On the Right, the temptation is to realize that the all of the assumptions that form the basis of our current society are lies, and therefore to go the exact opposite direction.
This is a strategic error.
The opposite of what we have now is the same mental state with a different starting direction. Because it is the same mental state, whatever direction you take will lead to the same cycle, and opposite extremes will connect. That will re-create the same problems we have now, but also create the ultimate crypto-disaster scenario: we will think we have solved the problem, but in fact, will have made it more entrenched.
What this means is that we cannot avoid the crisis by attempting to be its opposite. We must find a different direction instead, and reach toward that instead of merely pushing away from what we know.
Nowhere is this dilemma clearer than in the Red Pill attitude toward women. Sure, you reject the modern view that women are special snowflakes who are entitled to be whores whenever is convenient, and who in a political sense serve as usual idiots obsessed with womanhood. Your average woman may be that; the smarter ones, obviously, resist it and many break free. But you need another view of women that is not entrenched in the modern illusion.
Arising from the Rightist view that most human behaviors are deterministic, and the introspective without experience nature of the solitary male, the tendency of Red Pilled males — especially those from STEM backgrounds — is to treat women like some kind of alien life form, or even a mysterious machine. Press the right buttons, and you are in control, and can direct the machine as you see fit.
Explain the roles of a man in a marriage, and tell me some of the things you would do in order to help your man to achieve those roles. What groups would oppose your husband from fulfilling those roles, and what have you done in your life to prepare yourself to help your husband in his roles? What are some of the most important things that a man needs from a woman, and what specific things should a wife do to provide them?
SAMPLE ANSWER: Men are supposed to be protectors, providers and moral/spiritual leaders. In order to help men to be protectors, women have to give them time to study to discern truth from lie, and support their ability to be physically strong, and to own firearms. It is also a good idea for women to have a positive view of good men who use force to restrain evil, as with the American military. Women should support the use of force against radical Islam and terrorists, as well. In order to help men to be providers, women have to advocate for fiscal conservatism in the public square. That would mean advocating for lower taxes, less government spending and smaller government. It would also mean being frugal in the home and helping the man to move ahead at work. If the children are up and out of the house, it could mean going back to work or starting a business to help make ends meet – or monitoring investments. For a man to be a moral and spiritual leader, a woman has to be supporting of him making moral judgments in the home, disciplining the children, holding her accountable for moral errors, and for making exclusive truth claims when it comes to spiritual things. She should not censor him when he gets into debates about spiritual things, even if other people who disagree feel bad – so long as he is not being a jerk. Her goal is not to be popular or liked, but to support her husband in his roles. The most important thing a man needs is respect, and that means treating him as important and significant, being grateful for his contributions, soliciting his opinion on things, being mindful of his male nature, which is more visual and sexual.
These are sample answers he wants from any wife candidate to show that she is oriented in the right direction. It is both test and contract, not just killing the romance, but introducing a misery and tedium that should kill the relationship quickly.
His plan treats women as some kind of coin-operated machine. Put in your coin, select the right button, and take her home like you would any other product. This is not only unrealistic, but entirely contrary to the nature of traditional attitudes toward family. However, it is exactly the type of thinking that one can expect from STEM people who have not reached beyond their comfort zones.
The West understood romantic love once, and you can see it in classics like Pride and Prejudice, but this notion has been washed away under the onslaught of prole notions of sex=love and commercial ideas of how to sell people on perpetual childhood so they can be perfect domesticated product-buyers, fundamentally miserable and thus always in need.
But the scary fact is that people are individuals, and romantic love was not about sexual attraction, but finding someone comparable to oneself with whom one could spend a lifetime. The romantics bonded their ideals intensely to death in order to achieve this time scale, and the vision of love they found was about what everyone hopes for: someone to grow old with and never feel out of place. This is compatible with genetic determinism because people are looking at inner traits of others, which starts with general race, ethnic, caste, class and social compatibility on a genetic level.
In this way, romantic love was utterly opposed to the idea of universalism, or that all people were essentially the same. Instead, it sought the union of individuals matched in ability, inclination and aesthetics. This formed the basis for a lifelong friendship and partnership which could result in family and have that family be content because the parents just made sense together.
STEM-addicts/MRAs and others are caught in the utilitarian idea that all people are the same, and this perverts the ancient knowledge of biological determinism. Under the egalitarian ideal, people are basically the same and can be manipulated by the same incentives and punishments. Under the romantic ideal, in contrast, it is the exceptional and unique nature of people that allows two to match up as a couple and then a family. Biological determinism supports the latter — unique traits — over the former, which emphasizes uniform traits in denial of nature and reality.
In reality, what we can observe matches the romantic notion more than the STEM mechanistic one. People differ widely. Some match up because they are similar in position in the hierarchy of humanity, and matched by temperament. This creates a solid basis for lifetime interaction that brings about the most pleasurable result of all possibilities, including remaining single or a less committed marriage.
This cannot be forced with the industrial-style, control-based and mechanistic view of women that sees them as objects to be manipulated. Relationships and marriage are partnerships based on the moral choices of individuals and their aptitudes, not forcing people into manipulative frameworks which treat them as little more than robots.
Traditional roles exist for a reason, and if we become separated from that reason, we are nothing more than repeaters of the methods of the past without understanding the purpose. Every household needs a leader, or each decision will become a debate, so we choose the person optimized for leadership style decisions, which is the male. Balancing that, women provide a counterpoint: an understanding of detail, depth and sensation that allows for the configuration of a happy home. The two balance one another, and the leadership role of the male does not entail the loss of autonomy and authority by the female. To act otherwise is to defile the traditional institution of marriage, and replace it with a thoroughly modern notion of control.
Under control, each person is seen as a means to an end, and this is fulfilled by having the all use exactly the same methods to agitate for an ideological purpose. Even reality becomes a means to an end under this mentality, which filters what is compatible with the ideology and rejects the rest of the data. Control makes people into idiots, but it is required for egalitarianism to exist as has been creeping into the West for the past thousand years.
In addition, with these extreme doctrinaire STEM-Christian types of thinker, we see that religion serves as a proxy for culture/race:
My purpose in marrying is to make the marriage promote the things that God likes, and oppose the things that God doesn’t like.
In my case that means:
impacting the university with apologetics and conservatism
impacting the church with apologetics and conservatism
impacting the public square to promote policies that enable Christian living
producing as many effective, influential children as I can afford to raise
In particular, with this writer, we can see that his adherence to Christianity is in part an attempt to staunch the blatant cultural confusion:
My mother is a Muslim-raised agnostic. My father is a Catholic-raised agnostic. Half of my father’s family is mostly Hindu, and some Catholic. My mother’s family is mostly Muslim and some atheist.
Christianity is a part of the singular healthy civilization design for the West, but it is not the whole of it, nor the core of it. The core of it is a desire to do good and be excellent, to aspire to more than our domesticated livestock lives of jobs, credit cards and shopping. We need to want to be great again. If we do that, we will have Christianity, as part of our sensible society but not attempting to lead it, because we need kings to do that and history shows us it will be disastrous if we let priests compete with kings for power. What that means is that Christian fanaticism is not “the” answer even if it is part of the answer.
Unfortunately, modern people are inculcated in the mentality of a one-size-fits-all solution that can be implemented immediately by either overwhelming force (government) or mass conformity (control). The STEM mentality plays into this because STEM fields specialize in knowing how to do things without ever knowing how to assess the goal and why it is important.
When this mentality is applied to women, it produces a robotic pre-emptive knee-jerk view that guarantees misery. Most of these guys will end up with fetal alcohol syndrome wives or other complacent, somewhat stupid women; this is why the great White Nationalist dream is either to run off to Eastern Europe or Asia for a bride. It is not that they believe these places are better, as they loudly say, but that they want a little robot to apply their robotic thinking to so that they do not need to interrupt their own solipsistic, narcissistic or egotistic narrative.
In this way, they are identical to Leftists.
As with most things in life, the question of relationships is nuanced. Here are a few very general thoughts:
Find someone like you. People are happiest with other people who are like them in terms of not only race and ethnic group, but caste/class and general outlook (extravert/intravert, right/left, outdoor/indoor and others). Not only is communication much easier, but you are headed in the same direction morally and existentially, which means there is less to negotiate over. You want someone from roughly the same background, ability level and moral outlook. This part is genetic determinism: the woman who is most like you will be the one you appreciate the most. This does not mean she will not challenge you.
Roles are not properties. Men and women serve complementary roles; the contemporary church (idiots all) interpret this as equal roles because in the modern time, you never get in trouble for saying that equality is the principle of everything since the dawn of time. However, it actually means entirely different and unequal roles that balance one another, such that each sex has a domain of its own. This principle exists for efficiency: when quick action must be taken, the person in charge of that domain just does it, instead of being boring modern bovines who like to stand around “discussing” every issue until boredom and failure set in. You do not “own” each other or have absolute “rights.” Instead, you are working together by surrendering your identity to the family, and beyond that, God and the nation.
Love is not linear. When you love someone, you may be mad at them but you will never hate them. You are not there to force them to do anything, but to nurture them so that they may rise to their greatest possible heights. It does not resemble a lab experiment nor a right. Instead, you must cooperate, this requires each person to understand the goal and principles and work toward them in their own way. These contributions will not be the same, or necessarily comprehensible to one another. That is fine too.
If you are not finding women, change your life. “All the good girls are gone!” they say, throwing up their hands. This is self-pity and it will ruin your life. Go somewhere else, and think about what women like to do, not what you do. Be prepared to treat this as a long-term project, meaning that you do a little bit every day. Volunteer at your church, go back to school, work at an animal shelter, take cooking classes, spend time jogging or just walking in public parks, and — most importantly — explore the people your people knew back when you were kids. You will find the most likely candidates in people with backgrounds like yours, from neighborhoods like yours, whose genetics are similar to those of their parents, who probably befriended yours because they are similar.
Get rid of the disposable mentality. You will meet many women. You will court a few who are special. Among those, if you stop courting them, it will be for a solid reason: you found something no-fly zone about them, or they did about you. This means fundamental incompatibility, not inconvenience. Knowing the difference between those two is vital. When you find someone compatible, be aware that there will be rough edges. She may have a semi-unfortunate sexual history, have a kid from a failed marriage, or have once been a Democrat. If she has figured her way out of the pitfall, then she is still worth pursuing and not disposable. This means you accept some bad with the good so long as the bad does not overwhelm the good. If you go looking for a Hollywood vision, you will find nothing, because Hollywood has always been illusion in every area.
Humans suffer from one essential evil, and that is self-centeredness. We do what is mentally convenient and ignore what we have an obligation to notice. This, unlike Hollywood evil — where the evil intends to be evil — is the source of all of our downfalls, and is manifested in behaviors like solipsism, individualism, egotism and narcissism. Treating other people like machines, or as categories instead of individuals, is one manifestation of this behavior.
Again, we cannot defeat modernity by attempting its opposite. We can however have a different goal, and if that is tradition and health, we will naturally curve away from the insane behaviors of modernity and find ourselves in a new place. But with women, as with many other areas, this requires a nuanced, detailed and balanced look instead of a robotic STEM-tard rigidity.
I don’t think compromise is the right word. A marriage is a union of interests, not a blending or averaging of them. The couple doesn’t ask “what’s good for me?” and “what’s good for you?” and then try to find something that half-pleases both, but instead just asks “what’s good for us?” Usually works best with the man taking input, maybe discussing, then deciding. Each individual might not get what they want, but they can both be happy knowing that they’re doing what’s best for them.
It’s probably not what you meant, but compromise to me sounds like trying to “equalize” what each gives up in some kind of directionless micro-communism. Better to have a mentality of being on the same team, and just doing what’s best for the team (family).
In life, there are two fundamental forms of organization: control, or forcing everyone to use the same methods for an objective serving a single party, or cooperation, where people work together to achieve a goal, which in complex organizations requires a purpose and principles used to achieve it. Cooperation works toward an idea that may be partially extant, but will never be fully realized, so it can always be improved in its qualitative dimension.
Marriage and family, or even organic ecosystem-like groups like nations, require this abstract but realistic goal such as is provided by the cooperative idea. They fall apart under control because authority creates a backlash and by its nature as one-dimensional, fails to gain feedback from the people at lower levels, and thus makes the top of the hierarchy blind.
In a paper published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine this week, 46 per cent of female university students reported PCD symptoms at least once in their lifetime.
Studies have shown that 10 per cent of women experience what is known as “post-sex blues”, or “post-coital dysphoria” following intercourse; a condition characterised by tearfulness, anxiety, agitation, a sense of melancholy or depression, or aggression.
Why might this be happening? Doubt: women are not experiencing the comfort of knowing they are with the person they should be with as part of being on a path to the good life. Instead, they are settling for “Mr. Right Now” in a series of sexual partners who have no obligation to them, and so there is a lingering sense of having been played.
On the other hand, chastity leads to greater pleasure by delivering people into happy marriages and then families, which as anyone who has watched a romantic comedy can tell you, is what most of the audience wants. It is the fairy tale ending that makes life seem worth living.
The West circles the drain for many reasons, but the primary one is individualism, or the idea that the whims and intent of the individual are more important than consequences in reality. This leads to misery because people know — deep down, inside — that the only happiness can be found in being in a situation where they are valued without question, and the rotating chain of sexual partners fails to deliver that.
Most Canadians — liberal and conservative alike — see America as a huge, looming power, simultaneously feared and resented for its prosperity and size, and envied and loved for the same reason. Canadians enjoy bashing America and Americans as a means of differentiating themselves, and compensating for a sense of inferiority. Think of the skinny nerd who tells himself that the smiling jock, who could knock him flat with an effortless blow, is such an idiot because he’s probably never even heard of the band the nerd likes.
Canadians will plug themselves into a stream of 90% American pop entertainment while telling each other how boorish, rude, and uncultured Americans are. In order to assuage their inferiority complex, they project an image of being ahead of their neighbors, of being morally superior. Having internalized the filth of American pop culture, they attempt to predict from a progressive mindset where American cultural trends will lead in ten or twenty years, and try to be that now. As a result, Canada legislated “gay marriage” more than ten years ahead of America, and it made Canadians feel so good.
On the other side of the 49th, liberal Americans imagine Canada as liberal Canadians want to be imagined: ahead of them, more progressive, the future. A refuge to pretend to want to retreat to when the winds of change are forecast to temporarily wane, and a utopia to point to as justification for more liberalism. Conservative Americans see the signaling, and a hateful grimace forms on their face whenever they say “Canada.”
After a humiliating defeat of the eleven-year party leader to the son of the man who made multiculturalism an official Canadian institution, the Conservative Party is doing some soul-searching. At the party convention a few weeks ago, a sound decision was made to enshrine firearms as a Canadian Heritage, and this week a decision was made to abandon a sound conception of marriage, completing a capitulation long in the making:
The Conservative Party gave itself a makeover, donning a more moderate and modern face as grassroots members voted overwhelmingly to ditch the traditional definition of marriage from the party’s policy book.
Notice how leftists always talk about the “definition” of marriage? They want you to pretend that marriage is a completely arbitrary idea that is simply defined one way or another, that as long as there’s more than one warm body and some vague warm feelings involved, it’s just as good as any other definition of marriage. They see marriage as solely a social construct, and ignore the necessary foundation of human reproductive biology and sexual differentiation. A database engineer freed from any connection to the messy, difficult to quantify real world, can spiral down into an abyss of ever-refining “definitions” of marriage until all connection to the actual concept of marriage is lost, and a final exhausted destructive conclusion is made: “Perhaps the simplest solution would be to ban marriage outright.”
There are two major reasons why we should always be opposed to what’s called “gay marriage.” The first is overtly practical: marriage is a fundamental component of civilization in that it is the linchpin of the family structure, which allows for a loving environment to nurture and guide the healthy growth of children. It is the channeling of base animal instincts of sexual desire and offspring protection into a more organized form that reduces confusion and unnecessary conflict. Within this formalized unification of the genetic interests of a breeding pair these base instincts become refined and ennobled for both the individuals and their wider community. The individuals gain richer and more meaningful sexual and reproductive experiences, and the community gains clarity in intersexual relations and an environment that allows for selection of traits beyond short term opportunistic brutality, the benefits of which reverberate for generations.
None of this rooting in reality makes sense with two men, or three women, or five men and a sheep, which points to the second major reason: it’s a lie. A “redefinition” of marriage means using the word for something that it isn’t. It’s not a matter of “differing views,” it’s a matter of failure to view. “Gay marriage” is an absurd concept, and going along with the illusion for tactical reasons, to give this to liberals so that we can focus on something deemed more important, is to sanction the acceptance of yet another popular lie. It’s giving up on yet another truth. This sounds like an idealistic point, a moral luxury unaffordable to those who desperately fight a leftist behemoth bloating further every moment into every aspect of our lives thereby providing more tangible battlegrounds to fight more concrete harm than some abstract notion of truth, but there are of course practical implications when any mass of humans agrees to deny truth. Abandoning truth is giving up.
The Conservative Party has done this, and has ceded ground to and legitimized the liberals. They are continuing the tried and failed cuckservative method of simply being yesterday’s Liberal party, or the party of slightly lower taxes plus guns. Through this change, the Party is able to stay in power as the official opposition candidate, but gives people no option to the ever-accelerating liberal dominion. So the voters stay home, and curse the television, then forget about it the next day. Conservatives surrender what should be defended in the name of convenience, and this, too, is merely giving up.
Under the guise of a novel about manners, Candida Crewe assaults one aspect of the fundamental problem causing the “death of the West.” In this case, she focuses on the misery created by the replacement of courtship with sexual liberation and its method of “dating,” in which men and women escape mutual obligation and make themselves miserable through an inability to commit, dooming themselves to loneliness and existential misery.
Accommodating Molly takes place through the eyes of a young woman working as an assistant in a bookstore, her boyfriend Dominic De’Ath, her employer Nick Winter and her parents. During her interactions with the publishing industry, Molly contacts the different circles in which these people move and sees the past and resulting present situation of each. Without giving too much away, Accommodating Molly follows very much in the tradition of Hardy, Celine and Houellebecq in showing us a kind of nocturnal landscape of despair united by a single commonality: the loneliness of people expressed through their inability to maintain stable relationships.
Somehow Ms. Crewe managed to sneak this one by the critics, who refer to it as “a comedy of manners” and other euphemisms, but at its core lies an attack on one of the great assumptions of modern time, which is that liberation of the individual to make arbitrary choices has positive results. Instead, Crewe shows us that as manifested in sexual liberation, this modern behavior results in isolation and self-hatred.
But I’m not going to admit that I, too, want to be a wife. You don’t admit things like that. Not ever. The rule is that you don’t let on. Not ever. Women in the latter part of the twentieth century have feminist ideals. They don’t think about marriage, unless it slaps them in the face. They certainly don’t tell people that marriage is the thing they aspire to more than anything else….Play the game. The game is that you’re fine as you are. Take it or leave it, frankly. (210)
As in the fiction of the 1930s, Crewe bypasses politics and issues to show that the fundamental root of modernity is loneliness through self-sufficiency. People rely on accomplishments, wealth and power, but have no connection to each other because they are armies of one. Each person is a self-interested agent who cannot admit any weakness, including a desire for more than themselves. The Enlightenment freed us to place the human form above all else, not realizing (apparently) that the human individual becomes a prison of itself.
Molly proves a likeable character because she is ordinary but well-intentioned, thoughtful and intelligent. She does not stumble through life so much as try what others are doing, and when it goes wrong, accommodate what others thing is the right thing to do even though it results in her own misery. Men in particular are portrayed as faithless creatures who refuse to commit for fear of limiting their freedom, and thus move on from one woman to the next, only learning too late that they too desire companionship and loyalty.
One compelling inclusion is the narrative of Molly’s parents’ marriage and its own betrayals, frictions and eventual failures prompted by the self-absorption of her mother. Through this device, Crewe shows how the best of intentions lead to the worst possible results. Like other characters in the book, her mother keeps up a constant flood of actions for self-interest, personal drama and theatrics to maintain her independence. Ultimately she reveals an emptiness so profound that it absorbs and destroys everything around her, much like the unnamed character in the book, which is our basic philosophy of life in the modern era in which the individual is king for a day hoping for his fifteen minutes and then retreat to solitary self-sufficiency.
‘Modern feminist ideals mean well, I’m sure,’ Helen said, sceptical, ‘but they conflict, you see, with that fundamental feminine instinct. We all bleat about independence, but we all want to be loved by men deep down. Our bodies, our minds, crave freedom, apparently. But they also ultimately crave security, husbands, children. Modern life is a sore test.’ (104)
Accommodating Molly cannot provide a happy reading experience. Its humor is of the sort that provokes a smile and grudging acknowledgment more than laugh out loud absurdity, but as these characters collide and dissipate, the only conclusion is that we are watching a tragic play in which absurdist laughter is the solitary possible response. Like the best of our literature, it peels back the fog of everyday events and denial that we use to conceal our actual motivations, and shows us the bigger picture in an amusing and provocative way, forcing our minds to admit that many of the crutches we rely upon are instead gravestones for our happiness.
That is a popular stance with those who are confused, but it’s not policy. Policy is how you make society function by setting up values, rules and procedures.
No area is this more clearly seen than the topic of marriage. MRAs want you to think all marriage is bad; as I’ll demonstrate, they are actually working against their own best interests.
Society automatically paints a stereotype on men who hesitate, delay, or elect not to marry. They are labeled as:
A) Womanizers who are unable to participate in a long term relationship, or
B) Selfish, childish or irresponsible men who can not take care of themselves or another person.
No other explanation is ever explored.
– all quotations from Do-Not-Marry.com
Let’s reverse this. Reasons a man would not marry:
Self-satisfied. This includes both selfish (including solipsists, narcissists and megalomaniacs) and literally self-satisfied. If you are a genius painter, you have no use for marriage or sex.
Incompatibility. You have not encountered a compatible partner. The more personality you have, the harder this issue is.
Failure. You would otherwise marry, but have been unable to get your act together.
You either cannot marry, want to marry but cannot, marry or fail to marry. That’s it.
The first question is: are you someone who wants to marry?
People can do this for the wrong reasons, such as fear of aging and death. Nothing can stop that. Or social fear. Nothing can stop that, either.
Most people marry for a simple reason: it makes life better.
Any repeated process, task or technique gets boring. You are not learning anything new. It’s a dead-end rote route. No matter what your age, unless you’re pathological, after about a dozen first dates you get it. What next?
A significant number of 20 and 30-something women spend most of their disposable income on luxury rental apartments, upscale restaurants, frequent exotic vacations, leased cars, spa treatments, and excessive amounts of designer label clothing, purses, shoes, etc. Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly.
Why would any MRA even consider such a woman? She advertises that she has no control over herself.
The only reason you would attempt to marry one of these: she has entrapped you sexually. You are excited by her drama, her sensuality, and most of all, her competitive effort to be sexually appealing and thus, when she has you, you feel like the focus of all of this intense sex energy.
This puts you in the position of beggar and receptor, not creator and initiator. You might as well sell yourself for passive intercourse by baboons.
Like anyone else in life, women mark themselves by their behavior. You are what you do, and that doesn’t mean career. It means how you spend your time. If you spend it on surface activities, whether mainstream (consumerism) or underground (hipsterism), you are a directionless person. E.g. you have no direction but you.
The people in this life that you want to know have started the process of self-actualization. They are comfortable in their own skins, and recognize their limitations and the limitations of being human. As a result, they are not interested in egomania, narcissism, megalomania and solipsism.
Instead, they direct their energy toward productive things. They will have a job, and a home of some kind, like everyone else. But instead of ineffectual “hobbies” — tv, sex, drugs, drink, vids, etc — they are directing that energy toward some constructive end.
One person commented to me once that there are three places to hunt modern woman: in education, in volunteer groups, and overachievers in the workplace.
You want to find one of those, not the modern female narcissist (MFN) as discussed above.
Immediately after buying a ring, the man may be rewarded with demands of financing all or part of a lavish wedding… (Depending on the size of his bank account.) The costs of today’s weddings exceed that of a house down payment. (Or in certain parts of the country, the house itself.) If a man enters a marriage having saved up a down payment for his dream home, it can suddenly be snatched from right from under him. Many men may object to spending this sum of money on a one-day party.
Here is the logical fallacy: the trend is x, therefore you must do x.
Don’t do x. Independent of trends, people have been getting married in small local ceremonies and asking their parents to pay half or more — for centuries.
If she insists on x, you are marrying an idiot. Don’t do it.
The injustices can go from bad to worse when children enter the picture. If the man can afford to carry the entire financial burden, the woman can elect to stop working. (Regardless of how the man may feel about the decision.) The day the woman stops working is the day all of her past financial baggage unequivocally gets thrown onto the man’s head. If the woman has racked up credit card debts, these are now his payments. If the woman has not bothered to pay off her student loans, these also become the man’s responsibility. (Stomach-churning irony = the man is stuck paying for her degree, and she’s not even working anymore!!) And can the man object? Can he say, “No, you made your mess, and it should not be my job to clean it up. You knew you wanted kids even before you met me, and you should have planned ahead.” No, the payments can’t be deferred until she is once again able to continue repaying them herself (besides, that day may never come), not if he wants to retain a clean credit rating to get a loan for their dream home.
Did he take the nails out of his hands to write this?
You will inherit her debts. She may have them. So may you. You will also get some financial breaks at tax time, and increased likelihood of promotion in the workplace, to deal with this.
If you start off your marriage by treating your wife as chattel — “she should be earning me money,” which is what a pimp says, not a man — you will poison that marriage forever.
Your kids will be healthiest and happiest with a stay-at-home mom. As a result, you need to transition from single-guy-with-an-apartment mode (cut all costs, live day to day) to adult mode. Adult mode isn’t just a setting on your cable box.
It means that you are planning for a family, for stability and a future. It is a prerequisite to marriage that you be ready to do this.
If you treat marriage like extended dating, it will fail.
Marriage is starting a family. On the downside, you will be obligated to this family.
On the plus side, you get a family, and unless you alienate that family, it will be the greatest source of joy in your life.
Webster’s defines slavery as “the state of being under the control of another person.” If the husband earns enough to support both of them, he would be hard pressed to make an argument to preserve equality, and have her continue working as he does. If the wife decides to stop working, the men who have been left holding the financial bag find their options limited. They may find themselves stuck in careers they hate, or working for abusive exploitative management, working excessively long hours, working in jobs that are physically threatening, that have no growth potential, enduring prolonged commutes, etc. At this point, considering the corner he’s been painted into, he is often powerless to affect any change in his own life.
This is true whether you get married or not. This is a debt-based society. If you stop working for more than about a month, you go bankrupt in most cases. In the best cases, where you have saved up enough, you may be able to take a few months off, but not much more. This is independent of marriage.
What you gain with marriage however is a greater understanding of your career needs. Most likely, your boss is married. His most valuable employees are probably married. Marriage is for stable people who are committed to having families. For this reason, married people are sought-after employees.
In addition, you now both live a more efficient life. Instead of paying for two places and two commutes, you pay for one house, one commute, and one set of all bills.
If you aren’t a selfish idiot like an MFN, you want your children to grow up in the most stable and nurturing environment possible. That does not include a working mother. Nor does it include divorce or parental instability.
In other words, marriage — which leads to family — is not about you. It never was. It’s about making a family. If you try to treat it as permanent dating, you will fail.
If a married man cheats, he’s the scum of the earth…A selfish jerk who has jeopardized the family unit. However, when the woman cheats, she’s conveniently portrayed as the victim. Poor thing. It’s for her empowerment, or to help her self-esteem. Worse yet, her cheating can be the man’s fault. How? He doesn’t compliment her like her new man does. Or he works too much. (Yes, the man who is scrambling to pay the mortgage and cars she may have demanded is now considered negligent. The man who may be working 2 jobs to allow her to be home with her kids is now considered negligent.)
Your problem above is a political one. Feminism and liberalism together always favor the perceived weaker party, and have in them an entrenched hatred of the stronger.
Femninism ruins women and leaves them with wrecked lives. If you are marrying a feminist, or a woman whose friends are feminists, expect to be divorced (acrimoniously) and vilified within the decade. Whether you screwed it up or not.
It’s perfectly acceptable for a woman to demand a man make a certain salary, to be deemed “marriage material”, and provide stability. Likewise, if a man demands the wife do the cooking/cleaning, he can now be labeled a sexist misogynistic PIG. If he asks her to carry her weight financially (just like he does), he can be criticized as an inadequate provider. What exactly deems a woman “marriage material”?
To top it off, some women have gotten so pampered that they not only quit their jobs the day they find out they are pregnant, but they hire as many nannies as their husband can afford. Yes, they stay at home, and hire someone ELSE to raise the kids and clean up, while they drink lattes and go shopping all day with other pampered “stay-at-home” mothers. This is not all women, but certainly the odds increase if the man can afford it. Does it pay to work hard and get ahead anymore, if this is how your hard earned money is squandered?
Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly.
He wrote this as he held his severed penis and admired the fineness of the cut.
Traditional roles are your one salvation. They give each partner a domain in which they can be valuable. This is the only lasting form of stability.
You do not want your wife competing with you for authority, so delegate. She handles the home and the kids, which is a full-time job.
If you marry an MFN, she will screw this up because you screwed it up. You married a moronic narcissist. How many men are out there talking about how they realized their wives were dangerous morons after the divorce?
They didn’t recognize the truth because they were in victim-mode. Victim mode is when you decide to ignore vital information because you’re afraid of it. It always ends up with you getting screwed.
No sane woman marries with the intention of failing at it. If you find a woman has a cavalier attitude toward divorce, you get what you deserve if you marry her. She warned you.
As he says, not all women are like this. If you read that with a critical eye, you realize this means you have an option to pick a woman who is not an MFN.
However, you won’t exercise that choice because being in victim-mode also puts you in weenie-mode. You are not encouraged to stop, think and take responsibility for your actions. No — you can always blame someone else.
“Women did this to me. Heartless modern women ripped away my soul,” he said, holding his dismembered penis. “I knew she was a stripper who loved cocaine, but I never thought she’d cheat on me. I thought I was different.”
Women are like men. They are individuals. Most of them are shitheads. Most men are shitheads. The two go together. If you’re not a shithead, don’t pick a shithead wife.
This leads us to the one valid point he makes, and then underwhelms:
If a man insists on a prenuptial agreement, he is selfish and unromantic. When is the last time a woman who demanded a prenuptial agreement was called “unromantic”? On the contrary, if a woman requests a prenuptial agreement, she is fiscally responsible and looking out for herself. (Note: If your fiancée refuses to sign a prenuptial agreement, run for the hills. She has just shown her hand.)
If you and your wife come from the same mindset or religious community, you are one of the fortunate few who do not need to worry about such things. You do not intend to divorce. The penalties for screwing up are high, so you make the choice carefully — both of you. She chose you and you chose her.
Remember that half of marriages do not end in divorce, and the number is probably even higher since “half of marriages” includes a huge number of second-fourteenth remarriages that have no chance of succeeding either.
If you screw it up once, you’re likely to screw it up again, usually by the same method. (I have zero sympathy for a man who hooks up with a married woman, helps her cheat on her husband, then marries her and seven years later is shocked — shocked, I tell you — to find her in the sack with the pool guy.)
However, if you’re a normal person who is hoping to survive this broken time of feminism, litigiousness, dysfunctional government and society and so on, you may want a pre-nuptial agreement. Think up a fair one.
If the woman rejects it, move on. She is not of the mindset for marriage.
By the same token, many men want to create a pre-nup agreement that preserves the pre-marriage perpetual single-guy-in-an-apartment lifestyle. This arrangement usually says, “If we get divorced, I walk away with what I earn, and you get nothing.”
This is too extreme.
Realistically, she will have given up her career to be your wife and mother to your kids — if she doesn’t, your kids and you get inferior attention and she is more likely to stray, drugged on the power of her spending, forgetting how you providing a stable home allows her to enjoy that income. You want her to give up her career and become a Mom now. You give up your reckless lifestyle and become a Dad. See how there’s a trade in evidence there, equally for both parties?
This is why the courts hand money to the woman: she has sacrificed to become a wife.
They are overcompensating, of course, because we live in a time of liberalism and that encourages subjugation of the more powerful party. We get “equality” that way.
She will be compensated because she has given up a lot to become married.
Your only defense against this is the exact opposite of what this guy and most MRAs recommend.
Do not become a victim. Become a victor.
You do this through two methods: (a) insist on traditional roles and (b) pick the right woman.
Men need to stop and ask, “Why exactly am I getting married? What exactly does marriage mean to me in today’s world?”.
It is no longer a lifelong commitment, because it can be reversed overnight.
To be a man who insists on acting like a victim, and then avoids the one state of life that escapes this process, and then also refuses to get politically involved to fix the situation, is to join the culture of weenies who are also behind feminism, the nanny state, sit-when-you-pee, etc.
Feminism is liberalism. If you drift toward liberalism, you are supporting feminism.
Modern life is derived from liberalism. The idea of equality is its foremost concept.
Traditional roles are derived from a different concept, which is that of roles. Roles make each person sacred for what they do that is not the norm, instead of making both people the norm and then making them compete.
The woman reigns over the house and children. This is her responsibility.
The man reigns over income-production and family direction. This is his responsibility.
Any healthy marriage involves the two partners being able to discuss each others’ zones of responsibility, but not sabotaging each other by micromanaging. Any healthy marriage involves knowing that raising kids and taking care of the home is a full-time job that is biologically and culturally more important than bringing in a paycheck. This is at least how adults look at it.
What’s a mom worth?
According to one report, $138,095 a year.
That’s the figure in a study put out by Salary.com, which calculates the wages that would have been paid a stay-at-home mom in 2007 if she were compensated for all the elements of her “job.” That total was up 3% from 2006’s salary of $134,121.
The job descriptions that Salary.com used to determine a mom’s salary includes 10 jobs that moms do on an average day: housekeeper, day care center teacher, cook, computer operator, laundry machine operator, janitor, facilities manager, van driver, CEO and psychologist. – MSN
While the above estimate might be extreme, the point is well-made: to be a wife and mom is hard work, if it’s done well.
If it is not done well, a sensible husband takes it up with the wife. Don’t wait for her to get to this stage:
To top it off, some women have gotten so pampered that they not only quit their jobs the day they find out they are pregnant, but they hire as many nannies as their husband can afford. Yes, they stay at home, and hire someone ELSE to raise the kids and clean up, while they drink lattes and go shopping all day with other pampered “stay-at-home” mothers.
These people are behaving badly. If you’re in command of the home, lay down the law. You need to confront the wife about her bad behavior. It’s not normal to be a lazy wife. Get her ass in gear.
If she cannot follow through with it, tell her you cannot afford the nanny and cancel the payment. If you’re uncomfortable with that, look for evidence that the nanny is botching the job. Force the lazy wife to panic and have a tantrum, then document it. She will either come to her senses or reveal herself to be an MFN, at which point you look like the sensible party: she refused to take care of the kids.
Traditional roles are your defense, and enable you to enjoy marriage as two people working toward a goal, instead of two selfish people manipulating and using each other for selfish ends.
Liberalism is about the ego. Me, me, me. We’re all equal means “But I’m more equal.” Traditional roles are the opposite.
Pick the best woman you can. This starts with getting out of victim mode:
Does it pay to work hard and get ahead anymore, if this is how your hard earned money is squandered?
Do not listen to this poisoned voice. You are going to attend a job, and work to get ahead, whether you are married or not. The question then is whether you come home to a happy family or a dismal bachelor apartment, too tired (and eventually, too old) to go out and score some idiot for a few moments of sexual pleasure.
It pays to work and get ahead, and to use the one power you will always have, which is choice.
MRA includes “game” which is both a way of talking morons into bed, and a way of managing the upper hand with your spouse. “Game” is a subset of manipulating human psychology. If you’re a white hat, you do this to make good things work out; if you’re a black hat, you run scams. Most of us are greyish white hats.
You use psychological manipulation every day on people who need to be manipulated. Talking your kid into putting down the pretty snake (around here, we get coral snakes) is a fine art. So is working with subordinates or bosses.
Your “game” is psychology game, and it’s the opposite of what society tells you to do — which is lie back, enjoy it, become a victim, and then after you’ve been nailed to a cross, demand reparations. Society is designed to control you, not make sure you get what you need.
When looking to marriage, you cannot use “game” (scare-quoted for being such a goofy phrase) in the same way you con women into bed. It’s not a con. It’s about maintaining the male role as leader and dominant creature that makes a woman feel safe:
The point is, if I had been nice, I would have never had married Jennifer. I would have just seen a pretty girl with a not so great boyfriend bugging her and done nothing of interest. Being nice is a very important aspect of your personality, having no nice in you just means you’re an asshole. Adding in a little of the jerk / Alpha Male trait is the key to building attraction though.
At some point in your courtship, you likely did something that was a little crazy, a little wild, something over the top that made your wife to be sit up and take notice of you. Maybe all it was happened to be fronting up to her, and making it plain being just friends with her wasn’t an option you where going to be able to live with.
Marriage can easily fall into a rut. When was the last time you made it plain being “just friends” still isn’t an option you can live with? That you want a passionate connection to her. Make sure she knows with her you have no half-way. If you don’t do this to her at least once in a while, you leave the door open for someone else to do it to her. Emotional connections are serious things and sometimes not even your best friend can be trusted with the woman you love. Do not let the moment pass.
The fundamental mental aspect of game is mental toughness: you need to set a goal and pursue it aggressively. This is the mental aspect our ancestors called vir.
You are the man. You choose the woman, you woo the woman, and you make it clear what the roles are. Any woman who has problems with this is defective, and in healthier times, would be relegated to prostitution or other careers for flake-out nutjobs who cannot commit.
As part of this decision, you need to not screw it up. How many men do you see on a college campus who sought out the non-confrontational female? Usually you see white nerds with fat girls or Asian girls, because they think these will be easy and not force the man out of his single-guy-with-apartment comfort zone. This is of course insane because both fat girls and Asian girls are women, and women are humans, and all humans operate within a range of the same psychology.
Pick the right woman. Pick someone who is honest, realistic and (ideally) has traditional values. That is the kind of woman you can base a relationship on.
If you are looking for an easy score, you face a trivial problem. You need to find some girl who has gone to a bar with the intent of getting drunk and (although she can’t admit it) getting laid.
Women like this do not actually believe they will ever achieve marital happiness. If anything, they are certain they will not, and are self-pitying, and thus prone to all sorts of bad mental habits.
If you are looking for a wife, you have to change your thinking. This is no longer coerce some idiot into bed time. This is no longer single-guy-in-apartment time. This is an important choice.
To claim that marriage is bad, because many if not most women are bad, is the height of stupidity. Here you are, sacrificing something good that you could have for yourself, in the name of what other people do. Might as well dice your penis and make chili with it because you have no right to own one.
The Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) movement is doomed as long as it chooses to put men in the position of passive victim. This is the opposite principle of what it is to be male, which is active conqueror.
Until it figures that out, there will be people like the above-quoted “Do Not Marry” dude who pander to your fears, insecurities, doubts and sense of self-pity. His goal is to make a buck off you and he doesn’t care if it ruins your life.
My solution earns me no money, and is simpler: act like a man. If you don’t think you can, use discipline to force yourself into the role. Get out of the role of victim and passive half-man at home in his apartment, with his boring job and shitty video games. Get out there and fight.