I’ve written on the long march before and how the progressivists goal is to have us dependent on the state, how the alt-right, manosphere, and their issues are all related and at war with progressive unreality, and how we can fight the progressivists, or at least protect a remnant to rebuild when state-backed unreality is no longer sustainable.
The goal of the long march is to get us dependent on the state. The most effective way to do this is by destroying the community ties that bind us and create civil society. These voluntary, local ties to the individuals around us allow us to live free and independent from the state.
The strongest of these social ties are marriage and the nuclear family, so these are the ones attacked the most by the anti-civilization forces.
One tool in destroying the family is destroying male-female relationships, so that they never join together to become families in the first place. So, you end up with men writing things like this. Through feminism making modern marriage inhospitable to modern man, man stops caring about and for women and preemptively removes himself from the family.
But feminism is not the end goal of the state-worshippers, it is but one step in the process. The next step is the adoption of Men’s Rights and/or MGTOW. As No Ma’am outlines:
So, what’s next? What were the original goals of this Cultural Marxist plan? Well, in regard to the ladies, it was to achieve “true equality” by putting women back into the public work force, thereby destroying the entire concept of the family. In order to do this, women must be relieved of their biology as mothers, which is why V.I. Lenin instituted such things as no-fault divorce, easy abortion, community kitchens, sewing centers, housekeeping services, and state-run daycares. The goal of this, however, was not to “empower” women. That’s just what was said. Quite frankly, if you want to argue that Lenin was altruistically helping women be all they could be, you would be sorely mistaken. The goal was to take children away from their parents and bring them under the control of the state, instead of parents. Families, say Marx, Engels, Lenin and Feminists, are the founding cornerstone of Capitalism, and therefore all discrimination and oppression ultimately stems from the family.
But, no matter how much women hate men today, and no matter how much money they make shuffling papers around mindlessly in their cubicles, do you think that women would ever willingly give up their own children?
I think not!
The way to remove children from their mothers, via Marxist techniques, would be to abandon the cause of women and take up the cause of men. It can easily be pointed out now that it is men who are not treated equally, and dialectically speaking, it is quite easy to see how disenfranchised fathers could be manipulated into thinking shared-parenting (or, marriage 3.0) is in everyone’s best interests, and thereby empower the government to take custody of children away from mothers and place them in the custody of the State – who will then decide a baby-sitting schedule for the sperm and egg donors. It is also not a stretch for oversight committees to be erected to ensure the “ongoing best interests of the child.” Heck, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s thesis compared children in the family to the corruption Indians experienced on the reserve. That wingnut Marxist believes that the government should create a new bureaucracy to represent children separately from their parents. In other words, each child ought to have a legal-aid lawyer representing them, so that their parents don’t abuse their power over them.
…
The idea of government taking custody of children today, however, is much greater than in the past. As the Bull Market in Anti-Feminism develops, more and more fathers are going to demand the government grants shared-parenting, which is quite obviously the foundation for government taking custody of children. Is it such a stretch of the imagination to see courts appointing government representatives – an unelected bureaucracy – instead of parents, who will decide what is “in the best interests of the child?”Just because a backlash is developing against feminism does not mean it is a good thing, nor that it can only benefit men and society. Many of the things the MRM are requesting is in line with feminism – DV shelters for men is one example, and would only serve to increase government power in the home, not decrease it.
I can’t bear the thought of men being manipulated into becoming Useful Idiots who further feminist and Marxist goals.
Can you?
We have no great love for MRA’s here. While we do agree with some of their goals, fighting progressivism with greater progressivism (excepting in the case of well-executed black-knighting) is a fruitless endeavour. It will simply further drive another nail into the coffin of Western civilization.
MRA’s are not the solution, they are a distraction.
As well, going your own way is not the solution. With MGTOW, the family is even further destroyed. By removing himself from society, the MGTOW only further helps lessen the importance of family.
Same with PUA’s who are only the other side of the self-destructive hook-up culture.
As a man, you are meant for more than burning yourself out on the hedonic treadmill to feed the tyranny of the state.
****
Now, I am not encouraging you to ‘man up and marry that slut’. In fact, do not marry a slut or a women with baby rabies; a destructive marriage ending in divorce is worse for society than no marriage at all.
Find a good wife if you can.
In fact, I’m not telling you not to be a PUA, an MRA, or a MGTOW. You are free man, do what you want. Besides, there are probably not enough good wives out there for every man, so many will have to find an alternative.
All I want, is for you to think about it. To know that by fighting progressivism with more progressivism or by simply stopping caring, you are not helping the problem and are probably hurting yourself in the long run.
If you decide trying to fight the system is too much of a pain and want to be a MGTOW, I won’t condemn you, in fact I sympathize. If you decide that fucking sluts is too much fun, that is your perogative, but will you think the same a decade from now when every pussy feels the same and the mechanical sex is little better than emotionlessly masturbating into a very realistic sex doll?
Make an informed choice that is all.
Then again, maybe the system is doomed, and the PUA’s, MRA’s and MGTOW’s are simply hastening its inevitable collapse and hopeful rebirth. In which case, maybe they are doing civilization a service.
This is probably the best treatment of this topic I’ve ever seen. No shaming language is used, but some previously unmentioned historical information is brought to light.
The nuclear family is not the foundation of civilization it is the extended family before it has fractured into the nuclear family that has proved the weak link. And easily unravelled.
I’m glad more are speaking of civilization building. I hope and pray it continues. However, I believe strongly in the ability of Christian men to make good wives out of marginal women. I’ve seen it happen many times.
Two weeks into the marriage, she asks…
Scale of ONE to TEN, where is she…
HE calls her a ‘9.3’
SHE says he’s a ‘5’
But of course, he is wrong.
We all have friends wondering why the ‘right one’ isn’t trying to marry her. We have one of the answers in Greg Smalley of Focus on the Family. AUDIO: http://bit.ly/ZNSWqY
Victor Pride explains it well:
“You can go to any Christian church on Mothers Day and they will praise all that is woman, go to a Christian Church on Fathers Day and you will get a lecture about how Men have screwed up and how they should act better. How many times do you think a Man will continue to go to that church before he A) Quits or Believes it and turns into an effete weakling doing the bidding of every woman he meets.” … from his blog at https://www.e-junkie.com/ecom/gb.php?cl=205384&c=ib&aff=251020
KLOVE, you were doing fine until you went against my advice and learned your lesson about those I told you not to hire. Now you’ve had to regroup and settle for Greg Smalley before Father’s Day weekend. Sad, really, sad.
The media says there is no good wife,and the women act upon that as herd creatures.
The good wife despised her oppression and abuse at the hands of men.
You should hear the rantings of my 71 year old mother.
Game over
The only way to get by is to ghost.
The amount of regulation needed to grab all the ghosts will surely destroy everything in it’s path in the attempt,and at this point,that looks like a good thing.
Perhaps I can masquerade as a queer and escape unscathed in this doomed generation of vipers.
Ha, I’ve also concluded, it may be wiser to pretend to be gay than a single straight man that’s not interested in getting caught up in the machine; (no marriage or debt). Sorry times they are.
i’m very family oriented. my family means everything to me. however-
marriage is too big a risk for me. so i shan’t be doing it. if you going to go skydiving and the instructor told you half the parachutes fail……
would you still jump?
“would you still jump?”
Sure…after I check the parachutes out, test them, and choose the best one.
If I see one with frazzled strings or holes in it…then yeah I wouldn’t do it.
And the reason I wouldn’t be afraid to get married is because I know what I’m bringing. I also know what to look for in a woman that are the huge red flags to not get married.
If your company is nothing but crazy destructive women…then yeah you probably never see the good ones. But I’ve seen the good ones and I know they exist. The reason…they have strong husbands and/or were raised by good fathers.
“Find a good wife if you can” would be nice, but some of us would be better served looking for Bigfoot, UFOs, or the Grail, least might gain a little noteriety in finding something that doeant exist.
The system is doomed, the rot has set in. The damage control needed to happen 50 years ago. Now the only thing that will derail the crazy train is totally running out of money. Problem with that is the chaos and trouble when the modern system breaks. These civilized people, they’ll eat each other. It’s not about building civilization, it’s about self preservation.
Great Post. Monogamous marriage is the foundation of western civilization; without it society is doomed to collapse. Unfortunately, the state of marriage is such that it could be considered to have already fallen apart and thus thus comments like this are correct:
“The system is doomed, the rot has set in. The damage control needed to happen 50 years ago. Now the only thing that will derail the crazy train is totally running out of money. Problem with that is the chaos and trouble when the modern system breaks. These civilized people, they’ll eat each other. It’s not about building civilization, it’s about self preservation.”
Now, marriageable women are out there, it just takes a lot more effort to find them in the past. But you are correct that there are more marriageable men than marriageable women. I suggested a reason for it here:
https://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/the-herd-and-women-goodmen-bad/
Each man will have to decide for himself how to act. And we will all bear the consequences of each others actions.
Excellent post sir. Even though I had to get rid of a couple of toxic females over the past six years, the lessons they taught me were priceless.
“We have no great love for MRA’s here.”
hilarious!
you wouldnt even have the intellectual space for YOUR OWN BLOG without those hated MRAs, who did the gruntwork decades ago so you and others could dis them and call yourselves The Manosphere
after youve pontificated that all the efforts of others are useless (or worse) you offer nothing (0 i.e., nada) as an alternative
LOL!
however, i do agree about fighting progressivism with more of it — the part of the mrm that imagines they are ever going to achieve an Equalitarian society is vastly deluded
the Gynogulag seeks to exterminate fatherhood and masculinity, not partner it in as equals with Almighty Woman
“Find a Good Wife?” …. in the Matriarchy?! LOL
While I sympathize with MGTOW, I think its sometimes humorous how young men like make pronouncements that cast judgment onto the entire lengths of their lives.
As the old joke asks, want to make God laugh? Just tell him about your plans.
I’m with you, Old Man in the Cave. We plan, God laughs.
Suggestion: take the red pill and find a foreign (i.e. non-Westernized) woman and church?
I suppose anything is possible!
Going my own way isn’t about bring down a collapses, punishing society getting back at women or anything else all high mighty sounding. It’s about retaining my peace of mind.
I enjoy combat more then marriage and I’ll not repeat the experience. Marriage that is.
Earl, I too thought I knew what to look for and I married a virgin…
See my post MRAs are whiny losers
MRAs are trying to out left feminists. Bad idea.
Good discussion, sorry for the length of this post, but….
“Find a good wife if you can?” I’m pretty sure you’re kidding.
The idea that this debate is just about “finding a good wife” would be shortsighted. It’s not just about the “goodness” of a woman or the snake handler’s creed of “picking the right one” because he has insight and faith, it’s also about the moral hazard of the institution.
The reason we condemn and discourage moral hazards in every other facet of life has nothing to do with the person’s genitals. I know of no other contractual agreements that encourage a moral hazard, let alone celebrate it with a catered party and DJ.
We wouldn’t recommend covering your body with hundred dollar bills and walking around with the vapid advice of “it’s just important to find the right neighborhood” to wander through so you’re not mugged.
Moral hazards in all other areas of life apply to men AND women because the planet is devoid of saints and psychics. The brash absurdity of ignoring that is only exceeded by the depth of its treachery.
To recommend that someone enter into a binding contract that gave them the responsibilities and their partner the benefits would be irresponsible.
If that contract could be unilaterally dissolved so that your partner was given your assets, given your kids as collateral and forced you to give half of your income to a partnership from which you could no longer derive benefit, that would be irresponsible.
If that contract rewarded one partner with cash and prizes while putting the other partner in the life threatening position of going to jail for an inability to pay, no matter how justified, that recommendation leaps from irresponsible to reprehensible.
Marriage is an institution that not only codifies moral hazard into law but enforces that criminal and immoral behavior with the backing of the world’s most powerful policing agency.
Marriage has transformed into band of thieves colluding to indenture men for the purpose of extracting resources.
Let me know when women transform into saints and can resist what no one in the history of the planet has ever been able to; the temptation to use power to gain what you didn’t earn.
Sorry ladies, just pick out a cat and leave us our God given liberty.
“And the reason I wouldn’t be afraid to get married is because I know what I’m bringing. I also know what to look for in a woman that are the huge red flags to not get married.”
Bwhahahahahahahahahaha! ROFLMFAO!
“you wouldnt even have the intellectual space for YOUR OWN BLOG without those hated MRAs, who did the gruntwork decades ago so you and others could dis them and call yourselves The Manosphere
after youve pontificated that all the efforts of others are useless (or worse) you offer nothing (0 i.e., nada) as an alternative”
Hard words you’ve spoken,friend, but true ones.
I agree that it is wrong to dismiss the historical strategic value of MRA’s. Feminists had a collective shitfit over the MRM for years and still do. I also agree that the Dark Enlightenment could benefit from some honing of its message.
The truth is that both forces are united in this struggle by God,or Chance,or by Nature,guided by different hands and acting toward one goal.The MRM on one hand, the forceps which spread the feminists/Left apart,separating the hard carapace of the exterior,the Dark Enlightenment, on the other, the scalpel thrust to the quick of The Beast.
I will admit the chronology/proximity of the two ideas and also that the Dark Enlightenment could benefit from a good sharpening,but I think the quality of materials the instrument has been fashioned from are superb.
One thing all of us should avoid is stepping on each other’s toes.The urge to jockey for position..overwhelming. What we need is a coordinated pirouette of movements, like a skilled surgeon,opening the left up mechanically,stabbing it deep in the heart with an iron spike,and then pouring acid into its wound to ensure it is burned out at its core.
We need finesse. For the time being, we should get out of each other’s way,so that we may each perform our tasks with a free hand. For reactionaries, that requires honing our tactics and organization at the moment.
As you say,it is useless to merely naysay an existing organization while presenting nothing as an alternative. Dark Enlightenment types should back off the MRAs and MGTOWs and give them a free hand while they finish their part, and the latter should prepare themselves to step aside when the Dark Enlightenment ascends.
The Dark Enlightenment will soon rise as the next phase of MRA/MGTOW goals. It is a fusion of ideas which form the nucleus of a potent civilizational framework which will nullify any enmity whatever between the two groups. If Dark Enlightenment thought comes to dominate the legal or cultural landscape,the overarching philosophy of the Manosphere on women,economics,religion,etc. will become permanently elevated as the official and authoritative truth. MRA’s can then be enfolded into the ongoing mission which will keep the MRA/MGTOW school of thought fully intact but incorporated into a syncretic blend of ideas on sex,morality,history,economic aspects and theories. In short,my idea ias that MRAs can form the leftist(ish) strain along with a whole bunch of different flavorings in the bag of “shake n’ bake” ingredients for Western Civilization.
The more reasonable MRAs displace the feminist strain of left-thinking,the revolution against them marches on,black knight takes white pawn.
MGTOWs didn’t break the system, so we’re not going to repair it. Sorry.
I agree with the extended family being the bedrock of civilization. The nuclear family couldn’t survive 50-60 years of Feminism.
Free Northerner, the only problem that I can see in your scenario is the one which says “find a good woman and marry her”. even a good woman will have female friends who are not so good, and there does exist some evidence to suggest the divorcing of women with a second degree of association, i.e. friends of friends or distant cousins of friends who divorce and are presented as not having done too badly out of the divorce can make a woman believe that divorce is not too bad an option when she has lost the ‘tingles’ that she used to get from her husband. No husband can, nor should he, prevent his wife having social contact with other women without his presence. But even the churches are preaching “man up and marry those sluts”, or in my own case producing a resource on cohabitation because a large number of the young people who attend the church think cohabitation is “both right and sensible”.
Let me use my family as an example I have now been married for 30 years. I have one cousin who married the same year, four who have been married longer, and ten who have been married only to one wife for somewhere between fifteen and twenty years. Of twenty nine cousins, four have never married, but others have married multiple times. One, sister to the other cousin who has been married thirty years, has had seven children from three or four fathers. Only one out of nine of my parents and their siblings had a marriage that ended in divorce.
While I fully accept that too many men have their heads in the sand and think that it will never happen to them,or worse, let the blood flow to the wrong head when they are trying to think, even by checking things out there is a big, big risk.
To those who say the risk is to great, I agree the risk is great. It is your choice to make, best of luck with it.
@infowarrior: While the extended family is exceedingly important, the exchange of a father’s investment in his family for the marital guarantee that his children are actually his is the basis of civilization. That is what causes man to invest in his children, his society, and their future.
@danny: If the reason for the jump was important enough, I would inspect the parachutes to the best of my ability and take a risk. Sometimes a man just has to accept that risk exists, do his best to minimize it, then jump and pray. Men taking calculated risks has advanced civilization far more than men sitting at home being safe.
@ray: Masculinity has been with us since Adam; with or without the MRA’s, the discussion of masculinity would still exist. Understand, I have nothing against the MRA’s, I just don’t find their approach particularly useful. I don’t know much of the older MRA’s, but the current ones, such as those at GMP and CfM, seem to be little different then the male equivalent of feminists. (Although, I do applaud Paul on his recent canning of WBB, it did make me respect him and VfM more).
@Vic: A state marriage contract is not necessary for a true marriage. if the contract is what you are against, then simply don’t sign one. Marry before God and family, not the state (unless of course, your jurisdiction is as invasive as mine and automatically makes non-contractual living arrangements common-law).
@Thanatos: Agreed, we have much in common and should work together when possible and avoid working against each other if possible.
@ukFred; Life is risk. One part of choosing a good wife is choosing one who chooses to surround herself with good people. In today’s age, there will always be a risk of divorce, but if chosen wisely (a white/asian, educated, intelligent, virgin, who goes to church devoutly, and comes from a stable family, has a very low chance of divorce) the risk can be reduced, even if it can not be eliminated.
While the extended family is exceedingly important, the exchange of a father’s investment in his family for the marital guarantee that his children are actually his is the basis of civilization. That is what causes man to invest in his children, his society, and their future.
You (like nearly all pro-marriage conservatives) are ignoring Proverbs 31. A man and his wife are supposed to work together toward supporting and providing for the family.
This whole ‘husband works his ass off and in return the wife needs just not spread her legs for other dudes’ schtick is totally unbiblical and completely one sided – a lifetime of work in exchange for my wife not cheating on me (something that Biblical marriage already commands she not do) is not an even exchange…and not what the Bible describes marriage as. Imagine if your boss said that you could work for him your entire life, and as long as you do, he won’t give your parking spot to anyone else. Quite the unfair exchange, heh?
You trad-cons are all the same. Total slaves to the Feminine Imperative. You will of course deny this, but an increasing % of ‘red-pill sites’ are preaching this new ‘man up and become a slave to the feminine imperative trad con churchianity.’ Very few are sticking to the red pill…sometimes I wonder if Society of Phineas and GBFM are the only ones that are left…
Life is risk.
Basically this is a thinly disguised version of ‘man up and marry those sluts!’.
One part of choosing a good wife is choosing one who chooses to surround herself with good people. In today’s age, there will always be a risk of divorce, but if chosen wisely (a white/asian, educated, intelligent, virgin, who goes to church devoutly, and comes from a stable family, has a very low chance of divorce) the risk can be reduced, even if it can not be eliminated.
Risk isn’t inherently a virtue – cost vs. benefit analysis must be done. Yes, you can reduce the risk, but you are greatly understating the probability of divorce or unfaithfulness in american women raised in even the best of circumstances, and the fallout from divorce is so extreme, with the benefits of marriage becoming so much less, that nearly any risk/reward computation could only go one way.
And the reason I wouldn’t be afraid to get married is because I know what I’m bringing. I also know what to look for in a woman that are the huge red flags to not get married.”
Lolzozozozozo!
Famous last words of many a (later) divorced man.
Suuuuuuure….*of course* you will be able to discern each and every possible irrational cause-du-jour that will make her unhaaaaaaaaaaapy and kick you out into the street, whilst letting you foot the bill.
Man, even on the red pill sites you see so much blue-pillism. Women are experts at dissimulation, far more so than men.
You won’t see through it. Almost no man can.
lolz, while Eve was created to be Adam’s helper and to work for the good of the family. That is what she is meant to do, but it is not a necessity for civilization. The two categories are overlapping, but separate. Civilization comes from man’s work, man builds it. A women’s bearing and raising of children helps keep a civilization going, but because so much of her time, her natural skills, and her natural temperament is devoted to this she does not work to create civilization. I wrote about this more here:
http://freenortherner.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/patriarchy-restraining-males/
Basically this is a thinly disguised version of ‘man up and marry those sluts!’.
You’re mistaken. I specifically said I’m not telling you to do anything. I also specifically said to avoid sluts. Do what you want, I don’t really care. I am simply thinking things out for myself and sharing my thoughts for anybody who finds value in them. You are a rational being, discern what you want from them, and make your own choices.
Risk isn’t inherently a virtue – cost vs. benefit analysis must be done. Yes, you can reduce the risk, but you are greatly understating the probability of divorce or unfaithfulness in american women raised in even the best of circumstances,
I’m not understating anything. Off the top of my head, while 50% of marriages end in divorce, ‘only’ 40% of first marriages and ‘only’ 40% of ‘Christian’ ones do, and its even less for a devout Christian. The number for educated (high IQ) folks is lower than that of uneducated (low IQ) folks. ‘Only’ 15% of marriages to a virgin end in divorce. Make it whites/
Asians only, removing the high black divorce rate, and it does down even more. So, on my off the cuff calculation, if you marry an educated, white, virgin, devout Christian the chance of divorce is probably less than 10%. A real risk, but not such an especially high one that marriage should be permanently ruled out by any but the most risk averse. I’ll try to remember to do better calculations on this in the future.
Civilization comes from man’s work, man builds it. A women’s bearing and raising of children helps keep a civilization going, but because so much of her time, her natural skills, and her natural temperament is devoted to this she does not work to create civilization. I wrote about this more here
I believe that Proverbs 31 would disagree with you. There is no indication that child raising is the only duty (or all consuming duty) for a woman as you indicate. Pro 31 is not the only part of the Bible that talks to this, but that will suffice for this discussion. It is quite clear, and you are simply wrong here. A very common blue-pill mistake – the assumption that man does all provision and wife simply raises the kids/minds the home (far easier today than it used to be, too!)
You’re mistaken. I specifically said I’m not telling you to do anything.
You say that, but in numerous other places you use ‘man-up’ type arguments (i.e. life is risk so man up and marry!) so despite your claims, you are at the very least very strongly pushing in one direction, and portraying those who don’t agree as enablers of the left and social dissolution. Maybe you trad-cons should look at how your faux-red-pillism is just another form of society-destroying feminism.
I’m not understating anything. Off the top of my head, while 50% of marriages end in divorce, ‘only’ 40% of first marriages and ‘only’ 40% of ‘Christian’ ones do, and its even less for a devout Christian. The number for educated (high IQ) folks is lower than that of uneducated (low IQ) folks. ‘Only’ 15% of marriages to a virgin end in divorce. Make it whites/
Asians only, removing the high black divorce rate, and it does down even more. So, on my off the cuff calculation, if you marry an educated, white, virgin, devout Christian the chance of divorce is probably less than 10%. A real risk, but not such an especially high one that marriage should be permanently ruled out by any but the most risk averse. I’ll try to remember to do better calculations on this in the future.
You did these calculations off the top of your head, but I would love to see your sources. If I recall, at least according to George Barna, evangelicals divorce at about the same rate as their secular counterparts. Many a ‘perfect pious virgin Christian bride’ has gone all EPL on her soon to be ex-hubby once the gina tingles wore off.
Either way, I don’t buy your statistics sans sources.
In general, I like your blog and especially your lightning round (a very valuable aggregation service) but am noticing (and it seems like GBFM and Phineas agree with me, at least) that a lot of otherwise good manosphere sites are adopting a softer version of trad-con femininsm – still enslaving men, but just with a gentler, more feminine-wiles-manipulation approach as opposed to the militant feminism of today’s matriarchal police state.
A good quote from a recent returnofkings article regarding a traditionalist group of ‘feminine’ french women, Les Antigones, that encapsulates my views on this ‘neo-traditionalism’
The thing is, it would be nice if these “anti-feminists” in the video would be willing to address the blatant male hatred. But they do not. They simply are criticizing the methodologies the hardliners use. And I suspect that both the militant group and the non militant are cut from the same mold and have the same common agenda; to control men. The difference is the pacifist do so through traditional means of manipulating men, and realize the militant approach is not going to do either of them any good.
Here is another observers comment made on that video from another forum:
“You must always remember that these women are self-interested and not man-interested. They realized that feminism is killing the golden goose and want to backtrack. If these groups were really for men (our benifit) then they would be repealing every law that hurts us as men.The law is a gun that sits in the middle of the room. This gun is only operated by women. If a woman tells you that she is not going to use the gun, DO NOT BELIEVE HER. (For she still wishs to have access even if she doesn’t use it) Believe her when she herself, trys to remove the laws that allow her access to the gun. Then you can finally believe her. Until then and only until then, I have no desire to entertain the idea if she is going to shoot.. or not to shoot. Women can get men back easily, but they never will as long as they continual over and over prove time and again, they are carnal and not spiritual. Love comes from the spiritual. Look at their dresses. They are white to symbolize innocence and purity. But again, don’t be fooled. These are outter garments. When women dress their heart the same, then i’ll be interested in women again.”
I’m well aware of Proverbs 31; I’ve written on it. You are still confusing the separate, but overlapping, categories of a good wife and a civilization-building wife. A good wife will and should work hard, but her hard work is largely irrelevant for the maintenance and expansion of civilization.
http://freenortherner.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/biblical-alpha-proverbs-part-4/
You say that, but in numerous other places you use ‘man-up’ type arguments (i.e. life is risk so man up and marry!) so despite your claims, you are at the very least very strongly pushing in one direction, and portraying those who don’t agree as enablers of the left and social dissolution.
I am pushing in one direction; I think it is best for (most) men if they marry well and have a family. If a man can marry well, he should, it will be a blessing to him. Man is not meant to be alone (excepting those few called by God to singleness and/or willing to sacrifice their sexual nature to be single).
Although, to be honest, the temptation to GMOW is always present in my mind. There have been days, weeks even where I have seriously considered simply stopping pursuing marriage. Even now, I have accepted that I won’t if I don’t find a worthwhile woman
There are a few key differences between what I say and what the ‘Man Up’ types dictate.
The first is the difference between advocating what one thinks is best, and demanding it. They demand you marry and condemn you for not doing so. I advocate my position just as you advocate yours, but I demand nothing from you and condemn you not for your choices, because, as I said, I don’t really care what you do. Your soul and life are your own.
The second is the ‘well’ part. The ‘Man Up’ types will tell you to marry that slut, that adulteress. that immoral woman, that slothful, gluttonous woman, etc.; who cares as long as you marry. It’s your duty.
I say a man should only marry if he believes the women to be worthy of marriage. Marrying an immoral women or a hateful women is worse than not marrying. I also don’t demand it as your duty. Marry if you think you should. If you think you shouldn’t, don’t. I don’t care.
As for portraying those who refuse marriage as enablers of leftism, you can take what you want from it. The simple fact is the death of marriage and family at the hands of feminism is killing our society. The MGTOW reaction to feminism is (likely) not helping the situation.
I’m not sure if you’re a Christian or not. If you aren’t I would advise you not to marry. I wouldn’t consider the rewards of a secular ‘marriage’ worth the cost. If you are a Christian, then consider whether you are called to singleness or not and are willing to make the necessary sacrifices for it; that choice is between you and God. Either way, It’s none of my business and I don’t care.
Either way, I don’t buy your statistics sans sources.
Fair enough. I have written a post with the statistics, all sourced. It should go up on Thursday morning.
Correction: The post with the stats will go up Friday morning, not Thursday morning.
@Free N
“@Vic: A state marriage contract is not necessary for a true marriage. if the contract is what you are against, then simply don’t sign one. Marry before God and family, not the state (unless of course, your jurisdiction is as invasive as mine and automatically makes non-contractual living arrangements common-law).”
I appreciate your honesty about the glaring contradiction in that approach. No moral man would advise his son to enter into a legal contract like that, doubly so if the contract was imposed by fiat.
I’ll repeat, no one would recommend that contract because neither men nor women are angels. To say otherwise is as immoral as it is unwise. Wisdom is the skill of observing life and discerning a prudent path.
Marriage in this environment is unwise and takes the God given liberty you can use to minister to people and laying it in front of a capricious government and an increasingly capricious female population.
That’s disturbingly unwise.
FN,
Good article and some good links back to things I had missed. Thanks for writing this.
I’m well aware of Proverbs 31; I’ve written on it. You are still confusing the separate, but overlapping, categories of a good wife and a civilization-building wife. A good wife will and should work hard, but her hard work is largely irrelevant for the maintenance and expansion of civilization.
We may be talking past each other here…I was referring to that it seems to me as though most trad cons say the man is sole provider for the household, and this is plainly not true. As you yourself appear to note in your prov. 31 post:
She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
Her lamp does not go out at night.
She puts her hands to the distaff,
and her hands hold the spindle.
A good wife is productive and industrious. Marry a women who is willing to work hard, do not marry one who is lazy.
In terms of ‘expansion of civilization’, well it depends on what you mean by that I suppose.
I am pushing in one direction; I think it is best for (most) men if they marry well and have a family. If a man can marry well, he should, it will be a blessing to him.
Yes I acknowledge that you are not literally pushing men to man up and marry those sluts, but you are essentially shaming men into looking at marriage much more strongly than they otherwise would have, by basically stating that if they don’t they are playing into the left’s hands.
Which, BTW, is not true. Yes, MGTOW –> less marriage/family –> bad for civilization -> good for the left, but also don’t forget the following two syllogisms:
MGTOW -> work/spend less/get raped in divorce court less/get enslaved to the state & woman via alimony less -> less victims and $$ to prop up the matriarchal slave state -> collapse -> rebuild a better order from the ashes
‘married chump’ -> slave away for corporate bosses and spend tons of $$ to provide for a modern princess slave driver -> tax $$ to prop up matriarchal slave state -> totalitarian matriarchal police state continues for a long time/indefinitely -> misery and spiritual (if not economic) poverty for all.
So either way the left can benefit. But at least MGTOW could hasten the collapse of the current order so us responsible folk could rebuild. The corruption on the current system is endemic and cannot be fixed…I can’t do anything about this except not support it and perpetuate a system that destroys lives and souls.
Regarding your statistics…few things would make me happier if you could establish that there are some factors that do in fact make a risk of divorce < 10%…although given how incredibly horrific the outcomes of most divorces are, 10% is still a *very high* risk. Would you put a gun to your head and pull the trigger right now if there was a 10% chance it was loaded?
I’m not sure if you’re a Christian or not. If you aren’t I would advise you not to marry. I wouldn’t consider the rewards of a secular ‘marriage’ worth the cost. If you are a Christian, then consider whether you are called to singleness or not and are willing to make the necessary sacrifices for it; that choice is between you and God.
I am a Christian…and ironically adherence to the same faith as you is causing my thoughts to head in a different direction. The current marriage scene is totally against the Christian definition of marriage…why should I participate in it? It is very hard to justify…not saying impossible…but quite hard.
Either way, God bless and keep the posts coming!
– lolzozozozozo
As an addendum, I think Vic’s comment is very wise in the context of modern marriage – to advocate for it at all, even in the best of circumstances, is suspect at best.
“And the reason I wouldn’t be afraid to get married is because I know what I’m bringing. I also know what to look for in a woman that are the huge red flags to not get married.”
Earl,
Couldn’t we say that’s true of all men who get married. Doesn’t every man go into his marriage thinking he found the right one and that his marriage is the one that will last? Yet half of marriage end in a divorce.
@ Lolz,
You are forgetting verse 10 of Proverbs, which states, “A virtuous woman where can one find?”
The implication of this statement is, of course, that such a woman does not exist.
As Mathieu of Boulogne wrote about in the Lamentations of Matheolus over 700 years ago, and in reference to this verse, if Solomon – the wisest man to have lived – has been fooled and hoodwinked by the creature known as woman, who am I, a lesser man, to expect to do better?
“Yet one might disagree with me, criticize my conclusion. and, putting forward the opposite point of view, suggest that my words are completely untrue. For, if some women are evil and perverse and abnormal, it does not necessarily follow that all of them are so cruel and wicked; nor should all of them be lumped together in this general reproach. A speech is badly composed if one’s general conclusion is only partly valid. Logic hates this type of argumentation. Nevertheless, this present work, which expresses the pain in my heart, wishes me to exclude nothing, but commands me to push my argument to its logical, if extreme, conclusion, which is that no good woman exists. Solomon, in his works, makes an amazing comment, which supports my case, for he exclaims, “Who could find a virtuous woman?” The implication here is, of course, that this would be impossible. Since he says this, who am I to disagree? Why should I be shocked? What’s more, he says that a base and broken man is worth more than a woman when she’s doing good. Thus there is no woman worth anything at all; I don’t need to look for further proof. That’s enough logical demonstration.
My exposition is clearly valid, for woman has – and there is ample evidence of this – deceived all the greatest men in the world; I shall be basing myself on rational argument. If the greatest are deceived, then the lesser naturally fall. In the street where I live they say that what applies to the greatest amongst us applies even more to lesser mortals. Who were the greatest lords? Who has ever heard of greater men than Solomon or Aristotle? Yet good sense, riches and reason were not worth a dung-beetle to them; all were made to look as if they had gone out of fashion; these men were both outmanoeuvred by women, deceived, vanquished, and tamed.”
“[… ] fighting progressivism with greater progressivism (excepting in the case of well-executed black-knighting) is a fruitless endeavour.”
“All I want, is for you to think about it. To know that by fighting progressivism with more progressivism or by simply stopping caring, you are not helping the problem and are probably hurting yourself in the long run.”
What I think is: you can’t turn back the flow of time, short of inventing a time-machine. And I’m sure that every generation in human history had its own share of woes. However, you can strive for a different future than the one envisioned by cultural Marxists. Thinking in labels puts blinders on understanding. Some think that any change is better than no change. Some think the opposite. Instead, I propose to think which changes are acceptable and which aren’t. Remember, technology progresses regardless of your objections.
Is the worldview of Heraclitus more often right than wrong, or the reverse?
What destroys potential families are when men employ game to pump and dump rather than create meaningful relationships.