-This (and a lot of these will be) is dedicated to Patrice O’neal. That man is a KING of relationship philosophy. Some of his best work is on this channel. Note that Patrice is a secular comedian, so yeah he gets super vulgar at times. He truly does tell it like it is, though, and I could draw spiritual parallels to a lot of his material on men and women. Maybe I will later, as there are few Christian pastors willing to preach the blunt honest truth about relationships, especially when it comes to speaking on how women are flawed and men are screwed over.
-This is a specific post on the philosophy behind marriage, and as always, there is some setup involved. First, I am not going to go into divorce rate stats. That is a pervasive trick of statistical propaganda (short version: If you’re religious and do marriage right, your odds are better than the 50% fail rate they tout. There are others who’ve covered that well. That’s not the point of it, though, which is what I’m arguing. This mess goes deeper than marriage rate/divorce rate stats). For my factual premises, I am only interested in Fault and No-Fault divorce. Also, the movie Divorce Corp is basically required viewing (you’ll get more from this post if you watch it first).
Now that some factual bases are in play, here are my basic assumptions: Divorce rate stats aside, the legal system has made marriage meaningless and harmful to men. Women, who claim to want to get married, don’t want to stay married as men do. This is the case because of the perverse incentives of the legal system, and the dark side of female nature being empowered by these corrupt laws. Specifically, women use the threat of divorce and state involvement in relationships (i.e. Domestic Violence laws, sexual harassment, VAWA, widened definition of rape, ect.) to steal headship from men in all Male/Female relationships. This is compounded by the fact that society lies to men about the true nature and gravity of marriage, and will not check women’s misdeeds in marital (or really any…women can straight up get away with murder if they claim the guy was abusive) relationships. Finally, men have no effective recourse in marital relationships save God…I know that sounds wrong, but the point is that women can use the law, their ever increasing economic edge on men via government funding, societal norms, and cultural norms, against men in relationships, with their ever-increasing feminist lawmaking fueled power, and men can only pray that God make things even. Men have little to no effective legal counterattacks to use when their women legally screw them over. There’s more (isn’t there always?), but I’m not in the E-book game yet. I’ll give some stats, but it’s going to be mostly philosophical from here on out. Now we can begin.
First off, note the tone of a good chunk of that previous paragraph. Sounds adversarial, right? Well, that’s the basis of American sexual politics. Feminism, in basic principle, is just Marxist theory. It teaches that men and women are, and always have been, inherently adversaries; men are analogous to the bourgeoisie (power class), and women to the proletariat (powerless slave class). Therefore, as Marxism’s famous saying on wealth distribution goes: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need…or in this case, her need. This is why feminists will always hate patriarchy (rule of men) and rail on about how everything advantages men, even when that is demonstrably false. Their worldview is built on the basis of women being powerless, men being powerful, and thus a balance of power needing to be achieved. This is done by taking from men and giving to women. The hypothetical point at which power and resources are equally distributed is called “Gender Equality”.
This is also why feminism loves big government; women, being powerless, must have the State take from men and give to them; if you look at who is really powering the engine of feminism, it is men, via their tax dollars. Even better for feminism would be a group of men to take from who would produce but not fight back, so that the state can redistribute from them with ease. And feminizing and pacifying men does that quite well. Laws that penalize and tax men disproportionately, force men to pay for women (all while claiming its for their offspring), regulate/eliminate private gun ownership, subsidize welfare, and criminalize speech that points all this out also aid in the cause.
You may at this point ask, “Well, won’t we get to equality at some point?” Nope, because men and women are not biologically capable of being equal in this way. Men are better at a lot of things than women, and women are better at a lot of things than men. Comparing us in terms of power is comparing apples to oranges; you can’t do it honestly. We are similar, yes, but in many ways we are not only different, but exactly opposite! However, a beautiful thing happens when men and women specialize in what they’re good at and outsource what they’re not so good at to each other: Sex happens, marriage happens, productive pair bonding and family happens, and healthy society forms. This is why I, and many others, propose that men and women are complimentary in nature, as opposed to the feminist/gender Marxist position that we are adversarial in nature, and locked in an eternal struggle, though they actually do have a point: after The Fall, men and women do exist in friction. This is the battle of the sexes. But when we are fighting it, we are not building better societies, nor are we getting together.
This brings up the black hole nature of feminism. Basically, feminism is built on a logical contradiction: gender equality is, in its most basic sense, impossible to achieve in the Marxist sense. However, the feminists will never be ideologically satisfied until men and women are exactly the same in terms of power and resources, at minimum. Their goal is, in many ways, androgyny. However, this causes a loss of specialization and reproduction, because, as the saying goes, “If the two of you are just alike, then one of you’s unnecessary.” Also, “Opposites attract.” Men and women are in many ways opposite, and are the most attracted to the differences that are in the other sex. Also, to procreate and continue the human race, we must always be different at some level, if only for 9 months or so, and thus the Gender Equality feminists seek will, by definition, not ever be reached. They’ll just keep taking more and more from men (with a bigger and more tyrannical Government) and giving more and more to women, until either men are gone or men get fed up and overthrow the madness, which will just pop up again later and get worse if men are passive about it. Such is the Genesis 3:16 Battle of the Sexes…it never ends.
Once you comprehend the way feminists see the world, you must then realize that feminism is the religion of America today. Feminists are heavily influential in government policymaking, lawmaking, elections, healthcare, education (especially postsecondary), and the public and private sector (mostly public sector; women tend to work for the Government). There are entire branches of jurisprudence that feminists basically have full control over. Women are the majority of the electorate, and whenever a bunch of women propagate for a while, feminism rears its ugly head; feminism is just women, politicized (and at worst, weaponized). It is also a wonderfully effective depopulation tool, and as was said above, goes hand in hand with government power creep and growth. Thus, if there were an elite populace who thought the West too overcrowded and the governments of the West too small, feminism would be the perfect tool to fix those problems. So, you see, feminism is prevalent for many reasons. It also is like acid to the 2 parent family; it erodes gender roles like water on bare soil. I do firmly believe that Satan is attacking the family, and feminism is his main tool. It has, sadly, been super effective, and Christianity has yet to launch a real counterstrike.
One last overlay: All of this means that to feminists, nothing can ever disadvantage men. Ever wonder why feminists will be perfectly fine with women-only stuff, but the second men try to do men-only stuff, they freak out? Or how they never seem to notice that women are the majority of college attendees and graduates (thanks to an education system that plays to their strengths), but then wax hot for eternity over the ever present “pay gap”? Or how in general they ignore all facts about anything in which women have an advantage over men? The reason they do this is that they simply cannot see women ever being advantaged over men. It goes against their foundational logic; men=oppressors, women=oppressed, so anything that shows otherwise is at best taken as: Good, some progress has been made, but women need more power still! And the band plays on…because part of the mythical Gender Equality involves…who, at the end, gets the power to say when men and women are equal? Women do. Who has it still? Men do. Will this ever change? Not yet…women are still oppressed. It is a logical death cycle (you cycle in it so long, that you die).
These points really explain the rest of the premises without much more needed in the way of setup; when you put on your feminist glasses, the apparent cognitive dissonance of their policies and positions (which are the policies and positions of modern Western culture) suddenly make sense. Take the first part for example: Marriage is meaningless and detrimental to men. The reasoning behind this is simple and twofold: One, no-fault divorce has effectively made marriage the easiest legal contract to get out of, and therefore stolen a great deal of its purpose (to bind men and women together for life so that they can procreate in a healthy, orderly, and happy fashion)…actually, legally, marriage has lost all of its true meaning. It has developed another one, though: to financially advantage women at the expense of men. Sound crazy? Just look at the laws, and ask yourself…what marital laws, if any, would give men an economic or legal advantage over women? Now reverse the genders. Suddenly loads of laws come into the picture!
Marriage, in its modern incarnation, is a twisted half-shell of its original self. And yet, society wants to pass it off as if nothing has changed since before 1979, and “For better or for worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part” still holds any water. It doesn’t. The way it works now, under the No-Fault divorce regime, one party has the ability to unilaterally terminate the marital union, at any time, for any (made up or otherwise) reason, without the slightest need for spousal input, and in many cases, without the knowledge of the non-filing spouse (He’s usually the “last to know”…). On top of this, most, if not all, laws dealing with divorce are designed to benefit the woman over the man: Alimony, child-support, settlements, restraining orders, domestic violence laws, ect. are all in favor of the female by default, and favor her in the vast majority (like 90+%) of cases.
Even the child custody system is horribly biased towards the female. My man Terrence Popp did a video mentioning how custody is effectively awarded to the childrens’ mother over 90% of the time. On top of that, shared custody laws, when they are proposed, are always shot down by feminist lobbying groups, and few states have managed to even get them on the books. The basic setup is: mom is the custodial parent, dad is the non-custodial parent unless mom doesn’t want the kids. Dad can fight, but he’ll effectively get nowhere (unless he’s SUPER rich and patient) and just burn all his money (which the legal system happily snaps up) and get tossed in the pokey if he can’t pay up. Also of note is that the only time these laws are ever enforced is when they are applied to men. Women regularly dodge child custody scheduling orders, child support payments, alimony, and unfavorable settlements because sometimes, the law just won’t bother going after them; they know that men are the cash cows (and even when they’re not…it doesn’t really change their practice). Again, society regularly refuses to ever punish women for anything they do.
That really explains it all: Marriage is meaningless to men now. If I went into a business deal knowing full well that my business partner could, at any time, unilaterally dissolve the deal without me knowing and just on a whim, and then make me pay for the whole liquidation process AND give him most or all of the formerly shared assets, AND pay him royalties if I was the major earner in the business…what kind of fool would I be to even dream of getting into such an unfair contract? That is what they call marriage 2.0. It’s marriage for women, at the expense of men, that claims to last, but is flimsier than a life-sized paper-mache bridge. The original system of marriage (Marriage 1.0) is what many men would happily live with; we will not be so stupid as to just blindly rush into the perverse system of marriage that is marriage 2.0.
Terrence Popp has a series of videos on his youtube channel called “Pimptard or Wifestitute”, where he analyzes divorces of people like Mike Tyson, Paul McCartney, or Tiger Woods. I have given you the philosophical and empirical data to figure out the logic behind why I would posit that marriage is bad for men and meaningless, that women are hugely incentivized to divorce men (hence why about 70% of divorces are initiated by women), or that marriage is just prostitution (and often is much more expensive overall). Popp and Dalrock have posts that really bear these points out.
Speaking of Dalrock, he has an ingeniously insightful post on the main point of this whole deal: that women use the divorce/legal system to steal men’s headship. The reasoning is simple enough. The legal system gives women tons of power over men, and men next to nil in terms of power over women. If you look at the overall structure of the marital legal setup, women do, in fact, hold all of the trump cards. Women are not stupid, and, contrary to popular belief, are also not perfect, and they know this (no matter how ignorant they claim to be…NEVER underestimate the cunning of a woman…I learned that the hard way). They will basically use this to setup situations where you can’t lead them as a man. Legally, a man can’t say, “Obey me, Woman, or else…” If she didn’t want to, she could simply pick up the phone, call the police, claim verbal/emotional abuse (which are amazingly flexible in definition and application), and since the DV laws are set up so that someone has to go to jail in most states, he’s going down. So she has the final say, and only allows him to exercise authority over her.
A woman can legally say, “Obey me, Man, or else…” Or else what?” “Or else I’ll run you through divorce court and take all your stuff and the kids, and make you pay me child support, alimony (based on “imputed income”), and all lawyer fees, and smile when I do. I can get you arrested, fired, claim spousal rape” (a crazy law if ever there was one…sex used to be a duty of a wife to her husband) “or something, and get you kicked out of the house, regardless of who’s name the house is in. There’s more, but I think you get it. Now obey me!” To which the supposed “head” of the household can legally say…what? Not a goddamned thing. She can force him to submit to her. She is the effective legal head of that household. Oh, and adultery doesn’t change any of this. NOR DO PRENUPS (Most of the time, if you’re not a millionaire, and sometimes even if you are, the judge will just throw it out).
The culture has aided and abetted this nonsense for years. 72-hour marriages, BS divorce rulings, modern man-as-idiot, wife-as-Goddess television (Family guy, Simpsons, Home Improvement, commercials, ect.), and worst of all, nearly non-existent Christian input on any of this. Movies like Fireproof, Eat Pray Love, and even The War Room actually insidiously invert the truth, not help its cause (Dalrock is amazing, btw).
On the whole, marriage is, for men, a joke. Except its not very funny to lose most of your stuff, not be able to see your kids, or simply not be able to lead your wife due to her holding State intervention over you like the Sword of Damocles, which, for the record, only will make both of you angry and bitter, as this blocks you and her from your God-given roles.
So when women complain about a lack of men marrying, I smile. Because you know what they’ll never talk about? The lack of women who will actually honor their marriage vows and stay married to their husbands. And when they ask me why I’m “still single”, I’ll bring up this stuff, and smile. And when they get upset at the “marriage strike” and call us single men losers, again I will smile, and spread the truth to another comrade so that he won’t be screwed over, because newsflash: We, like women, ain’t stupid either. We act in our own self interest. Their self interest is in fleecing us via marriage, and ours is in avoiding the fleecing by not marrying legally. You wanna use the Law to rig the game on us, eh? Fine. We just won’t play. See how you like that.