we have now with the threat point, CS, divorce baby mommas. I know with out question single men using surrogates to have children cannot touch the societal destruction of the single mom no matter how she got there. Say I had 3 kids of my own I could marry then free of the threat point. The only reason really to have a wife is to have kids or to say you are living a Christian life. Other than that she is worthless by law and she is proud of it.
BradA says:
October 5, 2014 at 7:53 pm
“You have shown that a female-only parenting culture has problems. How does that prove a male-only one would work fine?”
“It would be bad, perhaps in different ways, but intentionally depriving a child of their mother would be just as bad as the reverse in the end.”
You could not be more wrong, BradA. Mother-only households do VERY badly at raising children (see below), The only significant exception to this is widow-headed households, where the late father AND HIS VALUES are commonly held high. However, father-only households with children have outcome rates that approach that of the gold standard, which is married opposite-sexes who are biological parents of the children there.
Typical mother-only households, from http://www.dottal.org/LBDUK//effects_of_fatherlessness.htm :
“85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home
These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home are:
5 times more likely to commit suicide.
32 times more likely to run away.
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.
20 times more likely to end up in prison.”
This is why I believe that a woman intentionally giving birth to a child neither conceived nor born in marriage, and not resulting in either rapid marriage or adoption out to married couple, should be considered felony-level child abuse, NO MATTER HOW HIGH THE INCOME/EDUCATION/STATUS OF THE MOTHER. Such CA normally results in the child being taken away, which would save us from over HALF of our prison population, for starters. (Use them as Janissaries in the U.S. military, never returning to the homeland, at the least before age 45 or so?)
yes, if you don’t have a marriage license and you are living and sleepng together, you are in sin
Says you and who else? Even the government doesn’t agree with you.
There is only ONE REASON (and one reason only) why… One or the other or both are hedging their bets and they don’t want the government to come in and sieze their assets should the marriage end in divorce. That is it.
This is BS. I know people who refuse do do anything that requires state sanctioning, even registering for a social security number. Their reasons are anything but what you suggest.
They aren’t trying to pull one over on uncle Sam (or is it aunt Samantha now?) They married in a church before witnesses by a Bible believing pastor. They had a child together after they married and are still married. You presume to much grasshopper.
We are past that. We are past that specifically because life today for men and women is very different than what it was for Adam & Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Rachael and Jacob.
Can you offer anything to reinforce this other than your opinion? Did you post something written in the Bible to make your point? I waded through your post but came up with nothing except more declarations that things are the way you say they are. Where are the valid reasons why?
You say pastors won’t recognize their marriage, but you are wrong. You say the couples motives aren’t pure, how would you know? Wake up and smell what you’re shoveling.
IBB,
We’re not going to change your mind, fine. You believe that it is incumbent of Christians to go out of their way to make it convenient for a corrupt state to undermining Christian marriage, even though the state does not even require a certificate for people to form marriages (they must do so only if they wish their marriages to be recognized by the state: which is 100% voluntary) – and that’s really all there is to it. It is apparently inconceivable to you that God would allow something that He created to exist without the imprimatur of the state. Go on believing that all you want. Like the sign next to my desk says,
“I’d agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong.“
You did well on the “goatpen” website, though.
“You could not be more wrong, BradA.”
I still have not seen any proof that widespread “male only parenting” families would go well in the large span of things. I would argue we have far too few of them to make statistical deductions on their impact. How many of the statistics given are for males who did the MGTOW route to parenting?
Greyghost, you could not make your daughter follow your path in the modern society, even without a mother present. Too many things push toward the reverse. How would you plan on preventing here from falling to the cultural meme as an adult? Force of your will?
Skipping the state “license” would have little value in a state that would attach “married” status to you after living together long enough after both of you claim to be married outside the state, so those supporting such should validate why this token protest would be really important.
I don’t especially want to see things crash and burn since living through that will almost certainly be quite painful, but nothing good is likely to come until that happens.
====
Completely OT note: my wife was watching the Cowboys game today and I noticed all the pink. Blech. No wonder I have been come so much less interested in football.
BradA
I would like my daughter to be a good wife and the best I can do is to make sure she is red pill. With that she will be well behaved as a wicked selfish childish unempathetic normal woman. MGTOW is for men. Never force a woman into anything. if she needs force she is worthless and should be left to her means. MGTOW/ to parenting is a new concept that requires surrogacy or adoption. I think it is good to talk about. Had I known about it I would have really considered it over marriage.
Today is the first week end of the supplicate women and feminism or else month. That way the NFL can gain loyal female fans
@IBB
There is only ONE REASON (and one reason only) why a couple living in sin (and yes, if you don’t have a marriage license and you are living and sleepng together, you are in sin)
If one has the right to do something, one is not required to get a permission to do that thing. A Christian man and a Christian woman, unimpaired by previous marriages, with the permission of the father of the bride have an absolute RIGHT to get married. Biblically, the elements of a marriage are as I’ve stated previously: Permission of the father, agreement of the couple, consummation of the marriage and cohabitation. That’s it.
The family is a covenant entity, created by God. In Matthew 19 Jesus said “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Marriage is a covenant, which is a contract to which God is a party. He created it, He made the rules (c.f. Ephesians 5, 1st Peter 3 and 1st Corinthians 7. Dare I add Exodus 21?). Marriage existed long antecedent to the creation of the state. The state has no legitimate right to control or otherwise regulate marriage.
Your claim, as near as I can tell, is that the government is the arbiter of who is or is not married. The problem is first that the government doesn’t have the authority to require two competent individuals to get its permission to marry. Our own government (the SCOTUS) said so in 1878 and that’s still current case law. The second is the tertiary effect of getting such a license. It gives the government the plausible claim of an equitable interest in every asset of the marriage.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, render unto God that which is God’s. Rendering unto Caesar that which belongs to God is called idolatry.
What is this pill? It is not blue. Is it indigo? It is at Salon, and the writer is a profesor.
But still, it is like watching a large train heading for the demolished bridge.
My doomed mission to make her happy
Skipping the state “license” would have little value in a state that would attach “married” status to you after living together long enough after both of you claim to be married outside the state, so those supporting such should validate why this token protest would be really important.
No they really wouldn’t. If anything, those claiming that marriage without a license is sin even though the state will consider them married with out a license (after a certain amount of time has passed) are the ones who need to do some explaining.
JDG says:
October 5, 2014 at 9:59 pm – should start with “No they really wouldn’t need to.”
BradA where did I once say I wanted a male only parenting model? I did not.
A model of one mother and absent father because that clearly is a recipe for societal chaos. This nonsense about stay-at home dads will never take because of women’s hypergamy, which seems to have some biological basis reinforced by culture. Even if you think it is entirely behavioral, there isn’t enough time to somehow come up with a new model. Not enough women are going to turn into unicorns.
Men are going to still lead this country in government and in business, after all the feminists will gladly elect the men they want to bang. George Clooney could be president if he wanted. All the feminists and their allies are doing to institutionalizing a “top man” model like in the crime infested inner cities.
Women will be way more educated then men, there still we be an anti-family government policy ( thanks Democrats), anti-family economic policy (thanks Republicans) all which exactly ensures the decline. Young men will have little employment, no ability to marry, a bounty of drugs, alcohol, and easy access to firearms.
How do you think it is going to end? Not well.
The current policy of the US is to basically to hope that Superman will come down from the planet Krypton and save everyone; although if “Dawn of Justice” isn’t a blockbuster in 2016, then maybe the ‘Avengers’ will be the hope to save the United States. Once the United Stats built things and gave men jobs with dignity to raise families, now our high profile exports are movies about people in spandex.
Let me tell you who has an actual plans, our enemies the various Islamic Radicals. They stick to their principals, don’t compromise and effectively recruit angry poor young men. They know their opponents in the west are their own worst enemies thanks to unchecked immigration and terrible leadership.
BradA says:
One reason would be as an exercise of free speech in denying the state a power it shouldn’t possess. Marriage is too critical to civilization for it to be subject to the transient political whims of the state.
Are more reasons even necessary?
Circumventing the marriage license and remaining invisible to the state would take work but it could be done. Difficult for sure. However, the most difficult part would be ever finding a woman to agree to it. The most traditional, non-feminist woman you could possibly find today wouldn’t even agree to it. Women are enthralled with the authoritarian nature of power of the state, and they would feel like their marriage isn’t as real as that of their state-married friends. Because the state is the ultimate authority figure and makes all things real by decree.
Lyn87,
Thank you. I was wondering if anyone here was actually going to read it and then, give me credit.
Toad,
That’s it? Welp, if that was it, the inner city would be doing just fine and there wouldn’t be rioting in the streets of Ferguson Missouri. There are plenty of “Biblical” marriages there Toad (given this set of criteria.) How does the following “Biblical” marriages work out for us?
“Husband” lives with “wife” in the inner city public housing (paid for by government, because as far as Uncle Sam is concerned, she’s a single mom since they don’t have a license.) “Husband” is off the books or else “wife” would not qualify for housing. “Wife” gets a check from Uncle Sam to support her children. And maybe she gives it to her “husband” and he does whatever he does with it. And the “husband” and “wife” and continuously consumating this Biblical marriage to the tune of multiple children (all bastards as far as I’m concerned.) But I am sooooo happy to hear that according to your definition (and Bible) they are married. That makes me feel so much better.
TFH,
Just one of me.
You know damn well I am red-pill through and through. We do a lot of preaching to the choir here. That doesn’t do much good. Nor does it expand our understanding, make us better thinkers. So I go over to the goatpen (where there are NONE OF US) and I try to “convert” as many as I can. In doing that, I start to think, start to better understand the enemy that is feminism. And I think at this point (because I haven’t seen you go into a pit of vipers and challenge them the way I have done, repeatedly), I may understand feminism a bit better than you.
What is this pill? It is not blue. Is it indigo? It is at Salon, and the writer is a professor….
All I saw there were blue pills disguised in different colors. When all that a man wants to do is to make a woman happy, without ever mentioning how useful the woman is to his purpose, can the pill be bluer than that? This man never took the lead in the relationship. From start to finish it was the girl who was showing the way. It was clear he was the woman and she was the man. It is a miracle their relationship lasted a year. The man never stated exactly why the girl was relevant in his life mission; he merely went along after she made “the first move”. I think this pill is the bluest blue!
TFH,
I have never said that. The folks here have repeately put words in mouth to suit an agenda (because they believe they must understand everything about me, even things about my family that I have not volunteered.) I have said I want my children married and MGTOW (something I understand fully and even agree with) scares the crap out of me for my family. That’s it. You know nothing about my children, none of you do. And I’m going to keep it that way.
What I may have said (and you’ll have to search Dalrock’s old posts to find it as I can’t be bothered) is that the majority of the men here are going to have a very difficult time (dare an impossible time) finding any virginal woman to marry in their lifetimes. Moreover, I find that men in their late 20s (and even their early 30s) chasing 18 and 19 year old girls is disgusting. It’s legal. You can do that, but I do not have to approve of it. I frown upon that. I frown upon it not for HER sake but for HIS!
I have known almost NO successful May-December romances TFH. And the marriages that I have known (where he was more than ten years older than her), as far as I can remember they have ALL ended in divorce. And it is always HER filing for the divorce even if she was a virgin when he married her. The “whispers” are simply too powerful, especially when she is 24 (and still looks great) and he is 38 and she doesn’t want his balding, wrinkling, sweaty body laying on top of her anymore. She wants to be chased again by someone her own age, she starts to long for the years or freedom that she missed that her girlfriends got. It just doesn’t work.
I believe in people getting married young. I really do not have a problem with two kids who are 20 or 21 getting married. I think that might work, even if they are both still in college. No one says you have to quit college just because you both get married. The both of you can keep going and even graduate. But I tend to think it is best if BOTH are young when they get married. If you are 37 and still an unmarried man (or even a virgin) you have missed your window. Stop chasing the young girls. You will never understand them and they will never ever understand you (and will most likely grow to resent you.)
@IBB
Your exchange at GoatPen was epic. They could refute not one single arguement. You forced them into the corner and they could either 1) admit you were right causing enormous psychological conflict in their lives, or 2) DENY DENY DENY + SHAMING LANGUAGE.
Have you confirmed any successful conversions?
How do you speak red pill truths without getting banned immediately?
I see many of the conversations here and on other blogs as being at least half-way a propaganda effort. (Propaganda that supports your own views is a good thing.) What we do as commenters is continually keep fresh the ideas we all already understand because at this very moment someone who’s totally new to the manosphere is reading Dalrock and having his mind blown. A primer on, say, the origins of Feminism is therefore always new and useful information to someone.
The Brass Cat,
Thank you very much. That was very nice of you to say.
Two men that I work with professionally. I work as a software consultant and I am placed at different companies. Two of my collegues, I gave them some red pills. They are hooked. Now they spend their free time catching up in the manosphere.
I am a college football and college basketball fan so I’ve been at the Goat Pen for years. I was there long before I discovered the manosphere. Its a sports forum with mostly men and women who love college sports. So no, they are not going to ban me for denigrating feminism. Those guys hate feminism. They just can’t go full red pill yet.
The thing is and the guys who say this are right, the manosphere is not a hard sell. Its very easy to buy because all the evidence points to what is so plainly obvious to all of us.
@IBB
Thank you. I was wondering if anyone here was actually going to read it and then, give me credit.
Your desire for validation is cringe-worthy. Seek it elsewhere.
You claim to be oh-so red pill. Phooey. We both know the piece of paper you claim is so important is actually meaningless because we all know it’s nothing more than an “officialization” of a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship and can be ended at any time for any or no reason at all. The Biblical elements of marriage are just that: the elements. Also necessary is the commitment to be married. Something sadly lacking in the majority of folks who get your precious piece of paper. Almost.. kind of like the inner-city people you mentioned…
There are very real and serious reasons why a committed couple who desire to get married would NOT want your precious piece of paper. I’ve explained it several times now. You, however, seem to be wedded to your narrow-minded view of what marriage is and you are seemingly intent on promoting state participation in marriage, which belongs to GOD. God help your kids, cause with that attitude, you won’t.
You’re probably a fan of dispensational theology. I’m approaching this from the viewpoint of Covenant theology. God created three covenant entities: the family, the state and the church. He gave each of them a mission, and each of them is sovereign in their own sphere. The authority given to the man to initiate marriage in Genesis 2:24 was later elucidated in Ephesians 5:22-24. The state has no authority to decide who is or is not married. If you, in the name of democracy and all that think that you should have a part in that, you’re a pervert.
Toad,
It wasn’t a desire for validation. It was instead a desire for folks (like yourself) to understand that you do NOT understand me. It was a desire to CORRECT your thinking. I am hoping that maybe now you might be understanding me, but I fear that PRIDE is clouding your better judgement now.
Yes I’ve said that. The problem is the unilateral divorce.
The license is more for the kids Toad. It may just be a piece of paper to you (and quite a bit more than that for me), but for the children it means that dad and mom (even if they fight) are less likely to just bag the relationship. It is meant to make their Biblical marriage a bit more sticky, even if there are no longer any legal parameters preventing one or the other from exiting the marriage.
It’s important to me. It’s not important to you and I believe very much that if you didn’t get that piece of paper that your wife would still be your wife in your eyes. But…. I’m still saying you would be living in sin.
You know, just two posts up, The Brass Cat stated that my exchange at the Goat Pen was epic. He further stipulated that my opponents could not refute one single argument. Their choice was to conceed that I was right or (do what you did just now) that is to shame.
You seem to be hellbent on the shaming right now. It appears I might have struck a nerve with you and (as a result) you are not thinking clearly, certainly not thinking before you are typing. Pride has the best of you at the moment. Push back from the keyboard and go have a drink. Relax. Satruday Night Fever is on the Sundance Channel. Take a break. You need it.
Relationship troubles: marrying and moving abroad
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=913157
When the love is gone in a woman, you’re dead to her (This guy is daring…)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=913215
Toad,
You refer to “living in sin”, and people who do not get the government paper “not really being married”. You seem to be presenting this as fact of both temporal and spiritual reality. Is this the case, or are you simply presenting this as an opinion?
If you are presenting it as fact, do you have any supporting evidence from scripture? As for temporal matters, how do work around the history of marriage as an institute pre-dating this form of government interference?
It is going to get interesting. I can see a point (watch the Supreme court here) where gay marriage is legal and state sanctioned…. and the church ignores the state.
But where I live if you live as a couple for two years the state treats you as if you are married anyway, including marital assets being divided in half on divorce and in child custody. In secular life, marriage is about the party not the covenant, which is the reverse of what it should be.
greyghost,
You advocated raising children without a mother around. That is why I asked my questions. That seems quite ludicrous to me, though you seem to only partially support it. Your replies don’t really address the issues, but perhaps that is because it is only a partial concept and aimed more at cutting out the bad rather than providing the good.
Brass Cat,
> Circumventing the marriage license and remaining invisible to the state would take work but it could be done.
Then it would be a largely futile gesture and I would question its value. I would rather focus on productive things that mere token gestures. The system enforces things even if you try to opt out, so making the opt out such a key point is misguided, at best.
TheRhoubbhe,
> BradA where did I once say I wanted a male only parenting model? I did not.
My reply that you took issue with was against the idea of a single male parenting by choice.
I believe the analysis in the OP is correct as far it goes, but there is more to the story.
1. It’s not ONLY the danger of divorce that minimizes men’s incentives, though that is a big part of it. Men in general also have an intrinsic need to feel that they are ACTUALLY accomplishing something at work, and the effect of the demise of manufacturing in the U.S. cannot be understated, because when you are building something there is a TANGIBLE proof that you are actually doing something worthwhile. Being a corporate drone, trying to manipulate the public into buying your quasi-useless product, not so much. I’m a die-hard “protectionist” when it comes to moving U.S. jobs overseas. Tax the f***ing hell out of companies that want to do that. If it means that products will be more expensive, that is a price I am willing to pay. Instead we have the spectacle of Big Business and Big Money ruining the economy in 2008 and then the taxpayers footing the bill under the specious pretext that the companies are “too big to fail”. That is the case because anti-trust protections were gutted and instead of big companies breaking up (like AT&T and Standard Oil) we now have big companies getting even bigger (e.g. airline mergers). Furthermore, in the Fifties there was a greater sense of loyalty on the part of corporations towards their employees, which resulted in greater loyalty in employees towards them, and it wasn’t unusual for a man to have the same job for life. Now companies “downsize” without giving a flying f***ck about employees or their families. Well men are NOT built to having loyalty towards anything that doesn’t have loyalty towards them. But when that loyalty IS there, men will often walk to the ends of the earth. As to whether all this malfeasance on the part of Big Business is connected to feminism or just orthogonal to it, I don’t know and am willing to listen to arguments either way.
2. It’s not just access to women that is motivating for men, it’s also their children, WHEN they are acknowledged as the head of the family. Default sole maternal custody, by contrast, makes the woman the de facto head. People like BradA will continue to bury their heads in the sand and believe what they want regardless of the evidence, but children in single father-headed families do better than children in single mother-headed families. (Surprisingly so, since his religion should tell him otherwise, if woman was created as a helper. A craftsman can do his work without an apprentice, albeit with greater difficulty; an apprentice can’t do the work at all without the craftsman.) There has never been, and never will be, a societal problem of single fathers refusing to support their children.
Pingback: Who’s Dragging Those Heels? | Cail Corishev
Dave refers to Salon
The man never stated exactly why the girl was relevant in his life mission; he merely went along after she made “the first move”. I think this pill is the bluest blue!
It’s got to be bluer than blue. Indigo? Ultraviolet? I can’t say. But I pointed to the article as a way to demonstrate just how far a man will go in pursuit of becoming not just an emotional tampon, but a roll of emotional toilet paper. And what is done with these when they are used up? Yep. Discarded.
Note:
Readers should be aware that there are two distinct personalities posting to the IBB account, and sometimes obvious contradictions arise as a result.
IBB
I have said I want my children married and MGTOW (something I understand fully and even agree with) scares the crap out of me for my family. That’s it.
Not even close. You stated flatly that you had no problem with women gaining “experience” in their early 20’s, and avoiding marriage until the age of 25 or older. You endorsed the feminist merit badge approach; university, then career, and then marriage (when the Wall begins to loom). When I pointed this out you equivocated, you tried to pretend you hadn’t written it, you tried to re-interpret your own words and finally went off on a bizarre tangent about penis size. One thing you have never done? Admit that position was wrong.
I believe in people getting married young. I really do not have a problem with two kids who are 20 or 21 getting married. I think that might work, even if they are both still in college.
That contradicts your previous very strongly held position that early marriage leads to divorce, and that women should not even think of marrying before the age of 25. Perhaps you and the other person who posts under this monicker should consider agreeing on a position in advance, rather than making these obvious contradictions?
I work as a software consultant and I am placed at different companies.
That directly contradicts what you have previously said. Previously you were employed at a large corporation, and from that position you attempted to give advice on how to get a raise in the tech industry, which boiled down to “change jobs”. Then you announced that you were changing employers. Look, if you have switched from employee to consultant, just say so. But attempting to rewrite your own history, a history that is still available in various comment streams on this site, is disingenuous at best.
Why does this matter? Because it means IBB does not debate consistently but rather contradicts itself from time to time. Rather than admitting “Oh, I held this position but I have come to see it was wrong”, the IBB account pretends “Oh, I believed that all along”.
On the one hand, IBB has progressed from a standard White Knight, pedestalizing position regarding women to a much more realistic one. This is great progress. On the other hand, IBB still has some issues with the nature of women, and a very bad habit of attempting to rewrite its own history, and that makes it difficult to trust the IBB account (it also reinforces the notion that IBB is at least half female).
Brad A. because of his own personal history may have issues regarding the custody of children, and that’s understandable. What cannot be denied, however, is that mother-only custody has proven a disaster. A disaster for the children, a disaster for the mother, a disaster for the father and alll too often a disaster for 3rd parties who come in contact with the children as they get older.
Laws are changing, finally, no thanks to feminists or tradcon white knights. Some states are now accepting true joint custody (physical custody – 2 weeks here, 2 weeks there) as a norm in divorce cases. That is a great improvement. Probably it is about as far as can be expected for now.
Default father custody in case of divorce would be a better norm, if for no other reason than it would force women to choose between their own hypergamous EPL desires, and the desire to remain close to their children, instead of indulging their bad behavior as mother-default custody does.
Chris the Kiwi
But where I live if you live as a couple for two years the state treats you as if you are married anyway, including marital assets being divided in half on divorce and in child custody.
New readers / lurkers should be aware that Chris is in New Zealand, that he was divorced some years back and he has primary? sole? custody of his children. So he is posting on this topic from a position of personal knowledge, he’s not just speculating as some of us are.
My ignorant question for Chris: Is true regardless of what the couple in question claim? I ask because older US law in some states only created a common-law marriage in cases where a couple
a: lived together for N years (N = 2 or more)
b: “held themselves to be married”, i.e. went about telling people they were man and wife.
It’s a holdover from the 19th century, seems to me, to accomodate people who wanted to be married but who were living in a dugout 20 miles from nowhere. One can find first person accounts of this life from Texas to the Canadian border.
If all it takes in NZ to be “married” is “lived in the same domicile for 24 months”, it looks more like a tax / power issue than anything else. I’ve been told such a rule exists in British Columbia but cannot verify that. Any insight you wish to share from down under would be welcome.
AR,
I don’t. That is because (whether you or anyone at this blog likes it or not) the majority of women are going to do this. Even if it pisses you off, they will still do this. And since women in their twenties (today) will live to 100 or more, this is barely a quarter of their lifespan. They ARE going to avoid marriage and date/f-ck AlphaMcHarelyRockbanddrummerBadBoy for a while. As I see it that leaves you with several choices…
#1) You can continue to shoot the messenger. Coming after me because you are pissed at feminist women does you no good, but go ahead if it gives you an AMOG stiffie
#2) You can try and shame women that do this on their feminist blogs. That is only going to get you banned. They are not going to listen to you.
#3) You can boycott these women later in life (and/or instruct your sons and daughters to do the same.) Just refuse to associate with a significant portion of the population
#4) Any combination of the above choices
#5) Accept that which is reality and try and make the best of the situation by trying to influence the culture (that is what I am trying to do)
#6) Something else….
The position is not wrong and I don’t think I ever pretended not to write it. And to be perfectly honest, this type of behavior (that you have described) is even getting worse for some people. The current client that I am doing business with, one of the senior executives is sending his daughter to medical school. He is not doing this because she wants to be medical doctor per se. It is (instead) because he looks at medical school as a sort of high end dating/match-making service where his daughter will be among ONLY other future medical doctors. He is spending big bucks and using up a medical student slot for his daughter to be in a very select pool of potential marriage partners. This type of behavior is going to continue to increase among the most financially well-endowed familes. Again, you can get pissed off about it, but it is not going to do you any good.
That said, your obsession with me and what I write is concerning.
I don’t know where you could have gotten the idea that I felt this way. Oh, that’s right you are pulling this right out of your @ss given the next statement….
I changed jobs in April. I was at a small corporation in a growing business working in technology. I now work for a large corporation doing consulting with other business working as consultant in technology. I had never worked for a large corporation before (not as an employee.) I am an emplyee AND a consultant. There is no rewrite of history.
YOU presume to know everything about me because I tell bits and pices and you fill in the rest that suits you agenda and then claim I said something I didn’t. Your obession with my is downright disturbing. Get a life AR. You can’t have mine, you’ll have to get your own life.
joshtheaspie says:
October 6, 2014 at 3:41 am
You may have AT mixed up with IBB.
All – I just want to make it clear that I am not advocating unmarried “couples” live together. I am merely affirming that:
a) the state has no legitimate place in marriage
b) the state actively works to undermine marriages
c) what is commonly practiced today using a state marriage license is not marriage but rather an evil facade
I wrote :
You stated flatly that you had no problem with women gaining “experience” in their early 20’s, and avoiding marriage until the age of 25 or older.
IBB
I don’t. That is because (whether you or anyone at this blog likes it or not) the majority of women are going to do this.
Well, here we go again. Perhaps Mr. IBB has gone off to work, and now Mrs. IBB’s hamster has taken over posting? Who knows?
In any event, once again we see that IBB has no problem with sexual promiscuity by women prior to getting married, just as I stated quite some time ago, to the screeching denial of IBB. In the context of this blog, IBB is endorsing fornication by women prior to marriage, because, well just because. Apparently women deserve to do what they want, when they want to, so far as IBB is concerned.
This is full circle for me, since this flat out endorsement of women riding the cock carousel was the big disagreement i had originally with IBB. And couching it in They’re gonna do it anyway could be considered misogyny, but for sure it’s not in keeping with a true Bible approach to marriage. IBB is so very forgetful sometimes…
And it’s not necessarily true, either, as some of the millennial men and women I have met in the last 5 years can testify.
Some may find this article by the Elusive Wapiti to be of interest, given the links contained within:
Shocker:Young Churchy Evangelicals Actually Believe The Bible on Sex and Relationships
It is distinctly relevant to IBB’s endorsement of the cock carousel, too.
People tend to pull out the “obsession” accusation when caught in a lie and/or contradiction and don’t want anyone calling them out on their hypocrisy. You start to see the pattern after a while. It is most often employed by females and effeminate men.
Well, this article was a whole lot of ‘duh’. Ever read George Gilder’s, “Men and Marriage” he points all this out in detail. How marriage benefits society be a man’s interest in his kids future motivating him to work hard.
I’m a single father– yeah, I got full custody of all three of my kids with my ex just visiting them in their home with me. But, I work a very good paying job which I really don’t like, but it will allow me to pay for their college eduction, feed, clothe, pay for gas and car insurance for the kids, their extracurricular activities, pay the mortgage on a house with bedrooms for each of them, give their Mom a little bit of child support so she doesnt’ have a lack of funds as an excuse to not do things with them, etc. etc.
Without that responsibility I’d be working a job doing something I love for about one fourth what I make now. Without kids, I just need enough for beer in the fridge, gas in the motorcycle, and the occassional SCUBA trip or skydive jump.
@IBB
Women who have fornicated need to get born again and saved from their sins. If they are in church but unrepentant, follow 1 Co. 5.
We disciple young women all the time who consistently leave behind ungodly sexually immoral lifestyles. It amazes me how little faith you have in the power of Christ.
Of course we also teach them to be modest, cover their heads, not be vain, etc and I’m sure you’d accuse us of legalism.
FYI: I updated the remarriage chart to fix the problem with the time scale.
I don’t. That is because (whether you or anyone at this blog likes it or not) the majority of women are going to do this. Even if it pisses you off, they will still do this.And since women in their twenties (today) will live to 100 or more, this is barely a quarter of their lifespan. They ARE going to avoid marriage and date/f-ck AlphaMcHarelyRockbanddrummerBadBoy for a while. As I see it that leaves you with several choices…
#1) You can continue to shoot the messenger. Coming after me because you are pissed at feminist women does you no good, but go ahead if it gives you an AMOG stiffie
#2) You can try and shame women that do this on their feminist blogs. That is only going to get you banned. They are not going to listen to you.
#3) You can boycott these women later in life (and/or instruct your sons and daughters to do the same.) Just refuse to associate with a significant portion of the population
#4) Any combination of the above choices
#5) Accept that which is reality and try and make the best of the situation by trying to influence the culture (that is what I am trying to do)
It seems that if we were to follow your mindset, our only real choices are either anger or apathy.
@IBB
@AR “I’ve been told such a rule exists in British Columbia”
Yes, we are the first place in North America to introduce living together (>= 2 years) == married. This was enacted in May 2013 with little fanfare or media attention. It was sold as being for the “protection” of all concerned.
I recall one article in the Vancouver Sun which described a couple living together where the higher earner was regrettably going to have to evict the other before the law kicked in, to avoid paying alimony and losing half the house and assets. This person was, of course, a high powered career woman who had a live-in artist/musician gigolo.
More realistically, I have been predicting a lot of very surprised men around here, starting in summer 2015. I think very few people are aware of this.
Coming soon to a jurisdiction near you!
(Why doesn’t this blog have a comment preview?)
@IBB
You seem to be hellbent on the shaming right now. It appears I might have struck a nerve with you and (as a result) you are not thinking clearly, certainly not thinking before you are typing.
And you should be ashamed of yourself. Willingly and knowingly walking into a statutory marriage when you could just as easily have a covenant marriage with a signed, witnessed marital covenant is IDOLATRY.
The license is more for the kids Toad. It may just be a piece of paper to you (and quite a bit more than that for me), but for the children it means that dad and mom (even if they fight) are less likely to just bag the relationship. It is meant to make their Biblical marriage a bit more sticky, even if there are no longer any legal parameters preventing one or the other from exiting the marriage.
Are you really this much of an idiot? As I pointed out, that license is what gives the state the ability to claim they have a part ownership of your children. If you believe God provided you with the children,, why are you giving them to the state? Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, render unto God that which is God’s.
It’s important to me. It’s not important to you and I believe very much that if you didn’t get that piece of paper that your wife would still be your wife in your eyes. But…. I’m still saying you would be living in sin.
So, if one does it God’s way, IBB says it’s sin. It’s only not sin if one does it according to the state. I think he has now firmly established what god he worships. IBB, by your very words you are an idolator. Confess your sin, repent of your sin and obey God.
“And it’s not necessarily true, either, as some of the millennial men and women I have met in the last 5 years can testify.”
Aye, those men have the balls that IBB and his ilk lack.
@JDG
All – I just want to make it clear that I am not advocating unmarried “couples” live together.
Marriage is a state of mind. One is either committed to a marriage or one is not, and regardless of what pieces of paper one might have, that is the end of the story. Those who are truly committed and willing to honor their vows are going to stay married. Others, irregardless of their “qualifications” will not.
The Christian version of marriage is a triangular arrangement in which God is at the top as a party to the marital covenant, and both husband and wife make their vows to each other and to God. In the center of the triangle is the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the mediator between the couple and God, but He is also their Lord and they are His bondservants. It is impossible to break the covenant without breaking the covenant with God. Violations of the covenant between husband and wife do not break the covenant. Only by leaving the service of the master does the covenant get broken (c.f. Exodus 21:1-6 and its restatement in the NT at 1st Corinthians 7:12-17)
The State version of marriage is a triangular arrangement in which the State is at the top as a party to the licensed marital contract, and both husband and wife make their vows to each other under the authority of the state. In the center of the triangle is a family court judge. He is the enforcer of the state’s laws concerning the marriage. The state, through its legislature and judicial system makes the rules and the couple is required to follow them.
Choose you this day whom you will serve…
Pingback: Fewer men are working and marriage is dying… | Honor Dads
Artisanal Toad says:
Dear Artisanal Toad, please don’t respond to this with another sermon. You have previously said that 1Cor.7:15 is grounds for divorce and remarriage for both men and women. I disagree. There is another way to understand this verse:
Consider how the New Living Translation interprets 1Cor. 7:15: But if the husband or wife who isn’t a Christian insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is not required to stay with them, for God wants his children to live in peace.
Holy Bible, New Living Translation, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1996.
Please explain how this verse [1Cor.7:15] applies to women to divorce and remarry?
@styrgwillidar
I wasn’t aware of that so I looked at the description on Amazon. It doesn’t sound like Gilder really got what was going on:
Perhaps the first part was from the reviewer and not Gilder. Either way, it is provably not what is causing the destruction of the family. Divorce rates drop dramatically as the wife ages. It is women who are driving the divorce revolution, and they are doing so at younger ages when their chances to remarry are best. The second part is attributed to Gilder, and also badly misunderstands the nature of the issue.
randall g
BC, Canada
I recall one article in the Vancouver Sun which described a couple living together where the higher earner was regrettably going to have to evict the other before the law kicked in, to avoid paying alimony and losing half the house and assets. This person was, of course, a high powered career woman who had a live-in artist/musician gigolo.
That’s newsworthy, of course. As you note, a lot of men will be surprised next summer and won’t be newsworthy. Some men will in time read the law in order to determine how much of a gap of time in a pattern of cohabitation is needed to avoid this trap. Would 30 days be enough? 3 months? Or is this just another badly written statute with holes in it to be papered over by judges later on?
If it is possible to reset the clock with a break of some period of time, then some “separate vacations” will be in order. If on the other hand the statute is written, or interpreted, or amended such that the time is cumulative, then I forsee some number of men insisting on separate residences. Nothing more than a toothbrush and some toiletries allowed into the dwelling.
It’s ironic, but plate-spinning PUA’s and carousel riders could be the biggest beneficiaries of such a law. Ordinary men and women, the most harmed. Why, it’s almost as though there is a kind of Imperative that compels women to seek out certain men for sexual thrills, and other men for resources and support. But that can’t be true, can it?
These days, The Onion is far too close to reality.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/single-nurse-cant-help-but-notice-man-isolated-for,37108/
“The Christian version of marriage is a triangular arrangement in which God is at the top as a party to the marital covenant, and both husband and wife make their vows to each other and to God.”
God is not a party in a Christian marriage. The purpose of a third party is to enforce the vows made by husband and wife, something God refuses to do. Were it otherwise then the churches who used to hold couples accountable were usurping God’s authority. You can argue that the Church was created to enforce God’s will… well, so was government (late Romans). And just as churches can be corrupted against Christ, our gov’t has been similarly corrupted. The solution is not to circumvent the corrupted institution but reform or replace it.
I’m not saying informal marriage is a sin, I’m saying it isn’t the solution we need. Marriage 2.0 can only be ended by gov’t. This gives us Christians a duty to seek political power and impose God’s plan for marriage upon others. If we don’t then the Communists will continue to impose their plan, to the suffering of all.
Elections are coming. If you get the chance, talk to candidates about frivorce and other legal abominations. No need to be abusive, just ask some pointed questions or describe a quick scenario. Maybe go with a couple Bible verses handy if the candidate professes Christianity. Be the conscience of society!
One of IBB’s frets a while back was the burning, civilizational threat that some Western women might wind up with a man whose penis didn’t measure up to what she expected (maybe due to her porn viewing habits). Perhaps in a few years, 5 or so, such women will be able to rely on science to the rescue!
@Gunner Q
God is not a party in a Christian marriage.
A covenant is a contract to which God is a party. Note in Malachi God referred to covenant marriages. Please cite where God is not party to a Christian marriage.
The purpose of a third party is to enforce the vows made by husband and wife, something God refuses to do.
We could start with “Revenge is mine,sayeth the Lord” and go from there, but this is one of the most ridiculous claims I’ve ever heard. When one makes a vow one is to keep it. (c.f. Deuteronomy 23:23; Ecclesiastes 5:4) Compare this to Matthew 5:33-34, in which the Lord said not to make a vow at all.
Were it otherwise then the churches who used to hold couples accountable were usurping God’s authority.
You are correct that the church usurped authority in trying to regulate marriage, but it wasn’t God’s authority they were usurping, it was the husband’s authority that God gave to him. But the language you’re using is deceiving. It wasn’t that the church was holding couples accountable, it was that the church was actively regulating the marriage to the extent of regulating the marriage bed. The church came up with regulations and rules that God never gave and thus became like the Pharisees who laid burdens upon the backs of the people while not bringing them one step closer to salvation.
You are in danger of making the same mistake that IBB is making: you place your faith in the political process rather than in God.
The purpose of a third party is to enforce the vows made by husband and wife, something God refuses to do.
The purpose of a third party is to have a witness separate from the two involved parties.
The God who hates divorce and takes vows seriously is also not one to be mocked.
I don’t see honestly at this point how the average man and woman are going to be able to keep government out of marriage. Without examining the laws of New Zealand and BC, Canada we can’t get into too much detail but really the broad view is there: people who cohabit with or without a government marriage license will be considered married after a period of time, regardless of what they may or may not want. And with that “You are married, because the government says so” proclamation goes everything that is associated with marriage, in particular all the 2.0 baggage.
It makes any discussion of non-government marriage moot. Suppose that a group of churchgoing people attempt to form their own quasi-Mennonite or quasi-Amish society, closing themselves off as much as possible to be as self-contained as possible, holding their own marriage ceremonies. It still won’t affect the Damocles sword that any woman can weild, only the danger of social disapproval and ultimately being expelled from the society would do that. But that disapproval works wonders in the tight knit Mennonite and Amish communities. So much so that marriage 2.0 really doesn’t exist, they are all involved in 1.0.
The solution doesn’t appear to lie in legislation, but in forming a big enough group of people that the women of that group are within a “herd” that doesn’t easily turn. How one does that within the larger society, including Churchianity, is an open question.
InnocentBystanderBoston, “There is only ONE REASON (and one reason only) why a couple living in sin (and yes, if you don’t have a marriage license and you are living and sleepng together, you are in sin)”
Got a Biblical source to back that up? There’s absolutely nothing in the Bible that says you need a marriage license to be married, or you can only be married if you follow the nation’s laws.
Ugh, forget I even asked.
IBB, “Your position would be fine if we had no government (the time of Genesis.) We do. And government got in the business of sanctioing marriages (for whatever reason.)”
Yeah, the what the government claims it has authority over doesn’t matter to God, hate to break it to you. Government laws don’t change what is sinful or moral to God. What next? You going to tell us that if we “discriminate” against homosexuals and lesbians we’re being immoral, because the government is in the business of stopping discrimination? GTFO,
Is there a source for this?
Another good post Dalrock.
Once again, Daniel Amneus looked at the (lack of) driving forces in primitive cultures in his book, “The Case for Father Custody”.
In it he documents how in primitive cultures, fatherhood is completely absent aside from the biological role of conception. men do not work, or work just enough to subsist, while women are going insane attempting to gather sufficient resources for themselves and their children. Society remains primitive, progress never happens.
We are seeing this exact trend in the figures presented. The only question is, how long will the welfare lifeline sustain female hypergamy?
AT – Those who are truly committed and willing to honor their vows are going to stay married.
Yes, this was my point. There needs to be life long commitment in marriage. Two people shacking up without that commitment isn’t marriage.
The Christian version of marriage is a triangular arrangement in which God is at the top as a party to the marital covenant, and both husband and wife make their vows to each other and to God.
And this is exactly why I (like you) have a problem with how the state views marriage. It does not even recognize God at all in a marriage. It sees itself at the top of a three party contract. What does that say about the role the state is trying to play in peoples lives?
and both husband and wife make their vows to each other under the authority of the state.
And the state does nothing to enforce the keeping of these vows, instead it profits from the breaking of them.
It profits from the making of the vows, and then it profits from the breaking of the vows. And that ladies and gentlemen is why we need a marriage license.
GunnerQ – God is not a party in a Christian marriage.
I have to disagree. The vows are made before God. Marriage is a type of Christ and His church. God made the woman for the man. God regulates how the husband and the wife are to treat each other. God made marriage, and we answer to Him.
Well, if he says (or writes) such stuff all the time, it should be a cinch to post a link to just one example.
I have no dog in the pro/con IBB flamewars, but I do dislike strawman arguments. I have read what he wrote, and I took it to be a much more complex argument (though not necessarily a more savory one) than what you’re describing.
Best, Boxer
TFH:
I don’t find the input of “Anonymous Reader” valuable, and generally pass over all his tl;dr contributions. This is an excellent example of my motivations in that regard. S/he relies on ad hominem attacks and other silly fallacies to make his points, often stooping to grotesque dishonesty in the process. As such I don’t take his summary of IBB’s argument at face value. The fact that I’m asking now is due to your own reputation (I haven’t ever noticed you descending to this sort of nonsense).
When I did try to parse IBB’s point, weeks ago, it approached something I see in a lot of fathers. Even the most mild criticism of women will often bring out fatherly histrionics: “What?! Women aren’t like that! My little precious would never do anything like that!! You bastard, I’ll beat your ass…” etc.
Most of these men (and I assume IBB is included) probably know, at some level, that their little princess is banging the DJ while off at college, but they don’t want to admit as much, and as such they construct a fanciful alter-ego that is pure and good, which exists only between daddy’s ears.
This is pathetic, and sorta funny, but it’s also not something I’m going to bash IBB for, as I’d have to bash nearly every father of a college age girl that I have ever known in the process. I think it’s sorta hard-wired for fathers to overlook the excesses of their children.
Best, Boxer
BradA
Back to the MGTOW/family man. A man has two to three children via a surrogate he can if he is so hung up on a child having a mother find some one that he likes and marry her. No threat point the children are his sole custody. He tells her up front she will never adopt the kids. God would be impressed.
And this is exactly why I (like you) have a problem with how the state views marriage. It does not even recognize God at all in a marriage. It sees itself at the top of a three party contract. What does that say about the role the state is trying to play in peoples lives?
Actually, the state does not necessarily place itself at the top of the three party contract; either the wife or the husband, or both does. Any two Christians who are married to each other can keep the state permanently out of their lives by keeping to their vows, and by resolving every marital challenges through biblical principles. The state will never force itself into any marriage unless invited to do so by one of the parties concerned.
TFH:
Bearing in mind that the last time I remember talking to IBB (again, it was weeks and weeks ago) the conversation ended in insults, so maybe I have him all wrong; but, my impression is that he’s sort of a manginaesque socon who feels that men are largely responsible for female misbehavior. In that regard, his position that people who do have sex outside the bounds of wedlock are going to hell is not too surprising.
I would be very surprised if he advocated that women (or men) have premarital sex. My impression is that he knows it happens, but like many socons he tends to blame the dudes, and hold women harmless for all the late night shenanigans in the dorms (which are clearly mutual, in the vast majority of cases).
He also comes out in favor of a rather curious ethical position: that women “have no moral agency”. By that he seems to mean that women can not be blamed for anything they might do or fail to do. Some man is always to blame for female ethical lapses. This is what I ended up wasting a few days arguing with him about, a long time ago. As I recall, he encouraged me to go marry a prostitute toward the end, at which time I quit paying him too much attention and let the matter drop.
I guess my point is that there’s plenty to argue with IBB about, as many of his positions are obviously flawed. Making shit up about him or being dishonest is really unnecessary.
Best, Boxer
@Dalrock
George Gilder was and is a complete moron. You may note that James Dobson was quoting from this book when I discussed his book. His ideas are reflective of a lot of the man-up garbage in existence. Gilder is a traditional feminist beyond all doubt. Mr. Stanton would agree with him, as I posted there.
@TFH
Gilder’s book was originally entitled “Sexual Suicide” and published in 1973.
@AR
One of IBB’s frets a while back was the burning, civilizational threat that some Western women might wind up with a man whose penis didn’t measure up to what she expected (maybe due to her porn viewing habits).
More likely it was her cock-sampling habits as she rode the carousel.
However, there is help for men who desire a larger penis. There are devices such as the “bathmate” that provably increase the length and girth of the penis. Techniques such as “jelqing” are also said to be helpful. There are a number of credible bloggers (such as goodlooking loser) who claim that penis enhancement actually works. I’ve never had a problem in that area so I never investigated it.
I remember reading a book by a Dr. Al Sears who was pointing out that an environmental report demonstrated that alligators were having difficulty reproducing because of the shrinking size of their penises. This was evidently caused by estrogen mimickers in the environment. He made the claim that men who had an imbalance of testosterone and estrogen had shrinking dicks. I conclude that if somebody really wants a bigger dick they can get one. Men have to do the work, women simply have to ditch the guy they’re with and find a guy with a bigger dick.
Hank Flanders says:
October 6, 2014 at 12:45 pm
“And since women in their twenties (today) will live to 100 or more, this is barely a quarter of their lifespan.”
The projection that significant numbers of people currently alive in the West are going to live to 100+ rests on some presumptions I consider quite shaky. Most of us here know what the trends are like. That refers to the birth dearth among much of the higher-IQ native born whites, massive and unending immigration from lower-IQ average nations, broken/never-formed families (few bastards discover much scientifically or found,great companies), deindustrialization of the West proceeding apace, welfare/taxation/regulation/currency debauching destroying incentives to produce, etc., etc. Not only are scientific discovery rates practically certain to go down in such an environment; it will take major money to access most of the best advances, and Medicaid/Obamacare isn’t going to cover them. So, no, I don’t see those kind of life expectancies during a latter-day collapse of the Roman Empire, and don’t understand the mindset of red-pill men who do. (I’m an M.S.- level hard scientist, BTW, FWIW.)
I’m somewhat convinced that this is partially the cause: http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/2idz1a/discrimination_against_men_sexist_double_standards/
Also, can you imagine being stopped by police and having to prove that the child with you is yours? (But, men only.)
I’m guessing the more men hear about this, the less likely they are to want to strive to make a living supporting a family.
Feminism in a nutshell (from: http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/2idz1a/discrimination_against_men_sexist_double_standards/):
My daughter was just uninvited to a birthday party last night. She was invited to a princess dress-up party. She was so excited. It’s her first real birthday invitation. One made by kids for their friends. The invitation said to please RSVP because there was a gate. My daughter came home proudly holding the card making me call right away.
So I call to RSVP because my daughter is already planning what princess she is going to be. She is going to be Snow White because she doesn’t care that Snow White has black hair and hers is red, because Snow White is her favorite (at the moment). She has the dress already and she ran upstairs to put it on just to make sure it fits. There is no way I can wait to RSVP, because she will be so mad at me.
I’m married, my wife and I share responsibilities. But for the parties I like to take my kids because my wife isn’t great when meeting new people and I am great at it. I have no problem talking up a stranger. Nothing puts my wife into a worse mood than having her sit in a party in the corner for 2 hours when her only interaction is telling her daughter to behave. Anyway, that is why I call and RSVP. The person on the other line asks me why I’m calling. I tell her I’m calling to RSVP. She says great because she needs to put down a name at the front gate to allow us in. If she could just have my wife’s name she can put that down and my daughter is good to go. I tell her my wife isn’t going, that I will be taking her. She asks if I’m married. I say that I am. Then she says she would prefer my wife to go. I tell her that I’m sorry because my wife just doesn’t like going to parties. Then she says that I should tell my wife she needs to go to this one (as if I would TELL my wife to do anything). I tell her that it isn’t a big deal, I have no problem going to a party with my daughter and that I do it all the time (I have brought her to a few parties for kids she didn’t know). That’s when she tells me that if my wife doesn’t come, my daughter can’t come, because it would be weird for a man to be at her party with all the little girls. As if having a man around would be harmful to all the little girls. Now my daughter is crushed because she really wants to go. She cried for almost 3 hours yesterday and again this morning. My wife says she will go if it will make her stop crying, but it shouldn’t come down to that.
—
This made my blood boil. This is my greatest fear about having kids. I can only imagine what kind of child this closed-minded idiot is raising. Probably not the kind you would want your child to spend time with, but that it not something you can reasonably police.
—
How dare you be a good father figure to your daughter.
—-
So, if anyone needs evidence that feminism is bad for society, this is a “great” example.
@AT and JDG:
My argument that God is not a party in a marriage is meant practically: God takes no direct involvement in a marriage. He doesn’t arbitrate, doesn’t provide guidance and doesn’t enforce the spouse’s fidelity. The churches were right to assume God’s place in the marriage ceremony, acting as God’s agent, because God wants us to be active, participatory agents in His will for humanity. From the Mosaic law enforced by Moses and the judges he appointed, even while God had a physical presence, to the Judges and Kings, to Prophets calling down God’s wrath, to the Great Commission, the Bible is consistent on the theme that God wants humans to execute his laws and will… and to represent him. Marriage is no exception.
Ditto gov’t. Gov’t, particularly the American variety, has specific, God-given duties. Punishing lawbreaking is one such duty so it was proper for gov’t to take over the punishment of breaking marriage vows.
Therefore, not allowing any mortal authority to fill the position of God’s agent results in a two-party marriage because God has no representation. This might be best when both Church and State are fallen but it isn’t following the Biblical ideal, even though it isn’t sinful.
AT: “We could start with “Revenge is mine,sayeth the Lord” and go from there,”
This verse is an argument against informal marriage. If things go south, what happens? Either the vowbreaker gets everything they grab or the wronged party repays betrayal with revenge. If there are no kids then the former is an easy choice… but if there are kids?
“You are in danger of making the same mistake that IBB is making: you place your faith in the political process rather than in God.”
Abandoning the world of politics to the powers of Hell does not show faith in God. One of our holy duties is fighting evil… and our elites are practically growing horns and hooves.
I am not asking for some hopeless civil war. Just engage. Give God something to work with. Money talks so donate to someone who deserves your support. Talk to a candidate or attend a meeting. Put a sign up in your yard. Sign a petition. Vote! Don’t stay home and “protest”, vote! It’s so easy, a hamster can do it.
You can have an informal marriage in the meantime. Just understand it’s functionally a no-fault arrangement and does not absolve us of our civic duty to destroy Marriage 2.0.
I agree Luke. Life expectancy goes hand in hand with medical technology, sanitation, and having an overall civil populace. Once the decline hits, those things go away first, without medical care that lifespan will comedown. National Geographic had aftermath specials, one of the experts made the point without mass anti-biotic production, lifespans would quickly fall back to 35-40 range, people start dying from cuts and wounds that now are easily treated.
The deindustrialization (sending industry oversees); removed the jobs of working men while simultaneously allowing women to dominate all higher education (thanks to feminist quotas) is creating a huge hypergamy demographic time-bomb.
No civilization can survive the majority of their young men being poor and angry. Hurricane Katrina is a more recent example that the fine line of civilization is about 3 days of food until people revert to savagery. I don’t think a feminist installed polygamous top man society will hold up long against millions of poor young men with easy access to drugs and firearms.
The infrastructure of our society depends on thousands of men with highly specialized technical skills and advanced science knowledge, if those people go down, then the whole thing comes apart, we lose the ability to control our nuclear plants, electrical production, etc. Society needs to be stable enough where you can have such people, if the United States all the sudden resembles the inner cities everywhere, the game is over.
He doesn’t arbitrate, doesn’t provide guidance and doesn’t enforce the spouse’s fidelity.
I can agree with the gist of what you’re saying, that the church/gov’t play a part in doing God’s will. But I cannot agree with what you say God does not do.
God’s Word provides judgement when it comes to disputes between man and wife. God’s Word is the final guidance (“I hate divorce”). While I’ll agree that He does not directly intervene in every marriage conflict, the blanket statement goes too far and contradicts Scripture:
“But God came to Abimelek in a dream one night and said to him, “You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman.” (2nd time Abraham passed Sarah off as his sister)
innocentbystanderboston says:
“Well it does matter to me. If a man and a woman are living together without the piece of government paper, they are living in sin. If they live together and have children without the piece of government paper, their children are bastards.”
—
Historically what makes a marriage is the consent of the father, a communal vow and intercourse to seal the deal. Government only got in the marriage license business recently, historically speaking. A license is acknowledging that you’re incompetent to handle your life and you’re asking permission from your Big Daddy Government to do something, and they use it to shoehorn themselves into marriages by becoming the dominant partner of a 3 way contract. That’s why the Big Daddy gets to dictated divorce terms, whereas historically the terms were agreed upon in a written contract, signed before marriage.
BPD, what a surprise:
I wonder how many of you brothers could handle a prize catch of a woman like this one?
MarcusD says:
October 6, 2014 at 7:28 pm
“Also, can you imagine being stopped by police and having to prove that the child with you is yours? (But, men only.)”
This is why I have copies of my childrens’ birth certficates nearby in their diaper bag, even if my wife is with me, along with pictures of our kids. BTW, they’re 2-YO, blond, and I’m 53, so it’s not as if they were older or I was younger (latter, say, 24-35 YO)
Well she’s an anglophile. That’s pretty good.
Eat Love and Pray. Oprah.
Oh yeah!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/elizabeth-gilbert-oprah-root-of-every-problem_n_5914412.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000046&ir=Women
It was/is all about fear, doncha know?
“I wonder how many of you brothers could handle a prize catch of a woman like this one?” – dear God, she is married. To a man ? Or one passing as one?
@Boxer
Well, I’d handle her by preaching the gospel, and we do get people like this saved. The discipleship process is intense for the first few weeks.
My mistake, I missed “queer”, so not to a man.
MarcusD, Boxer, say one of you guys want to tell me the magic of embedding a image in the comments ? Of all the mysteries in the universe, this is the one.
Or I could be wrong, married to a man and Queer ? Who knew.
Good question. I know the usual HTML to do it, but like above, it doesn’t show up. I guess there’s some limitations in WordPress to do it in someone else’s blog (always been able to do it on my own)?
From what I understand WordPress doesn’t allow commenters to add images in comments. The site owner, however, can convert the image link to an image in the comment (via plugin? – I’ve never used WordPress…).
MarcusD, with your comment above with the image, are you just added the usual URL and Dalrock had to approve this to appear as a image ? When you posted your comment did the image appear straight away ?
MD,now your just rubbing it in arn’t you ??? (that don’t know how to do that !)
Toad, AR, & TFH,
All your rhetoric to me about my approval/acceptance of twenty-something girls riding the cock carrosel and insisting that a couple have their marriage sanctioned by the state (or else they are living in sin and their children are bastards) being unBiblical and an Idolator or whatever silly terms you use, is insanity. You guys kept going all day long with your empty rhetoric and your words are falling on deaf ears. Don’t come after me because you are miserable. I’m not your enemy. Your enemy is our government, its feminized laws, and what government has done to destroy Christ, God’s Sacrament that is marriage, and the Patriarchy. Gunner Q said it better than I ever could….
This is why that piece of paper is so important to me.
Do you get it? This has nothing to do with me condoning a 24 year old girl with an N-count of 24. She needs Christ, she needs to be saved. Her immortal soul is in jeapordy as she has of her own free will, handed her soul over to that female Satan known as feminism. You don’t have to marry her (I would never suggest you do so) but trying to shame ME because I acknowledge that she exists (and her antics are so common place now, such that it does little good to call her out for her behavior) gets you nothing but aggrivation for yourself. She is not going to change, not going to accept Christ until she wants to change. Let it go.
What you should NOT let go, is trying to influence government. I do all that I can (in a small way) to try and shift public opinion on this infernal nightmare we call unilateral divorce. If has single-handedly destroyed God’s Sacrament. It ruined it. And if we have any FAITH in God, the best thing we can do is try to change government by recapturing the narrative from feminism. Go down fighting. Try….
I go to the Goat Pen and spread the Good News of the manosphere there. That is me “engaging.” That is me “giving God something to work with.” I don’t see the three of you doing the same. All I see is the three of you yelling at me which gets you nothing. That does not help our cause. Give me a link any of you (just one link) where you went down into the gates of Hell, got your nose bloodied, fighting the good fight (alone if you have to.) Show me where you’ve really tried to do some good. Because right now, I’m not seeing it.
Hank Flanders,
There is at least a third choice. Remember what I said…
I’m not angry and I’m not apathetic. I’m concerned. I’m scared about the future and I’m doing all that I can do (as one person) to impact the reality that we all face.
MGTOW is apathetic. The screed I’ve had to endure the last 24 hours on this blog is people being needlessly angry. Nope, those are not for me. I’m not angry, I’m concerned. I care. So I show up and make an argument.
MarcusD, with your comment above with the image, are you just added the usual URL and Dalrock had to approve this to appear as a image ? When you posted your comment did the image appear straight away ?
The image did not appear immediately (just the link).
Tweets that are posted are automatically embedded.
innocentbystanderboston says:
October 7, 2014 at 12:51 am
“MGTOW is apathetic.”
I disagree with that. More commonly IMO it’s a man saying that what he can get (in the way of women) with what he has to offer them (from their often poorly-informed POV) isn’t worth owning. It’s akin to all the “free” houses in Detroit that go begging. They may have a roof and four walls, but also a decade or two of unpaid real estate tax accrual, crumbling lead paint, & asbestos, widespread mold, no doors or unbroken windows, all the copper piping and electrical wiring messily torn out, and are located in high-gunfire zones about 100 miles from decent jobs (and are not movable as a practical matter). Small wonder those houses (and women at the same MMV) get quite rationally passed on.
Greyghost,
> he is so hung up on a child having a mother
It is not he who needs to be hung up, it will be the children. God made us to want a mother and a father, not just one or the other. The biological tie is also strong than you allow for in most if not all humans. You may or may not despise your mother, but all do not. Even some who do still see a specific woman as their mother.
Bringing in a “substitute mother” would not provide that same tie, no matter how good that woman was. Though it is kind of ironic that you would argue she would be fine when most women are horrid, in the view you are presenting.
It remains selfish. He wants his trophy children.
Boxer,
I recall IBB either directly saying or having it said of him without any statement against it that he wanted his daughters to sleep around a bit to sample the field before they married. That fits with what you were noting.
IBB is free to correct me if that is not the case.
> MGTOW is apathetic
Then how is it angry? They are not the same thing and are very different in reality.
The latter was a statement by IBB, not Boxer.
“The man who loves his own children is much more universal, is much more fully in the general order, than the man who loves humanity.” – Chesterton
BradA
I have three children now. I can not explain the emotion and drive that comes from having my children. The children are the reason to give a damn. Without my children I would be out enjoying the decline. I would not be married and would be out fucking everything I wanted.
Me personally I wouldn’t bring a woman into the picture for any other reason than I was getting some pussy. I wouldn’t need her for shit. You are projecting something onto woman that doesn’t exist with women today. There is nothing in western society to give reason for a woman to be a decent person not even church. Your memories of motherhood are from an era that it was actually in a woman’s interest to be a mother. Now motherhood is a burden to be avoided. Motherhood is a title now to be recognized not as a duty to a child. We live under the Child support model for family now not marriage and family.
Look at the topic of the article we are posting under. A long time ago I said the marriage strike was not marriageable men not marrying. For more destructive for the nation, men just didn’t see a need to even try to be marriageable period. Family is about children. The incentive to produce comes from the need to make a better world for your child not for pussy. A bachelor pad is for running a house for marriage is for raising children same man different home. The wife is a bio necessity. Why do you think the feminist put so much effort into separating the child from the father under the control of the mother? The motivation isn’t for them it is for his children. It has to be about them. The sword of Damocles is strung up upon the birth of a child. She is not needed and she knows it.
When TFH speaks of the default fathers custody family issues seem to go away and everybody wins. Think about your position and the big picture dynamic on how it works in practice. And not just the mechanics but the real world logical and emotional motivations and sustainability.
Pingback: Fewer men are working, and marriage is dying. |...
BradA, you’re not making a crucial connection here. Literally, more of the time than not now, the de facto set of likely possibilities for a child that will come into being in America are A) complete bastardy from conception to maturity (perhaps not knowing who is father even is named), B) being effectively made a bastard by female-filed (or caused) frivorce, most commonly within at most a few years after birth (so by far the majority of his sentient time during childhood is in this sad, unwholesome, permanently maladaptive condition). Being stepfathered is some but not much improvement due to marital gross power imbalance and even more likely termination before maturity,, so can be ignored here.
A man who chooses an egg donor and gestational surrogate over an average amoral poor-mother-material (and nonwife material) Ameriskank is an attempt to cut the Gordian Knot here, to reprogram the Kobayashi Maru Scenario program (for those Star Trek fans), to follow the path of “when confronted by a choice between two evils, choose NEITHER”. A man who is wise enough to be red-pill enough (to say nothing of the virtue needed for the income requirements) will almost certainly be a substantial improvement as a parent to children over the A) or B) “mothers” above, who allow a child little or no fathering. Formula can be bought, as can breast milk, and the time of some of the many women out there (generally unavailable or unfit for actual marriage to him) who just love to hold and care for babies, if it pays enough for their time so they don’t need other paid work. But, from educational oversight to religious guidance to effective (and moral) violence in defense of a child, to teaching essential virtues like courage, deferral of gratification, a trade for a man, there is NO substitute for a father.
This donor-and-surrogate-but-no-mother path (of which I trod part, so think I understand something about it) is new, yes, but I think you’re premature to call it wrong, at least until every N.O.W. office and university Women’s Studies department in America has been razed to where no brick rests upon another brick.
This is what happens when the collapse comes
http://shtfschool.com/
A society founded on the characteristics of the beta male guided by biblical principle is much stronger and healthy than any other. One founded on female happiness and empowerment isn’t going to cut it. And nothing founded on lies and false ideology will last. (PC is a lie )
A society founded on the characteristics of the beta male guided by biblical principle is much stronger and healthy than any other. One founded on female happiness and empowerment isn’t going to cut it. And nothing founded on lies and false ideology will last. (PC is a lie )
True dat.
Pingback: House of Eratosthenes
@Luke
Hank Flanders says:
October 6, 2014 at 12:45 pm
“And since women in their twenties (today) will live to 100 or more, this is barely a quarter of their lifespan.”
The projection that significant numbers of people currently alive in the West are going to live to 100+ rests on some presumptions I consider quite shaky. Most of us here know what the trends are like. That refers to the birth dearth among much of the higher-IQ native born whites, massive and unending immigration from lower-IQ average nations, broken/never-formed families (few bastards discover much scientifically or found,great companies), deindustrialization of the West proceeding apace, welfare/taxation/regulation/currency debauching destroying incentives to produce, etc., etc. Not only are scientific discovery rates practically certain to go down in such an environment; it will take major money to access most of the best advances, and Medicaid/Obamacare isn’t going to cover them. So, no, I don’t see those kind of life expectancies during a latter-day collapse of the Roman Empire, and don’t understand the mindset of red-pill men who do. (I’m an M.S.- level hard scientist, BTW, FWIW.)
Luke, I did not say that. You quoted me quoting IBB.
For the last time (I hope): marriage does not require a license from the state to exist. The requirements for a couple to be married have already been laid out in detail numerous times. If those conditions are met, then the marriage exists. Period. It is not illegal to be married without a license – a couple may meet all the requirements for marriage and live as husband and wife without breaking any laws. It is perfectly legal to do so. Therefore the passage in Romans 13: 1-7 that tells Christians to obey the civil authorities does not apply here, since there is no law that prohibits adults from fulfilling the conditions of marriage without a state-issued license – it only requires such a license if the couple wishes to register their (independently-existing) marriage with the state, as there are some legal ramifications for doing so, such as filing joint tax returns and military spousal benefits.
I used to go shooting with a cop I worked with. He was living in an unregistered marriage, but he filed for government spousal benefits for his wife. When he got caught he lost his job and was convicted of felony-level fraud. I also used to be buddies with a fellow military officer who was also in an unregistered marriage but did NOT file for government spousal benefits for his wife. Nobody cared, since no laws were being broken. He even had a TS security clearance that was unaffected.
If a couple wishes to be married without registering their union with the state, they are free to do so, and no law will prohibit it or punish them for doing so. If they file a joint tax return, however, they would be in violation of the law and committing a sin, since Romans 13 requires Christians to obey the law unless the law requires us to sin – and filing separate tax returns is not a sin. As long as a married couple does not attempt to avail themselves of any of the legal rights the state provides to couples whose marriages are registered, they are neither breaking man’s law nor God’s Law.
tl/dr: A marriage exists when the conditions for marriage are met. Acquiring a marriage license merely allows a married couple to register their independently-existing union with the authorities if they wish the state to treat them as married in their dealings with the government (joint tax returns, government spousal benefits, etc.) Failure to register does not invalidate the marriage – it merely means that the government will treat the parties as unmarried for legal purposes.
InnocentBostonBystander
I’m not angry and I’m not apathetic. I’m concerned. I’m scared about the future and I’m doing all that I can do (as one person) to impact the reality that we all face.
Your statement was, “I don’t” (care that women get sexual experience and delay marriage). “That is because (whether you or anyone at this blog likes it or not) the majority of women are going to do this. Even if it pisses you off, they will still do this.” How can you be concerned and not care at the same time? How can you claim there are other choices besides anger or apathy when your implication is that if we do care that people are promiscuous, then we’re angry?
@IdiotBystanderBoston
I’m not your enemy. Your enemy is our government, its feminized laws, and what government has done to destroy Christ, God’s Sacrament that is marriage, and the Patriarchy.
And That’s why getting a government issued permission to do something you have the right to do is so important to you. The enemy, your government, is the one you want to lay down your rights to and accept their authority over marriage. Because of your precious piece of paper.
You’re an idiot.
But then, assuming you’re from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, that’s probably understandable. I’m thinking it’s something in the water there.
Virginity in America
Women who are virgins are not as rare in the US as some think.
I have personally dated at least women in their 30’s who are virgins, and both are Americans. As a matter of fact, both are black women. While one was a bit overweight, she was still attractive. The other one was slim and tall and definitely attractive. I am pretty certain that if she wanted to sleep around she would have had many takers.
Just to set the records straight that all women in America are given to debauchery, and will spend the first quarter Century of their lives hopping from bed to bed. It simply a’int true.
I once lived in the Caribbean for many years. While sluttery was a way of life among the Caribbean people, I still came across several women who were virgins, and they were not even ugly at all. As a matter of fact, they were attractive as well. Thus, I tend to agree with Boxer that people are not having as much sex as is being portrayed
@Toad,
You’re an idiot.
Matthew 5:21-22
21“You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ 22“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
Please calm down Toad, take a breather, and see if you can come back at the conversation with a more charitable attitude.
@innocentbystanderboston
If a man and a woman are living together without the piece of government paper, they are living in sin. If they live together and have children without the piece of government paper, their children are bastards.
Do you have any scriptural sources that a man and a woman who solemnize their relationship before a priest, and present themselves to their community as married, asking for them to help them in their married life, as was done of old, but do not get the government paper are sinning, or that their marriage is actually not a marriage?
For this to be so, it would seem to me to imply that most couples through-out time were “not really married”, including perhaps Mary and Josef, as well as Moses and his wife.
If you want to see a piece of paper, and for some reason they desire to prove their marriage to you (perhaps as their employer), would you not be willing to accept one from the Church where they were wed?
Lyn87 @9:13 am:
“tl/dr: A marriage exists when the conditions for marriage are met.”
Agreed. My posts made the distinction between practical, sexually-faithful marriage and following the Biblical ideal. Informal marriage is not sin… it just isn’t ideal, either, and won’t be until gov’t is forced back into its proper role.
@Minesweeper
Or I could be wrong, married to a man and Queer ? Who knew.
She probably should have said bisexual. Doesn’t matter though, the skrillex haircut is enough. seeing that, one can see she’s seriously damaged.
Addressing the thesis as Dalrock stated it there is a third hypothesis besides either/or of (a) decay of marriage culture and (b) “structural” issues:
Both.
Everyone wants to talk macro but really very few people get macro. Before NAFTA and PNTR for China people fought tooth/nail over free trade – it wasn’t for the heck of it. Free trade creates winners and losers.
20 years later we are living with the losers, structurally – but most people who think “marco” turn a blind eye to this and it’s more than blind – IMO – most people literally lack an elementary understanding of what’s going on.
People understood “free trade” to be a problem because “jobs!” – but that isn’t the macro. The macro is capital and labor and it comes down to this:
Fellow readers of Dalrock: you are subjects of a system whereby we are beholden to a law that says:
A) Capital can go anywhere
B) Labor is stuck at the border
A day does not pass when this conceptual, abstract dis-equality does not create another set of victims because (call me a “cultural marxist” if you must – the clock strikes 12 twice a day and Marx got a few things right) … it is a “false consciousness” if you think you are a capitalist. If you work to live, you are not a capitalist. Capitalists are fine with free trade, labor – on both sides of the border – takes the screws.
The solution is to demand global common markets – where capital is only permitted to flow across borders when labor is equally free to cross borders. That – by the way – BEFORE you accuse me of being a Marxist:
Is.Precisely.What.a FREE MARKET … is.
For example – the free market between the 50 American states. If Congress passed a law replacing the American free market with “free trade” between states – allowing capital flow but not labor flow – we would have the second civil war … and rightfully so.
Free trade violates your economic rights as an American – and it weakens you – structurally – and you should be hopping mad about it.
Meanwhile – yes: the superculture has said “sayonara” to marriage culture. Dalrock is at his best when he shows this reality from all of its angles.
I think it is valuable to point this out to the superculture – to make it clear that a choice has been made and there are costs associated with this choice. But I caution these things:
1) Feminism is bigger than what it is treated as on these pages – anti-feminist monomania is a Law of Increasing Net Loss the more progress you make on the positive aspects of your own argument – better to become more nuanced about feminism
2) Dalrock – this being your site – you need to decide what your end is – if it is to caution the superculture then you are doing well enough, but you could do better. If it is to try to change the direction of the superculture then you can’t do it by yelling “stop!” … you need more sophistication and you need to adopt more Juijustu – and you need to take point (1) to heart. If your goal is to preserve traditional marriage then in my opinion there is no hope whatsoever of doing this in the superculture – you are better left turning inward to traditional systems where you can find allies from Catholicism to the Mennonites to Mormons to Jews to varieties of Protestants and try to build a thriving traditionalist economy and counter-culture that can stand on its own, regardless of whether or not the superculture takes the Road to Perdition.
Dear Brad A:
Hilarious if true. Do you have an original source for this, though? Where did he say such a thing?
I must say this seems out of character with the IBB I know. I have always had the impression that he’s a typical CONservative, who likes to blame men for all the trouble women get into. That’s a long way from a dude who champions his kids’ own slutwalk.
Best, Boxer
greyghost,
Time will tell whether you are right that your children really did not need a mother. Perhaps you are right, but I remain quite skeptical.
> The children are the reason to give a damn.
I completely agree with this statement, which may or may not surprise you. I am going through a huge time of figuring out why I am here since all 4 of my children (adopted) have gone back to a dysfunctional birth family as adults and have rejected my role as a father.
The problem is that the close fathering role only lasts for a while. I should be a grandfather now, but I am that in name only. It really does suck.
I never played around, etc., etc. My wife did not frivorce me, but I am without children after years of involvement. You could argue lots of reasons why I am in this state, but it is lousy. I firmly believe a man (and woman for that matter) are made to raise the next generation and onward. Not being able to do so is hollow. At least you have seen the hollowness of the “enjoy the decline” lifestyle while you had time to do something about it.
My future remains much more murky. I am not going to dump my wife, so I am definitely too old for any other children and that raises the question of why I am here on this earth. (Very OT however.)
Boxer, someone was saying that about IBB in a thread a long while back, possibly close to the time I started to post more here and get past merely being called names. (I am still called names, though not always now!)
I would have no way of finding that however, which is why I noted that IBB could dispute that. It seemed very odd to me which is why it stuck in my head so much.
A long long time ago, over on the-spearhead.com, people (namely Rob Fedders, who now posts under various nyms and socks (Edwin Calais, lol) and generally plays the kook, and his handful of looney supporters) were fond of labeling me various things. People made up fanciful stories (I was a communist for a while, then I was an illegal Mexican immigrant, then I was a Jew…).
I never made any “statement against it” when these kooks started all this crap up. In fact, the only time I even addressed this nonsense, was when Fedders “outed” me as a Professor of History at Simon Fraser University, and doxed the poor sap’s name and contact info — encouraging the MRAs to call up SFU and complain about this dangerous misogynist who was calling himself “Boxer”, teaching on their campus.
Fedders, of course, had the wrong man, which is something I had to point out. The admin of the-spearhead (WF Price) immediately banned me after I did so. (To be fair, he also deleted the doxxing of the poor fellow who played “me” for about a week”).
Kooks who rely upon personal attacks are best ignored, and if IBB has failed to “make any statement against” a bunch of nonsense like this, then he’s in the right to do so. Intelligent people don’t buy this sort of accusation without evidence, you know?
Best, Boxer
If the lie is so outrageous as to be unbelievable to a normal person, I would not expect IBB to dispute it. Why would he? The repetition of the lie serves several good purposes. In the first instance, it’s probably entertaining to him to be deified this way. Secondly, the lie serves to weed out the people who really aren’t worth paying any attention to (the people who will believe and parrot obvious bee-ess) from people who are smart and grounded in reality (the skeptics). You want to know who the members of the second group are, on any forum, because they’re the people you will end up learning the most from.
I like to debate the real issues. IBB has lots of opinions that one can be critical of (I’ve enjoyed picking apart his whiteknighting a few times) so there’s really no reason to create strawmen.
Best, Boxer
I thought it was more than just a targeted lie at the time and that it was said by one of the “regulars”. I do publicly apologize to IBB for that if I am merely spreading rumors or twisting his belief. It did fit with what Boxer noted, which is why I said it.
I believe the idea (shared by many today) was that his daughter’s did not need to “save themselves for only their husband.” I would expect many here would apply the reverse to men, though I definitely take a stricter view that it is ultimately damaging for both sexes to have sex outside of marriage.
Google is amazing.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/08/child-support-and-the-threat-point/#comment-104902
I am not sure if this assertion was exactly what I remembered or if it is even accurate, but this is similar to what I am recalling if nothing else. I would dig deeper, but I have to go shortly. Hopefully this helps.
Dear Brad A:
The person making this accusation is the same person who constantly follows IBB around, nipping at his heels. It’s actually a great example of what I was talking about. I have yet to see IBB state that he hopes his kids play the ho’ in their youth.
At best, I’ve seen him excuse female misbehavior by blaming men (typical CONservative nonsense), but I’ve never seen him overtly encourage women to slut it up in their youths, as you guys are accusing him of. I’m sure you’ll understand my continued skepticism.
Best, Boxer
Here. The accusation wasn’t groundless.
@ Anonymous Reader
I live in Australia. The last I knew, in Australia it takes only 6 months for a cohabiting man and woman (unmarried) to qualify for the same status as a married couple. It is called a ‘de facto’ relationship. The man refers to his ‘partner’ as his de facto wife, and the woman to her partner as her de facto husband. As far as I know legally they are treated exactly the same as a married couple, whether in the Family Court or elsewhere.
I cannot find any smoking gun quote where IBB says that premarital sex is desirable for their daughters, but they do seem pretty sanguine about the whole thing, as Exfernal’s link demonstrates (there are others in some of the January 2014 threads where they express similar sentiments). Although it sound more like fatalism than anything else. They did say that the likelihood of finding a virgin bride is zero, though – several times in those threads. Considering that the IBBs have one or more daughters, that means that they are aware (or strongly suspect) that their daughters are slutting it up, otherwise the odds would not be zero.
But the real story is that I can now confirm that the IBB name is being used by two people.
Three days ago at October 4, 2014 at 5:37 pm IBB wrote this:
If they live together and have children without the piece of government paper, their children are bastards
In fact, searching through the IBB comment history for just a few minutes reveals that IBB uses the word bastard A LOT to describe children born to unmarried parents… possibly more than anyone regular commenter here. Yet just one day later at October 5, 2014 at 1:45 am, IBB wrote this to me:
As far as your comments about bastards go, what exactly IS a bastard Lyn? Seriously, what is that? What is Lyn’s personal definition of a bastard? That is an important question and I do not want you quoting me anything from any dictionary. I want you to seriously sit down and think about it because the answer is very objective. There is a reason why that word was created, a reason why the word is so intentionally hurtful.
Wow! That’s some powerful butt-hurt going on there!
Then a mere nine hours after going postal on me for using the word bastard, IBB wrote this at October 5, 2014 at 10:52 pm:
And the “husband” and “wife” and continuously consummating this Biblical marriage to the tune of multiple children (all bastards as far as I’m concerned.)
Hmmm… why would somebody who casually used the word “bastard” frequently – as recently as October 4th – suddenly become deeply offended when I use the same word in the same context on October 5th, then casually use it himself later that same day?
The jury has returned its verdict: Innocentbystanderboston is definitely two people, and they have some serious disagreements. Like I posited some time ago: I suspect they are husband and wife.
@ IBB, we now know there are at least two of you who use that name. In the future please differentiate between yourselves.
Dear Exfernal:
Yes, it was groundless. Nothing at that link comes close to suggesting IBB wants his daughters to have premarital sex.
People have been lying (i.e. “bearing false witness”) about a brother. The same people have done it repeatedly, for months, as though all the readers were idiots. You are the latest person to do this, but you aren’t one of the usual crew who runs around begging for IBB’s attention.
Protestants, Catholics and Jews are supposed to be against lying about people. I’m against it, not for supernatural reasons, but simply because I don’t like being lied to.
Thanks. Neither do I. It’s amazing that I have to defend IBB, by the way, since I don’t agree with him about anything, and the last time I talked to him, he wished me a marriage to a prostitute. I suppose some things transcend petty personal disagreements.
This is actually my impression of IBB. He knows, at some level, that his daughters are whoring around. Rather than call them to account and encourage them to live a respectable life (like a healthy father ought to) he simply throws his hands up, makes excuses, lives in denial, and projects all the blame on those bad, bad men who must have led poor princess astray.
That’s enough to argue about, really. No fanciful libel or farfetched nonsensical lies need to be fabricated to question this poor position.
Sadly, IBB is not in any way unique in this regard. Most of the college sluts who have fathers, that I’ve seen, enjoy exactly this dynamic.
Best, Boxer
Thanks for clearing that up, kind of, Boxer. I remain a bit confused, but I will try to not repeat that in the future. I suspect that is the post I read at some point. It seems like IBB should have responded however, to that, if he disagreed, because he responds to things like that all the time, but it is completely possible he was ignoring AR.
Glad to learn, as always.
Perhaps MarcusD can analyze the red-pill vs. FI comments from the ‘IBB’ couple, and confirm the differences further…
If you could collect about 500 words of each and post them in pastebin (or similar), I can analyze them.
Disrupt Speciesism – New York City (#DisruptSpeciesism)
#DisruptSpeciesism – Kelly
“My little girl’s name is ‘Snow'” (@1:28, speaking of her pet chicken)
Deadeye Dick – New Age Girl
—
I don’t know what is, but I’ve been coming across a lot of the crazy ones in the past couple of days.
Wow, that Kelly is crazier than I thought:
https://twitter.com/kellyemilyatlas
(Have to read the replies to that tweet…)
Brad,
I am ignoring AR. I feel sorry for him. Obviously (whoever he is) he’s in pain. And arguing with him will do no good. I’ll pray for him instead, him and Toad. That’s all I can do.
Lyn87,
And you wont. AR made the whole thing up in January when he assumed things incorrectly about my family. He believes what he wants to believe to suit an agenda, to build a fantasy of sorts that mirrors his narrative of misery. Then he just keeps repeating the lie over and over until everyone accepts a lie as settled truth, kind of like global warming.
Only a person that miserable would have time to waste to research every single post I’ve ever made to try and form an opinion about the details of a personal life that I have not shared. All I’ve said, is that I have at least one daughter. I mean honestly guys, do you have any idea how old she is? There is no way I am sharing anything more, not with people like AR around… they are just weird.
When you are a person like AR, and you live a life of unending misery, you want company. Misery craves that. He probably thought (when he started in on his silly questions as to why he thinks I like divorce) I was as miserable as him but I don’t give anyone on this forum any power to make me feel anything.
And I think he got off on the attention everyone was paying him when everyone tried to pile on me. In someways, it gives his existance some…. purpose. That’s pretty sad. And I think he might have a sock-puppet or two (multiple logins) where his other personalities come along and champion his arguments. Of course, only Dalrock would know for sure and I think it would be best if he kept the information about IP addresses to himself.
Nope. Just me. I am the only one who has ever posted anything with this login.
I can understand why some people might think there are two of me. That’s because that is what would make sense in your narrative. How can someone go onto so many other forums and offer nothing but pure red pill advice one place, and same something that you might expect of a feminist in another place? It has to be two people right?
Wrong. What it is (instead) is trying to play Devil’s Advocate for the purpose of sharpening our minds and understand our enemies better. I don’t want girls riding any cock carrosels. But they do. They do that. So, we can either accept it (and find a way to live among them) or we can be miserable like AR. No thanks. I’ll try and live with that fact and make the best of a crappy situation. I’ll sleep better at night.
As far as women getting married younger goes, I believe that they would be doing that if… (and only if) the guys they are going with would ask them for their hand. I don’t think that is happening. In fact I know it is not happening. And I think I know why. I went on the record just a few months ago explaining very calmly that I had three co-workers at my last company who (under no circumstances) would be asking their current girlfriends to marry them. Its not because they are not in love. It is instead because they don’t want to marry all the student loan and credit card debt. They don’t want the anti-dowry. I don’t think their individual circumstances are all that… unusual. I think their resistance to marrying that kind of financial liability is par for the course. I personally think that is a much bigger reason NOT to marry a woman than worrying about her virginity or her N-count. Forget about pair bonding guys, I’ve seen what credit addicts and women who can’t help themselves with their credit cards do to their husbands and their fathers and their familes. Its not good. Its a nightmare for everyone involved. You ever do business with a sub-prime auto loan dealer? You want to know what life is like being married to a woman who has to drive a car with an ignition kill switch that kicks on when she doesn’t make the loan payment? You want to know what life is like being married to someone who thinks it makes perfect sense ot welch on a mortgage the minute the house is upside down? You guys in the manosphere think you have problems because women wont look at you… heh. That may be a blessing gentlemen, God’s gift to you.
I am lucky. My life is a fortunate one. I chose the right woman to marry. Our marriage is strong. Our family is healthy. And all around me I see nasty frivorces and people in terrible misery. And unfortunately, I see the misery here. I’m used to it. I wont let it get me down….
Boxer,
Thank you for those kind words.
Marcus,
If I was at that restaurant the minute they started that 5 minute screed, I think I might have walked up to the counter, ordered a bacon double cheeseburger, and brought it over to the girl on the end and offered her a free lunch. IJust the thought of the expression in her face as I was making my offer, I think that would have been the only think that could have kept me from bursting out laughing.
I think the rarer and rarer marriage is, the easier it is for a tv network to make a sitcom about it…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marry_Me_(U.S._TV_series)
Huh?
50 years ago, this plot would have made no sense at all, none. No one would have found this humorous as a 6 year engagement is ridiculous. How difficult is it (really) to get married if two people really want to get married? Its not hard. But today, with marriage being so rare (and some people living their entire lives not only never marrying, but they never even attended a wedding) each marriage has to become a production. Its a huge deal, this incredibly special event not just for the two people entering into it, but for every single person in both of their lives. Dalrock is right, marriage is dying.
Test (none of my posts are going through)
Maybe it’s just my post with links that don’t work… let’s try this:
The male IBB writes, “Nope. Just me. I am the only one who has ever posted anything with this login.”
You are a liar, and I proved it.
On October 4 at 5:37 P.M. you wrote this:
If they live together and have children without the piece of government paper, their children are bastards.
A few hours later on Oct 5 at 12:02 A.M. I wrote this:
Or… if you and your spouse received a letter next week telling you that there was some sort legal reason to declare that your marriage was not valid… would you consider your children to be bastards or legitimate?
At which point somebody (I presume your wife using your screen name) wrote in to screech at me because she thinks the word “bastard” is unacceptable (even though you use it all the time):
As far as your comments about bastards go, what exactly IS a bastard Lyn? Seriously, what is that? What is Lyn’s personal definition of a bastard? That is an important question and I do not want you quoting me anything from any dictionary. I want you to seriously sit down and think about it because the answer is very objective. There is a reason why that word was created, a reason why the word is so intentionally hurtful.
Are you claiming that? Because just a few hours later you were right back to using “bastard” yourself:
And the “husband” and “wife” and continuously consummating this Biblical marriage to the tune of multiple children (all bastards as far as I’m concerned.)
Don’t be coy: this is not a case of it not making sense from my narrative (what does that nonsense even mean, since you claim that you’re the one who wrote it?). This does not make sense at all, unless there are two people posting as innocentbystanderboston, or you are writing as two distinct personas. There is no other way to explain why you would completely reverse yourself twice about something you feel passionately about in the space of 18 hours.
BradA says:
October 6, 2014 at 7:43 am
First, we need to recall that I bought up this idea purely as speculation:
Everyone here agrees that Marriage 2.0 is an aberration. But we really need to understand that it was state legal power that facilitated the metamorphosis of marriage into an aberration. A marriage 2.0 contract is essentially a 3-way contract between a man, a woman, and the state, with the state being the ultimate arbitrator should either the man or woman seek divorce. Functionally this means the state can define marriage however it wants and literally “change the rules” as it pleases.
Marriage is fundamental to our civilization. This institution is older than any existing state and pre-dates Christianity. Without it we’d still be prehistoric tribes, and degrading it causes civilizational regression. Being so crucial, is marriage something we want short-sighted, unelected government bureaucrats having control of?
I see marriage only surviving in hardline religious communities who will be forced to collectively “go there own way.” They will want marriage to be a covenant between God, a man, and a woman, not a contract with the state. They will go to lengths to avoid the unconscionable aberration it has become. I don’t have a horse in this race–I’m not religious at all–but even I can see the conflict of replacing God with the state in the triangular arrangement of marriage.
Token gestures aren’t valueless.
Dear Brad A./Brass Cat:
My understanding is that, at least in North America, the state doesn’t care too much what you do, until someone either a. appears in court or b. files tax returns.
What will happen with these new laws is that two people will “live together” for a period of time. Eventually, one person will be sick of the scenario, and go down to court, filing papers to dissolve the “union”, which until then, had not been recognized.
Under the laws in places like Quebec, Texas and Florida, it is incumbent upon the person filing to produce a marriage certificate in order to be able to claim damages or a piece of the property. In places like B.C., now, that requirement is gone away.
All that is required is the sworn statement of one party, that “we lived together since 2009, y’r honour”. That brings the full weight of the divorce courts down on the hapless respondent, all by itself.
Not a solicitor, mind ye, I just go down to the courthouse and keep me eyes wide…
Boxer
That would be my point Boxer. Brass Cat, I was more responding to the general idea some put forth here that not filing for a state license will prevent the problems. It may in some states as Boxer notes, but I suspect even those will shift at times. It is more likely to deprive the couple of things, like married discounts on car insurance (do we still get that?) and spousal job benefits.
It is not worthwhile if the gesture is costly and doesn’t even accomplish the goal. Costly is fine and I suppose futile can be acceptable by itself, but costly and futile seems like a waste.
BradA,
The point that I brought up several weeks ago when this first came up is that it is possible to limit one’s exposure to a degree, but at a cost. Whether the cost is worth the degree of risk reduction is a decision each man must make for himself. For some men with a lot to lose and adequate protections, it’s worthwhile… for other men it may not be.
Nobody wants to plan for failure, so a lot of guys probably don’t even take the easy steps they could take. But going “off the grid” with relationships is akin to going “off the grid” in general – it’s a radical move that will impact one’s day-to-day existence.
For men who have to choose between a lifetime of celibacy and marriage to a woman who poses some degree of elevated risk (not a virgin, divorced parents, etc.) the degree of protection a man may require may scale up. Somebody mentioned having the house in the name of the husband’s parents, or example, so that it is not marital property. For a wife pondering the detonator, the certainty of being evicted by your in-laws may provide enough incentive to help some women stick it out. Moving out means that the kids either have to move themselves or live with their father. And a father who can take care of the kids without moving them stands a fairly good chance of a reasonably favorable custody arrangement in most states. So if Princess gets happy feet she knows she’s going to lose some things she doesn’t want to lose. That’s not foolproof, but it shifts the center of gravity for the incentives, and incentives matter.
But really “going commando” means no state imprimatur, separate mailing addresses, separate bank accounts, little or no co-mingling of finances, no major joint expenses, (I would even forgo wedding rings, but I don’t wear one anyway), etc. I’m not sure that would ever be worth it unless the marriage is in trouble, frankly. But forgoing the state license and putting the house in the husband’s parent’s names would be an excellent place to see some easy risk reduction… and those wouldn’t effect the day-to-day lives of the couple very much at all.
Pingback: Driving The Delay | Donal Graeme
Lyn87,
No other way to explain it huh? Welp, let me give it a shot.
I’ve always known what the term meant. Always. I asked you just to see what the term means to you. I was very pleased to see you didn’t make a big production out of it, its pretty straight forward.
Anyway, believe…. whatever you want to believe.
Lyn87,
You are right, but I don’t see those advocating such making a true cost-benefit analysis. What about all the extra costs. I suppose it is like insurance. I pay less for my home and car insurance because I am willing to accept a bigger personal payment if something happens.
Doing the same in marriage means those advocating no state license are willing to pay a lot more in many areas for that “lower payment if something bad happens” even though they are likely to end up with a higher payment if the bad does happen, those wasting all those extra costs.
I do also fail to see how a lot of what you cover is truly marriage. It may be something that seems much more appealing under the days of Marriage 2.0, but it is definitely not the Biblical idea for marriage no matter how many wrap it in those terms.
I noted my point however because this thread repeated the idea that it was the way to go even though the thread was discussing places making “kind of marriage” become marriage now. That removes many or even most of the advantages.
It would be kind of like me spending on a huge complex security system to protect my old sweat socks. I might really like the socks, but their protection doesn’t justify the level of cost to protect them.
Skip marriage entirely if it is that bad, don’t play house and just skip the government sanction any more than you would insist upon driving without a government sanctioned license for that. Both can lead you to trouble, the former in a much less direct way even though the cost still remains.
At least greyghost is following his principles per his recent post. I may not think it best, but he is not trying to have a different marriage and get away with it.
We are in a mess of a situation and I have no idea what I would do today were I 20 something. Though I would probably be quite naive if I was, as my experiences have given me a lot of this knowledge.
I have probably beat this dead horse enough.
The male IBB writes, “Anyway, believe…. whatever you want to believe.”
Okay… I believe that you are a lair. Even if what you wrote about being the only person who posts as IBB is true, and even if what you wrote about not understanding that I know the definition of a common word – a word both of us and many other guys here use frequently – is also true, then you are at the very least deceptive.. Why? Because (even if there is only one of you), you write using two distinct personas, and those personas disagree with each other. The simpler explanation is that your wife occasionally posts under the same name as you do.
If you are indeed one person playing two roles in the same “one-man play,” you should differentiate when you are writing from a male perspective from those times when you are writing from a female perspective. It is deceptive to do otherwise, which makes you… a liar either way.
No other name here is generally thought to be the postings of two different people. It’s not all of us – it’s (both of?) you.
______________________________________
BradA,
The difference between driving without a license and being married without a license is that driving without a license is a crime, while being married without a license is not. But we’re in agreement that protecting oneself from the FI is akin to deciding on one’s insurance deductible – it’s a sliding scale of risk-mitigation-versus-cost rather than an “either/or” proposition. And while one can scale one’s level of protection to the level of risk, at some point the protections have to be so great that it isn’t really marriage any more in any meaningful sense. I don’t protect myself from divorce at all because the risk is negligible at this point and any effort to do so would be counterproductive. On the other hand if I were a young man today and the best woman I could get had an N=2, then I would be wise to do some non-trivial level of risk mitigation. If the best woman I could get had been a Christian for six months but was a former stripper with N=25, came from a broken family, and had a history of substance abuse, the level of risk mitigation I would be forced to undertake would render the relationship something other than a Biblical marriage completely… not only would it be too risky to share living quarters with her: it would be unwise to even let her keep a spare toothbrush at my house.
You wrote, “We are in a mess of a situation and I have no idea what I would do today were I 20 something. Though I would probably be quite naive if I was, as my experiences have given me a lot of this knowledge.”
I’ve thought about that myself – I would hate to be in that meat-grinder as a young man today. A lot of the young guys don’t know how bad it was for guys of our generation, though – and they think anyone over 40 lived in Mayberry, USA, when in fact nearly every major element of the sexual revolution had reached its current plateau by the mid-1980’s. Several of the girls I dated back then would have posed a higher level of risk than some that I know now, so this isn’t a new problem (“There is nothing new under the sun”), but navigating the waters today would require using tools I’m pretty rusty with.
And with that, I think I’m done flogging this dead horse myself.
An even simpler explanation is that he’s just trolling. I’ve trolled places before (cough Catholic Answers cough) and IBB’s work here is tactically similar to mine.
He admits this himself, when he talks about “playing the devil’s advocate” etc. It also fits the pattern as to why he doesn’t respond when the usual whiners make shit up about him. I’m sure he gets a good laugh about all the effort that “Anonymous” and others put into making up things about him.
For me, it’s easier to just *agree to disagree* with someone whose positions are so far afield. I wish IBB well, and I am sure I’ll never agree with him on most of the topics that come up here, and that’s that.
Best, Boxer
Let’s not forget that the massive offshoring and outsourcing of American jobs, capital investment, etc… to foreign nations, foreign workers, foreign companies, etc… along with the massive insourcing of foreign owned companies and foreign workers along with the rise of a service economy and diminishing industrial/manufacturing economy has displaced an enormous number of males from our ailing domestic labor market while greatly reducing the amount of income most of the remainder earn in real dollars. My grandfather bought and paid off a house, raised a family, adequately saved for retirement, and ensured he had medical insurance for life on an automobile assembly line job with a high school degree as the sole breadwinner. The automobile company begged him to come work for them for thirty years when he was a young man because demand for labor was so high compared to supply. He might as well have been born on a different planet when one looks at the present U.S. economic situation on this one.
Check out this film, “Marriage Slaves”:
Pingback: Cracked’s Gay “Marriage” Article | Free Northerner
I have definatly noticed there are way more middle aged people who have never married now. I think this is a more accepted thing now too. It seems the hook up culture in the 90s is when it started and it has continued from there on out. It seems like marriage is going the way of the horse and buggy. It may not be good for society but people are going to make their decision for what they feel benefits them and not society. I think men prefer to play it safe and stay single, no matter what they say. They may say they want to marry and have . A child someday but someday never comes as they postpone and postpone till it just isntblikely to happen as they are grandpa age.
Janet, I was almost one of those middle-aged unmarried childless men.
I divorced in 2005 from my first marriage, no children.
I married again in 2010 expressly BC I wanted to be a father; I never would have considered it otherwise. My 2nd wife (too old to have children herself) knew that this would entail the whole fertility clinic gamut, with egg donor and gestational surrogate.
Now, I wished that I had gone the last step. That is, had had the children outside of marriage, with NO wife/GF involved at all. I’d have just hired a nanny during working hours, and otherwise done it myself (saving what help female relatives would have given me). That would still have given me a family, but preserved my relationship with my children from divorce threatpoint. (We are still together, but she is now NOT someone I would have married.) I recommend the “go it alone” (and hire what help you must have) to any would-be fathers that will listen to me. It’s definitely the wave of the future.
A license to fornicate was never right in the beginning. Consent under a king really? Think about this and wonder why its even lasted this long. Laws and cost for a male has crossed the line . Marriage is a joke to a very wealthy man who has plenty to lose . but a disaster for the normal pure intentioned guy who not if but will lose everything and even his freedom or life depending on his reaction . Nope I’m 39 single X gen guy gave up on all this dellussional rat race gender trap ideology long ago.
Well with the kind of women out there today Unfortunately which marriage is a real very bad Risk for many of us Good men since there are many Divorces more than ever before which is why we will stay Single to save our Life.
Good afternoon Dalrock,
You may already have noticed this article, but it’s content and portents would be worthy of your commentary for what the UK government sees and what it refuses to acknowledge.
Respectfully,
DB
P.S. As a long time reader and 51-year old Christian man, survivor of a frivorce by an unfaithful wife, and survivor of the “family law” industry, I truly appreciate your work. I was married for 18 years and have been divorced for 10. I gave up promotion to fight for custody of my two daughters (then 12 and 13)–I managed to get 50/50 custody–a miracle in this state for most any man. My daughters are now both spiritually grounded, responsible, educated and earning their own way now with a resolve to not repeat their mother’s mistakes. I have dated a little over the past decade, but increasingly realize that finding a companion and helpmate for this point of my life is a unicorn hunt. Therefore I focus on work and friends and community. As a father of two upstanding millennial daughters, I am deeply concerned for their prospects.