Marriage and Divorce

[Apone]

The thread was dead, but I found this article about the decline of marriage among the lower classes-- once again, the decline of manufacturing/its migration to the third world is responsible for a disenfranchised male, without steady employment opportunities. Women see these men as a potential burden/nuisance, resulting in more opportunities for the financially empowered few and less for the financially hopeless majority.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-of-unwed-mothers-an-economic-mystery/274111/

 

[Nixie]

People commit to each other and hold a public celebration of some kind to recognize and announce that fact. Within the Judeo-Christian mythos it has deep roots that align it with more of an exchange of property because of the disenfranchisement of women within that culture. When the underlying need for the transfer of property and begetting of heirs no longer applies, it becomes difficult to try and see the basic reasoning for marriage if all you see it as an exchange of goods. If you see marriage soley through the eyes of materialism, then it has little value.

 

[Billy]

Actually, I don't see why divorce is such a big deal, seen as a "failed marriage", or a deterrent from getting married. What is wrong with the idea that some relationships end up not lasting forever? I don't see how people make the connection of "half of marriages end in divorce," to "that means I don't want to get married," or "marriage sucks". Why would that make people not interested in trying anyway? Or make them think that marriage is a bad idea?

The matter is that after the marriage is over someone is expected to pay. Usually that's the male. I should write a short story about a woman who loses her job, her heart and children then is given the scarlet letter in society for being a deadbeat, then pull the rug at the end and say, no just kidding it wasn't a woman, that's what happens to men after marriages. Women don't seem to understand this until they can selfishly see themselves in the situation.

 

[Billy]

The thread was dead, but I found this article about the decline of marriage among the lower classes-- once again, the decline of manufacturing/its migration to the third world is responsible for a disenfranchised male, without steady employment opportunities. Women see these men as a potential burden/nuisance, resulting in more opportunities for the financially empowered few and less for the financially hopeless majority.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-of-unwed-mothers-an-economic-mystery/274111/

Its waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than just manufacturing jobs moving overseas. Men have been socially brutalized for the last 50 years. Theyre bored of being Homer Simpson and have opted out. Even psychotic feminists like Betty Freidan believes men are a blight on humanity, she doesnt think men should be entitled to birth control options or any rights at all when it comes to family. And she was leading the modern feminist charge. She pushed a generation of stupid gullible women feminists into the educational system to "change" it from the inside. Mission accomplished. We have moved to social Matriarchy and boys are being left behind. You'd have thought that the inequality would have been bad enough. But Feminism is NOT about equality. Its about empowering women. Always was. And you can see it in Organizations like NOW and other feminist leadership who continually promote these mythos about Rape culture, all the while pushing to deny men equal rights.

 

[Nixie]

There are cultures that are matriarchial already who have survived just fine without men feeling like they have no power. The shifting nature of cultural ideals always breeds scorn. You skip lightly over the centuries where women had no power, even the right to their own bodies and the choices made about them. The natural progression of any shift within Judeo-Christian society seems to be to swing the pendulum in wide arcs rather than find a place of balance.

 

[Billy]

There are cultures that are matriarchal already who have survived just fine without men feeling like they have no power. The shifting nature of cultural ideals always breeds scorn. You skip lightly over the centuries where women had no power, even the right to their own bodies and the choices made about them. The natural progression of any shift within Judeo-Christian society seems to be to swing the pendulum in wide arcs rather than find a place of balance.

2 wrongs do not make a right. The difference is we don't live 300 years ago, we live today. Matriarchal societies have usually and most often will fail because there is no impetus for men to work outside of their basic needs. Regardless of what the feminist studies say men physically built the world we live in. Women may have helped to furnished it with art, culture, and society, but it was literally built by men. There is a very practical end to patriarchy in that it advances technology hence human survival further than the much more passive and open societies that we would see as matriarchal.

Matriarchal societies are societies in which men become more of a commodity as women have been. There is a caveat. Women being held as property (while wrong) did not stop the vast numbers of beta males from building our society from sticks and mud to steel and concrete. This is important for our long term survival. Because we will one day be endeavored with cosmic calamity where only technology has a chance to save us. Think firing nukes at an incoming meteor.

In a Matriarchal society, a male being seen as a commodity begins to establish success and viable mating as something controlled by women even more than ever before. The problem with this is that women marry and breed up the majority of the time. Well what happens when there are only so many attractive, intelligent males to go around? Well, in a matriarchal society we have seen. The Beta males literally fall by the way side. They "GTOW". Whereas before they had status and position and an ability to find a mate, now they largely don't. Because the women tend to be busy competing over the more successful alpha males. Ever been to a college campus that had a 70/30 split Woman to Male? Usually what happens is that the alphas at the top of that 30% grab the lions share of the women and attention and the other 20% of the men jack off every night. Meanwhile, faced with he prospect that women don't need them anymore and that they are pointless most of them drop out of give up on dating. Their potential is squandered.

I know I know, in a patriarchal society this was the same role women dealt with and in some places continue to deal with. The difference though, is in the practical nature of who has the body to build society? And its men, unfairly gifted by evolution with brawn and logically inclined brains. There is a reason Matriarchal societies fail far more than patriarchal societies. Now I am not advocating EITHER of these societies. I would prefer a society where things like gender and race were stricken from any records, and all humans were just seen as citizens regardless of their packaging. But between the Chauvinists and the feminazism I doubt we will ever get it. At least not in our lifetime. I used to wish when I was younger and more naive that whenever you filled out a form or a job application all you had to put down was your qualifications and your social security number. No names, no pictures, no addresses.

And you dont have to sell me on the Judeo-Christian stuff... trust me, I find Judeo-Christian culture to be a blight against human destiny. It actively holds us back.

 

[Billy]

Speaking of "lions share" Lions are matriarchal. The females do all the hunting, all the killing, all the baby rearing. The males do close to nothing but mate, eat, protect form other male lions and then get driven away closer to their sexual maturity. Sounds great for the males, truly as a "lion" myself I have enjoyed the fruits of matriarchal society here in the USA. (non-committal sex mainly) But for the lion pride in total (if only lions could think rationally)

Ive seen this kind of situation in many matriarchal societies in Africa, where the women do all the work and raise all the kids and basically control the society and the males literally sit around and do nothing all day. What a waste of masculine potential. Its usually peaceful, right up until the next tribe has a crop blight or over-hunts their game, then they come to take it away from the Matriarchal society which is usually caught completely unaware. The Eloines could never beat back the Morlocs.

 

[Nixie]

Well there are vastly different conceptions about the same topic to be sure. Matriarchial and patriarchial in the basest form talk about which gender carries the status. How that status is carried and used is entirely dependant upon the tribe/people in question. Undoubtably, there are failures and successes within each type.

If you note, I stated that the arc/pendulum tends to swing broadly in Judeo-Christian society. What I mean by this is that social issues tend to vacillate from one extreme to another.

By the by, the brute strength to "build" has not been a defining force in nation building for some time. The ability and more importantly, the opportunity, to engage in intellectual and financial endeavors is essential to being able to prosper since the advent of the industrial age.

 

[Billy]

Well there are vastly different conceptions about the same topic to be sure. Matriarchial and patriarchial in the basest form talk about which gender carries the status. How that status is carried and used is entirely dependant upon the tribe/people in question. Undoubtably, there are failures and successes within each type.

If you note, I stated that the arc/pendulum tends to swing broadly in Judeo-Christian society. What I mean by this is that social issues tend to vacillate from one extreme to another.

By the by, the brute strength to "build" has not been a defining force in nation building for some time. The ability and more importantly, the opportunity, to engage in intellectual and financial endeavors is essential to being able to prosper since the advent of the industrial age.

I dont agree with this. While machinery has certainly eliminated much of the more dangerous work, its still being done on the backs of men. Being someone who spent nearly 10 years in the construction industry i can vouch for that. There are no schools to learn in without the men building the buildings and labs. They were paying men in my industry upwards of 100K a year tax free to go to Iraq and build after the invasion. While I agree that strength gets you just so far, we cannot deny that it is a fundamental building block of our cultures/society. Cultures in which men do not work, are cultures that seem perpetually trapped in the stone age.

 

[Apone]

We have moved to social Matriarchy and boys are being left behind. You'd have thought that the inequality would have been bad enough. But Feminism is NOT about equality. Its about empowering women. Always was. And you can see it in Organizations like NOW and other feminist leadership who continually promote these mythos about Rape culture, all the while pushing to deny men equal rights.

I'm not sure if we're a matriarchy yet-- globally I really don't think that this is true, but I do agree about feminism.

It's a woman-led movement that only concerns itself with women, and if men join they are expected to support women's interests and keep their own interests to themselves-- or at the very least, it seems like they're expected to defer to the superior insights of women, even when it comes to who they are and what they should want. The idea that men's rights groups are hate groups shows how rabid feminists can be-- they're completely ignorant of the movements and come off as simply being uncomfortable with the idea that men should have a voice, as if they've 'lost the right' because of the fact that they're natural villains, exploiters, oppressors, etc.

I see these two movements as reflections of each other, though I think that the men's rights movement is largely a reaction to the exclusive nature of the women's movement-- it's for men who are interested in defining themselves in the new society that feminism has helped create (well, thinks it has helped to create... I think it's probably happened for more business/political reasons)... feminists are directly responsible for its existence by embracing exclusivity and radicalism and showing complete disregard for men in the feminist 'utopia' that they hope to create.

To me it just seems logical that men should have a role in their own identities/rights, it doesn't mean that they should just sit around and hate on women but the fact that feminists are only concerned with themselves, don't understand or even despise the opposite sex and aren't interested in understanding them (the whole fascist caveat of 'they're the enemy, we don't NEED to know them', basically a dehumanization strategy designed to support their ridiculously biased historical narrative) means that the Men's rights movement does have validity and they shouldn't be demonized. At least until there's some sort of compromise and the two merge to form a humanistic movement where everyone respects and supports each other and nobody has any more validity than anyone else.

 

[Billy]

I'm not sure if we're a matriarchy yet-- globally I really don't think that this is true, but I do agree about feminism.

It's a woman-led movement that only concerns itself with women, and if men join they are expected to support women's interests and keep their own interests to themselves-- or at the very least, it seems like they're expected to defer to the superior insights of women, even when it comes to who they are and what they should want. The idea that men's rights groups are hate groups shows how rabid feminists can be-- they're completely ignorant of the movements and come off as simply being uncomfortable with the idea that men should have a voice, as if they've 'lost the right' because of the fact that they're natural villains, exploiters, oppressors, etc.

I see these two movements as reflections of each other, though I think that the men's rights movement is largely a reaction to the exclusive nature of the women's movement-- it's for men who are interested in defining themselves in the new society that feminism has helped create (well, thinks it has helped to create... I think it's probably happened for more business/political reasons)... feminists are directly responsible for its existence by embracing exclusivity and radicalism and showing complete disregard for men in the feminist 'utopia' that they hope to create.

To me it just seems logical that men should have a role in their own identities/rights, it doesn't mean that they should just sit around and hate on women but the fact that feminists are only concerned with themselves, don't understand or even despise the opposite sex and aren't interested in understanding them (the whole fascist caveat of 'they're the enemy, we don't NEED to know them', basically a dehumanization strategy designed to support their ridiculously biased historical narrative) means that the Men's rights movement does have validity and they shouldn't be demonized. At least until there's some sort of compromise and the two merge to form a humanistic movement where everyone respects and supports each other and nobody has any more validity than anyone else.

We are in a social matriarchy. Not a political matriarchy. And I didnt mean to say the whole world, I was speaking specifically about North America.

I hesitate to throw myself in with the MGTOW and MRM movements simply for the fact that it just looks like a bunch of crusty dungeon trolls who hate women because they cant get laid... I KNOW this is a characterization of the movement and not true for all its members, but its definitely true for many of them, enough to be labeled stereotypically. I watch them on youtube, the guys who talk about Father Child rights, divorce courts screwing men over etc, I agree with all of that stuff... Men should be treated equally under the law. But there is always this hint of "the way it should be" with a lot of these MRM guys that I find repulsive. Like they are unwilling to accept that women can do all that women do now. I dont know if they're just the most vocal, but they definitely are not who I want to be associated with. They will start leading me with the divorce court stuff etc, then slide casually into the idea that women are here to serve them. Although they dont state it that way, they usually state it just after a Rant about women killing chivalry and then spending all their time fucking "bad boys", and how they just want to be a nice guy and take care of (control) a woman like the way it used to be. There is a lot of that kind of resentment in that movement I dont want to be associated with. I dont want to be like my Granddad and have to hold an entire family down and control everyone. I would much rather just work at my business, and keep enjoying dating and meeting women and stuff.

 

[Paladin-X]

For me, it's part of the white picket fence dream.