This week a study came out that shows how unilateral divorce laws make divorce more frequent. The empirical research shows what any sensible person would already guess — easy divorce laws make for more divorces. This is only magnified by the fact the divorcing party usually has great incentives to divorce and few incentives to stay (independent of whatever marital problems may exist). The fact that this is even a debate in academia shows how politicized and irrational the academy has become. Sure, there are plenty of other reasons to divorce that also drive the high rate of marriage failures, but government incentivizes failure, not success. That certainly doesn't help.
Add into this debate on divorce law the current debate on gay marriage. With easy divorce, marriage has been demoted to the status of a contract. If it's just a meaningless contract, why can't any combination of participants enter into it? A good question that cannot be easily answered when framed that way.
First off, marriage in this society (independent of its religious roots) is not even a contract. Contracts are designed to be enforceable in the event of a breach. Divorce rewards the breaching party most of the time. None of the terms of marriage are enforceable in any real way. There are no options for a spouse to rein in an adulterous partner and the few laws still on the books against adultery are waiting to be declared unconstitutional.
Further, easy divorce ends up putting the entire lives of the parties into the public record and under the control of a judge. One can walk to any courthouse in this country and start reading detailed accounts of broken marriages. Judges have tremendous power to allocate assets, assign living arrangements, and exercise large amounts of control over the parties. This should greatly worry any libertarian.
One wonders why gay people want a piece of that action. Straight couples are putting off marriage because many wonder if it's really worth all the risk. Gay couples certainly aren't immune from divorce either. Marriage is a loaded term devoid of any meaning behind it. It appears that gay marriage is an attempt at social acceptance, not any desire for benefits. Any real look at marriage shows that on the balance, marriage confers a net liability, not a net benefit.
Before discussing who can participate in marriage, the discussion that we should be having is what the institution of marriage should mean. Right now, the institution currently in place in the United States (again separated from its religious roots) is bordering on meaningless. There is certainly no shortage of people who think so considering every time a government program comes down to support marriage, the usual suspects try to stop it.
The fact is, any serious look at the history of the institution of marriage will show that it is a religious institution. Governmental recognition was not only a later development for marriage, but it also is a secondary aspect. The argument that marriage is a legal institution, a mere creation of government, is a profound mutilation of marriage. One would think that the myriad of governmental forms throughout history would have produced a myriad of forms of marriage, but it has not.
If there is going to be public recognition and support of marriage, there needs to be a corresponding public good and duty. Government shouldn't give out money simply because someone wants a paycheck. What public good is fostered by the recognition of gay marriage? The same could be asked of marriage in the way it is practiced here also. The fact is, until the promises made and the obligations uttered on the wedding day are actually binding in any real way, it's hard to find much of a public good.
Instead of arguing the particulars of marriage and haggling over the petty details, it's time the question of marriage in its fundamentals enters the public discourse. What should marriage mean? Should its obligations be actually binding? What public good is to be fostered? These are the questions that really matter.
John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for BC Magazine and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. By trade, he is an information security professional, part of the Internet Storm Center and a courseware author and certification grader for the GIAC family of security certifications. He is a syndicated columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
DadWith2Girls said,
Marriage today is like a bad three-card monty game with an excellent con-man on 42nd Avenue in Manhattan.
All the allure of a lucky score, and all the certainty of tragic exploitation.
Recommended only for the truly dedicated suckers and masochists who are addicted to optimism and suffering…
July 23, 2007 at 5:48 pm
conservativation said,
I wonder myself if the debate about gay marriage would even exist if marriage was an enforceable contract. Forgive me, but I see gays, especially gay men, marrying as a kind of token piece of memorabilia, a license that can be collected and reflected back on as a “nice relationship” in the past, like an accumulation of tokens or gifts in a box maybe under the bed to reflect upon and recount in memories. If it was binding and problematic to then move on, or if there was a cost, they may behave as heterosexual men do now, avoiding that danger expeditiously.
Sure marriage began as a religious commitment. For some of us we still take that very seriously. But as is often the case, some kind of societal pressure, in this case I submit it comes directly from the wives of church leaders and from women who are leaders, comes to the fore in the form of spreading fear of abused women being trapped and stigmatized for wanting to escape. Soon, this miniscule percentage of women is ruling the day, and their beliefs become the mainstream drivers in the church, as they are in society in general. In fact I say the church has, in the interest of not being judgmental and wanting to be compassionate, become supportive of those choosing unilateral divorce without intending to do so. But when confronted with this reality the church will use all kinds of twisted scripture about kindness and being gentile to justify what amounts to not ruffling the feathers of the gals.
The symptoms of this are in your face, if you are in a church and have the eyes to see. Most man anyway can admit that it is the case in secular life, but the men of the church maintain the position that men are bastards, abusing women and cheating on them, and no wonder the women are leaving.
I am happy to see this statement made in such a plainspoken way. Some may find it a keen observation of the obvious. I find it refreshing and much needed. Thank you John.
I may disagree that any of this was the intention of the majority, but the minority has carried the ball beyond downfield.
July 23, 2007 at 7:24 pm
DadWith2Girls said,
This is very interesting and new territory for me…. as a non-church-going individual.
Would you please write more about the gender politics of the “faithful?”
Especially, how is this increasing dominance of females affecting church membership, men’s alienation from their faiths, and young people’s sense of a future in their organized religious paths/affiliations?
All of this is totally foreign to me — I am not religious.
What role are ministers and priests playing in the cultural gender wars?
Any insight you might provide is appreciated…
July 23, 2007 at 7:51 pm
julie said,
What is strange is that the men on the likes of this site and many others are not part of the solution. Gosh, I wish you were.
But then you can. How sad, too bad. Maybe in time to come you will get it together.
July 23, 2007 at 8:04 pm
The Gonzman said,
If I had my way, I’d abolish secular marriage. It serves no useful purpose.
July 23, 2007 at 8:23 pm
julie said,
Your opinion sounds great to me. Why should anyone give a shit.
July 23, 2007 at 8:41 pm
wadestar said,
Everyone (especially the man) should understand that they are signing on to a legal obligation when they get married and, as such, they *MUST* get a lawyer involved and have some input into the contract they are signing. People (and it is often the man) will whine that it is unromantic to work out a contract but they are just being stupid. They *ARE* signing a legal contract and it is *NOT* to their advantage.
As has often been stated on this web site, women initiated 70% of the divorces. When they do divorce, sometimes it is because the man is having an affair, sometimes it is because he is physically abusing her, sometimes it is because he is an alcholic and can’t hold a job… but these are actually the exception. The number one reason women divorce their men is because… they are unhappy. The man has done nothing wrong but fail to keep his wife sufficiently happy.
Actually, to be more precise… the wife has decided that she is not as happy as she envisions she will be when she walks away with the house, the car, and the kids and receives a fat, monthly child support check.
And to be even more precise… she doesn’t walk but, instead, she kicks her husband out of the home he dedicated his life to building.
Men… wise up. Negotiate the contracts you sign. Specify the rules of the union and the consequense, for both parties, for violating the rules. Either party should be allowed to leave the marriage without cause (unhappiness is not a valid cause) but, if they do so, they walk away with nothing. No kids, no house, no alimony (but they do have to pay child support).
July 23, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Steve Farrell said,
“The general correctness of these observations cannot be controverted. That the framers of the Constitution did not intend to restrain the States in the regulation of their civil institutions, adopted for internal government, and that the instrument they have given us is not to be so construed, may be admitted. The provision of the Constitution never has been understood to embrace other contracts than those which respect property, or some object of value, and confer rights which may be asserted in a court of justice. It never has been understood to restrict the general right of the legislature to legislate on the subject of divorces.* Those acts enable some tribunals not to impair a marriage contract, but to liberate one of the parties, because it has been broken by the other. When any State legislature shall pass an act annulling all marriage contracts, or allowing either party to annul it, without the consent of the other, it will be time enough to inquire, whether such an act be constitutional.”
In 1856, the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States declared: “Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties with which government is necessarily required to deal.”
Let’s go back to 1654, in Puritan New England, and also Connecticut. From George Bancroft’s classic History of the United States we read:
“On every subject but religion the mildness of Puritan legislation corresponded to the popular character of Puritan doctrines. Hardly a nation of Europe has as yet made its criminal law so humane as that of early New England. A crowd of offences was at one sweep brushed from the catalogue of capital crimes. The idea was never received that the forfeiture of life may he demanded for the protection of property; the punishment for theft, for burglary, and highway robbery was far more mild than the penalties imposed even by modern American legislation. The habits of the young promoted real chastity. The sexes lived in social intimacy, and were more pure than the recluse. Marriage was a civil contract; and under the old charter of Massachusetts all controversies respecting it were determined by the court of assistants which decreed divorces especially for adultery or desertion. The rule in Connecticut was not different. Separation from bed and board without the dissolution of the marriage, an anomaly which may punish the innocent more than the guilty, was abhorrent to every thought of that day. The sanctity of the nuptial vow was protected by the penalty of death. If in this respect the laws were more severe, in another they were more lenient than modern manners approve. The girl whom youth and affection and the promise of marriage betrayed into weakness was censured, pitied, and forgiven; the law compelled the seducer of innocence to marry the person who had imposed every obligation by the concession of every right. The law implies an extremely pure community; in no other could it have found a place in the statute-book.
For North Carolina from 1669 thru 1775:
The authentic record of the legislative history of North Carolina begins with the autumn of 1669, when the representatives of Albemarle, ignorant of the scheme which Locke and Shaftesbury were maturing, gave a five years’ security to the emigrant debtor against any cause of action arising out of the country; made marriage a civil contract, requiring only the consent of parties before a magistrate; exempted new settlers from taxation for a year; prohibited strangers from trading with the neighboring Indians, and granted land to every adventurer who joined the colony, but withholding a perfect title till after a residence of two years. The members of this early legislature probably received no compensation; to meet the expenses of the governor and council, a fee of thirty pounds of tobacco was exacted in every lawsuit. The laws were sufficient, were confirmed by the proprietaries, were reenacted in 1715, and were valid in North Carolina for more than half a century.
Virginia 1662:
Though “Virginia suffered no marriage to be celebrated but according to the rubric in the Book of Common Prayer,” nevertheless we read: “The reformation had diminished the power of the clergy by declaring marriage a civil contract, not a sacrament.”
Pennsylvania law dating to 1688:
The word, the contract, or the testimony of a man, required no confirmation by oath. The spirit of speculation was checked by a system of strict accountability, applied to factors and agents. Every resident who paid scot and lot to the governor possessed the right of suffrage; and, without regard to sect, every Christian was eligible to office. No tax or custom could be levied but by law. The pleasures of the senses, masks, revels, and stage-plays, not less than bull-baits and cock-fights, were prohibited. Murder was the only crime punishable by death. Marriage was esteemed a civil contract; adultery, a felony.
John Locke, Second Treatise on Government: Chapter 7: Of Political or Civil Society:
Section 83
For all the ends of marriage being to be obtained under politic government, as well as in the state of nature, the civil magistrate cloth not abridge the right or power of either naturally necessary to those ends, viz. procreation and mutual support and assistance whilst they are together; but only decides any controversy that may arise between man and wife about them. If it were otherwise, and that absolute sovereignty and power of life and death naturally belonged to the husband, and were necessary to the society between man and wife, there could be no matrimony in any of those countries where the husband is allowed no such absolute authority. But the ends of matrimony requiring no such power in the husband, the condition of conjugal society put it not in him, it being not at all necessary to that state. Conjugal society could subsist and attain its ends without it; nay, community of goods, and the power over them, mutual assistance and maintenance, and other things belonging to conjugal society, might be varied and regulated by that contract which unites man and wife in that society, as far as may consist with procreation and the bringing up of children till they could shift for themselves; nothing being necessary to any society, that is not necessary to the ends for which it is made.
etc.
Now, Marriage is in fact, ALL throughout our history, and before that in the colonies, and before that in England been recognized as a civil contract, so says Bancroft, back to the Reformation itself; but it also is a church sacrament, and for instance, we see instances occasionally where the state grants a divorce, and yet the Church hasn’t - by way of example. The state may have an easy, one party asks for the divorce and gets it set up; whereas the Church doesn’t accept that. So I know of a number of individuals who were granted the former and not the latter, because the latter requires mutual consent, and still might urge against the divorce depending on the case.
Other Supreme Court cases site among other reasons the state has an interest in preserving this contract, the enormous expense both in services and other fallout the state and the taxpayers pick up as a result. Also listed in these more modern cases and the state interest in a faithful contract, and a legitimate right to interfere in making sure the contract is being faithfully obeyed is in the case of abuse, especially, child abuse.
If we would go all the way back to Blackstone in the 1700’s, he would point out that the state doesn’t have a right to be involved in the home at all … regardless of the imperfections in that home … except when those imperfections go to the point of hurting others, than it has every right to intervene, and so a civil contract gives them the right to come in and intervene in what otherwise is not their territory. The state then is not understood to have the right to cause happy marriages, or to detail all that a happy marriage is, but certainly when parents fail to walk up their obligations to provide for their children, or where there is abuse to spouse or child, then the state has jurisdiction.
Of course there is danger in Parens Patria, etc. But there all government involves danger. Washington compared government to fire, and warned of it being a fearful master, and yet he was no anarchist. It is up to us to be smart enough and vigilant enough to draw lines of where and where not the state may go. A blanket, no exceptions, keep the state out of the bedroom or off of my property is ridiculous.
And saying that marriage is not a civil contract is not accurate. It has been for a LONG time.
July 24, 2007 at 12:13 am
conservativation said,
Steve Farrell my intention is not sarcasm, but at least for me I really don’t care if marriage is, was always, or will forever be encoded in civil law. My tiny corner of the universe is all about how those professing a vow before the God that they claim to serve should have an additional contract, one far more serious to break. I’ve met a few pastors who indeed agree and have churches that follow the Biblical model for church “discipline” where a handful go to the offender and as you know it escalates from there. In fact there is an interesting controversy right now in Dallas about a church leader and an affair and the churches involvement in same. I cannot remember which church but I found it googling around about churches and divorce.
DW2G, I’ve written a lot here about this. One may say I’m a sort of one trick pony. To really understand it would be tough without some exposure to conservative church culture. If you enjoy reading about some of the insidious tangents of feminism try “The Church Feminized” and “Why Men Hate To Go To Church”. They lay the groundwork for why this divorce epidemic is rampant in church and especially with female initiation.
DW2G there is a website called “DivorceCare” that could be interesting. It is a much feminized support system that churches sort of buy a canned program and offer it to those members suffering divorce. In reality it has the effect of offering women, even one in a new city with no friends and family, a built in “you go girl” chorus that enables her to file no fault divorce. I do not claim that is its intention. But unquestionably that is the impact.
The preachers are largely useful in the whole scheme when the worship moms on Mothers Day and admonish Dads on Fathers day. Regardless if they speak truths, the contrast after years and years has an effect. They also NEVER have jokes with women as the punch line, just like in secular life, and finally, they offer sermons on marriage that describe the Biblical prescription for men and women and you can imagine how out of skew that gets.
It adds up. But most alarming is that the average man in church will laugh at the jokes, cry about his bad ole self on Fathers Day, and lavish praise on wife and mother during those other times. Again, maybe all that would be ok in a balanced environment but it utterly removes responsibility from women according to how they here the Bible interpreted every week. I asked a pastor why. He said his wife was in the audience and chuckled. And he was a casual friend, so he was honest.
That was an attempt at brevity. But religious or not, it should alarm folks that the church is coming apart with a sort of evangelical feminism.
July 24, 2007 at 6:46 am
conservativation said,
Imagine you buy a car and get bored with it and try to simply toss it back. Will the seller take it? Why? Well, there was a contract and there are consequences. Now imagine you even asked that the seller pay you monthly for another car in addition to accepting the return.
That’s the marriage contract and men are cars.
July 24, 2007 at 7:29 am
emarel said,
As a Christian father, I resent having to tell my teenaged hormone-driven sons that many women today are crazy, that marriage today is a crap shoot and stacked against them, and is better avoided, while at the same time not knowing how to teach them to deal with legitimate sexual expression…and believe me, they ask…
DW2G, scripturallysingle.blogspot.com is another good resource for what’s going on in the church, specifically the forces within that tell men that they are somehow living in sin if they are still single by 25 or remain single.
July 24, 2007 at 12:30 pm
emarel said,
But then you can. How sad, too bad. Maybe in time to come you will get it together.”
Julie, when we men do finally get it together, the result may be something that you would never have wished for or imagined.
July 24, 2007 at 12:34 pm
The Gonzman said,
Your opinion sounds great to me. Why should anyone give a shit.
Oh, yea, here it comes. It is to laugh.
July 24, 2007 at 12:48 pm
fourthwire said,
Men being pressured, cajoled, threatened, or enticed into marriage are not gaining anything but risk through marriage.
There are ZERO benefits for men through marriage that are not already available to those men WITHOUT marriage. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
But as mentioned, marriage DOES provide plenty of risks for men: financial, social, emotional, civil, and even criminal risks.
And greater numbers of men are making rational decisions to avoid marriage altogether (excessive risk-takers, delusional optimists and pussy-whipped men notwithstanding).
Yet you believe that men “will get it together” in “time to come”?
In fact greater numbers of men ARE “getting it together” - the first phase during which men start to say “no” to the unnecessary and unwarranted risks for inherent to marriage….. at least marriage in the U.S. and most Western nations.
Avoiding marriage like the plague is only one phase (and one which feminists are trying to spin as resulting from women’s decisions to not marry…. ignoring the obvious: that women are increasingly not being given much choice in the matter!).
The politicians and the courts have turned marriage into a zero-sum game, favoring women. Those politicians and courts have done so largely at the behest of feminazis - feminazis who claim to speak on YOUR behalf, Julie.
So when your daughter, or your friends’ and relatives’ daughters are waiting for MEN to “fix” marriage for them……. you might keep in mind Emarel’s last sentence (not to mention the Gonzman’s insights.
July 24, 2007 at 12:55 pm
scottkirk said,
July 24, 2007 at 2:41 pm
julie said,
Your country and mine as well as others send qualified, educated Phd men and women to big seminars in whichever country is holding it and come away still unable to solve it.
So sad, too bad that it gets worse. But I say that when infact it does hurt me that things get worse.
Can you solve the problems? I think not. Can the feminists solve the problems? I think not. No matter how smart you are, I am afraid it is impossible for you to solve thngs the way we are. Every which way you turn they has to be pain inflicted to a mass group.
Were things better along time ago? No they weren’t. I have heard how women would be better off the way things were and so I asked the older women up to and including 100 years of age. They wish they had the rights women do today. So to think that we should go back in time is not the answer.
Do men act like the are providers and protectors? They sure do and they are so misunderstood by women these days that it is not funny. But I don’t need to tell you that for you know what men are. I do not.
Personally I think each side has to talk and LISTEN to the other side. Unitl then both masculinists and feminists will fight one another. Strangely, they both want the same damn thing. But these are just my thoughts at the moment. When I have been involved for another year, I most likely will have another opinion to share.
I am hungry to learn and at the same time I am frustruted to learn. And the more men’s stories I hear from the men on the streets, the more angry I get.
All I can hope for is that the men’s movement is ready for what is coming. Should I be afraid? I think not. Chivalry is NOT dead. Men are not going to attack me nor my sisters. And they are not going to inflict pain on us. Poeple who know pain well, don’t inflict it on others. They become spiritual and spiritual people don’t attack others.
July 24, 2007 at 4:01 pm
MMX said,
Unfortunately that’s not always true. In fact, most people who know pain very well only seek to inflict more pain on whomever they deem responsible. They escalate, rather than find a solution.
What does it sound like when a man wants to inflict more pain, at the expense of his soul, his heart, and his mind?
Why is it our job to fix an institution we don’t participate in, and don’t value? Because *YOU* do, and you are trying to create a false sense of shame in us for leaving a poor victimized girl to fend for herself?
If I had my way, I’d abolish secular marriage. It serves no useful purpose.
When a man speaks like that, it’s often because he got divorced, and heartbroken, and then angry. But rather than re-evaluate his contribution and his understanding, he assumes, given his pain, that marriage has no purpose.
It does! It always has…
Unfortunately, peoples’ questions about the purpose of marriage only prove that old adage, “For those who understand, no explanation is needed. But for those who don’t, no explanation will ever suffice.”
July 24, 2007 at 4:36 pm
scottkirk said,
I spoke with an 80 yr. old women the other day that was disgusted at what the new gender fem-nazi is doing to men/families/children….In fact she is a contributor to mens rights organizations??
July 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm
fourthwire said,
But I do take exception to your comment that feminists and masculists are fighting for the same thing.
Masculists, or men’s rights activists if you prefer are fighting for equal rights.
Feminists are fighting for special privileges, entitlements, and the oppression of men and boys (not to mention the destruction of the family!).
I’m simplifying of course…. but you ought to start your education by understanding that feminists and masculists are certainly NOT “fighting for the same thing” at all.
July 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm
conservativation said,
There is enough anger here and among those elsewhere who “know” something, that to imagine a few crazies escaping the reservation is not beyond possible
July 24, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Elusive Wapiti said,
“All I can hope for is that the men’s movement is ready for what is coming.”
I’m curious, exactly what do you think the future holds for the men’s movement?
“Chivalry is NOT dead”
Oh, I think it very much is. The virtures of mercy, courage, valor, fairness, protection of the weak and poor? Kinda dead. Faithful to God? Mostly dead, especially in Europe. Duties to women and the requisite feminine reciprocals of gentleness and graciousness? All dead. As Miracle Max would say, the only thing that is left is to go through Chivalry’s pockets and look for loose change.
I don’t think women want true chivalry, not because of the duties is ascribes to men, but of the duties and requirements is lays upon women. As you so keenly observed, things weren’t so great a long time ago from a women’s rights standpoint. Western civ’s chivalry hangover had a lot to do with that.
“Men are not going to attack me nor my sisters. And they are not going to inflict pain on us”
Most won’t. But I think some will, maybe the ones who, as a product of a matriarchal society, are unattached to families and uninvested / disenfranchised in the wider society.
We are already seeing some of this already…areas with the largest proportion of unattached males are the ones with the highest rates of crime and highest propensity to violence and even terrorism. Just last week, the Economist magazine observed exactly this phenomenon in the former East Germany.
Gonzo wrote:
“If I had my way, I’d abolish secular marriage. It serves no useful purpose. “
Marriage as it should be does serve a useful purpose. Putting religion, faith, and procreation aside, this purpose is to give men a reason to invest in a society. When marriage breaks down, and with it their attachment to their children, this process of investment breaks down as well.
Secular marriage, in its current incarnation, works against this purpose, and pushes many men to the margins of the family. Men are rightly wary of marriage, and women have proven reluctant to partner with guys who are “less” than they are.
I wish women would realize just how dangerous of a road they are taking our society down by undermining or even outright attacking the marriage institution as they do.
July 24, 2007 at 6:26 pm
julie said,
I am aware that older women are disgusted in the women of today. So am I.
July 24, 2007 at 6:39 pm
bombbombbombbomb said,
More so, many men will not help or intervene if you were attacked or otherwise in trouble. Not because they are not nice guys, but their fed up being portrayed as the bad man.
Because of child abuse accusations this has also been the case for children in trouble as well. Do you help or risk a child abuse charge?
The feminists are useful idiots (search for that article here) and government should be bigger concern.
July 24, 2007 at 8:07 pm
scottkirk said,
Warren farrel..”The myth of male power”
Richard doyle..”Save the males”
July 24, 2007 at 8:15 pm
amfortas said,
The answer of course is blowing in the hurricane that is just off the coast but heading your way.
July 24, 2007 at 8:15 pm
julie said,
I held a meeting that I put alot of effort into for men’s rights in my area. Turns out that behind my back the blog owner of my site is mates with the men I am challenging. Infact everything i say goes back to them. Why, because of business and intellectuals all sticking together whether men or women. How many men’s rights activists are actually part of the problem? I guess everyone thinks they have the answer. lol
Some people are so 2 faced it is not funny. You can’t trust the women nor the men. but of course that is generalising something that I shouldn’t. do. There are heaps of good decent men and to me there are still good women out there. OK finished.
Amfortas,
Women ARE going to do something about the problem feminism has brought upon us. We just don’t have the power YET. All our pleas are falling on deaf ears just like yours. Something you may not be aware is that even old school feminists and feminists that are middle age (around 40-50) are also angry at the behaviour of the younger women.
Our women’s groups such as refuges and support places cannot deal with female anger because we too are victims to feminists using DV as a way to get power.
I have myself had alot of pain from a relationship being my marriage and I am very angry that men are not given the same tools and resources. And I am not the only female working in society that feels the same way. Feminists ARE challenging the leaders. But they don’t want to hear it and ignore us. But don’t worry, we also have the chance to share and listen to each other because of the Internet. Once we band, we will not be silent. It just takes time to find the leaders. Our problems are similar to the men’s movement.
July 24, 2007 at 9:46 pm
julie said,
As much as I understand that men risk everything to step in and help women and children, I know that they still do. ut then they may not a second time.
Infact I am aware that men can’t even step into help other men without being arrested.
It is all very sad. My eldest son stepped into help a female being harmed (mind you she was also arrested herself because she was also a perpertrator) and my son was arrested threatening the male. The whole thing is a mess and I tell my sons to ignore women if they are being hurt. It is far too much work going through the Court system. 6 months later and days off work and parking fees and lawyer fees is just too much of a cost to bear.
July 24, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Steve Farrell said,
July 24, 2007 at 10:54 pm
amfortas said,
July 25, 2007 at 1:59 am
The Gonzman said,
Please name me one thing a secular marriage contract can gain me that I cannot readily obtain without entering into such a contract.
I can have love.
Sex.
Family.
Friendship.
Companionship.
Maybe an individual woman who is obsessed with being “married” will not give this to me unless I pay the price; but, there are plenty of others who WILL.
Since I have had a vasectomy, I do not risk unwanted children, and I already have mine anyway.
About the only thing I would get from doing the whole marriage contract thing would be risk - I would give a woman claim to half of my assets.
The secular marriage contract is a Bad Deal ™ for men.
You would like men to “trust” women and do it anyway? How about this - you “trust” us FIRST. We’ll have a ceremony, but you get not license and contract to abuse - and since there “is no intent” to abuse it anyway, it should be no problkem.
Right?
July 25, 2007 at 5:37 am
conservativation said,
Just one little tidbit I saw recently surprised me and I thought nothing would. My family was traveling and we attended an out of town church. On the bulletin the Mens Pastor was listed AS A WOMAN!!!!
July 25, 2007 at 6:58 am
MMX said,
There you go! Once you ask that question honestly, and trust in the brain, heart, and soul God gave you, then you’ll see exactly which MRAs are part of the problem. Some men, despite their protestations, love the fact that women screw over men in divorce, because it (a) gives them moral authority over the problem, and (b) justifies their own inaction. The victim position is just as seductive for men as it is for women.
Gonzman - Please name me one thing a secular marriage contract can gain me that I cannot readily obtain without entering into such a contract.
For those who know the answer, no explanation is needed. But for those who don’t know, no explanation can possibly suffice.
July 25, 2007 at 1:23 pm
fourthwire said,
For those who know the answer, no explanation is needed. But for those who don’t know, no explanation can possibly suffice.”
In other words, MMX - even a “genius” like yourself realizes that you cannot logically and rationally refute the Gonzman’s statement and so you stick your head back inside your vagina after posting such obvious nonsense.
Keep trying, girl.
July 25, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Elder George said,
Only in the West, which has a feminine materialistic psyche, is the right to self-indulgence of the individual held in higher regard than the propagation and preservation of the species. For men who have an understanding of their purpose in life few laws and or religious sacraments are required to maintain that institution. For those men who have no understanding of their purpose in life, no amount of religion and/or laws will preserve that institution, as is obvious in America today.
There is no substitute for the understanding and practice of patriarcy—none.
July 25, 2007 at 5:43 pm
The Gonzman said,
Everything else you don’t require that contract for. And I know this - because I do indeed have it.
Like vampires, the “marriage license” is an invitation to the family court to intrude on your life. It serves no other useful purpose
July 25, 2007 at 8:40 pm
The Gonzman said,
IOW, you got nothing.
Thanks for playing, f**knozzle.
July 25, 2007 at 8:41 pm
infidel said,
Nebulae are clouds of gas and dust, they are not life forms.
July 25, 2007 at 9:01 pm
infidel said,
The whole world seems to be materialistic George. Is Russia a paragon of spirituality? What about warlord-run Africa? See much nobility there? What about communist/atheistic China? What about Japan? And do you think intolerant hate-filled muslims are really spiritual?
July 25, 2007 at 9:09 pm
infidel said,
If think this would apply to very very few people, if any. I really don’t know anybody who enjoys having their kids taken away, being robbed of their homes, having to fork over a large part of their paycheck, etc.
What do you base this claim on? Pure theory of your own devising?
July 25, 2007 at 9:28 pm
MMX said,
No, it’s not the Gonzman’s argument I cannot refute, but his approach.
Think about it. Humans have been alive for thousands of years before the Gonzman was born, and they’ll likely persist for thousands of years after he dies. The vast majority of human beings before his existence believed in marriage in some form or another. Future humans will likely believe in marriage, too.
So the Gonzman could just say, “Hmm, I’m only one person in the grand scheme of things. And the very fact that so many people have done this would imply there’s something there. And, since I’m only one person, it’s my job to sincerely look for the answer.” If he took this humble approach, he’d figure it all out eventually.
But instead he says, “I’m such a big individual, that everyone else has to prove the worth of marriage for me.” His aggressive questioning of julie was not designed to find a sincere answer, but instead to intimidate a woman who is stronger, healthier, and more concerned with the world than he is.
Thus, fourthwire, it’s not his argument, but his arrogance. No man can defeat another man’s arrogance.
July 25, 2007 at 10:40 pm
amfortas said,
July 26, 2007 at 12:03 am
MMX said,
Consider the idealistic statement, “It’s always better to eat a ripe apple than a rotten one.” This statement remains true regardless of: the cheaper price of rotten apples, the number of people who prefer rotten ones, the state’s encouragements to eat rotten ones, and other peoples inability to find ripe ones.
For the exact same reason, “It’s always better to be married well than to be married poorly, or to not be married at all.”
July 26, 2007 at 12:50 am
julie said,
Infact, it is just dynamics of learning how things work. There is alot of people in the MRA and they have different positions in society and have different ways of doing things.
Since I am still at a new stage, I have to try and pick up 20 years worth of movement and understand the bigger picture, not just the small picture. And besides, I am not a male so it is not my call on how things should be done. It is just a part of growing in a different scene than what i am used to.
Gonzo,
I think you are a yuppie with an attitude. lol
Who cares if you don’t get married. It is not that big a deal. Only you can decide whether it has any worth to you or not. And if the risks are too high, then don’t take them unless you want to.
July 26, 2007 at 1:36 am
BikerDad said,
Steve Farrell, a question for you: Has the Court ever addressed whether “such an act be constitutional”?
July 26, 2007 at 3:05 am
The Gonzman said,
And here’s where your ability to selectively read to support your idiotic assertions makes you look like a tard.
Go all the way back. It isn’t marriage - as you so dishonestly try to paint - that I haver a problem with; it is secular marriage and the contract attendant thereof which is useless.
The government-stamped permission slip that you statists with your slave-mentality worship is of about as much value as toilet paper. Less, even - at least toilet paper has a useful function.
Truly free and mature people don’t require a “Mommy, May I?” from the #(&@%$! gubbmint to conduct their lives. And if you - or Julie - have a genuine and rational dispute with this, by all means, articulate it.
July 26, 2007 at 4:18 am
The Gonzman said,
July 26, 2007 at 4:21 am
julie said,
I was talking today with a very intellect Indian lady about their way and the Western way and feminism. She told me that women have always been put on a pedestal in her country and that they don’t have to work. Unlike in the west where we do to survive and where we end up putting our children in childcare. I am generalising here.
And we have big problems from parents not being home to take care of their children. We are all to soon see the effects of that if we haven’t already.
She tells of a completely different culture where marriage is important. And that not only is the marriage important but so is extended family. Infact it is not unusual to have four families living in the same home and their elderly. And they are happy, she says.
And to me that is what it is about. It is about family and belonging to something bigger that yourself.
For you, I guess, life is free where you already have offspring and you have love, companionship and sex withouth being married. There is nothing wrong with that if that is what you want.
I cannot guarantee that a marriage is going to even provide you with family and especially for life. Not now a days.
As for the paperwork, I don’t know. I hear that 90% of pre nuptials don’t work.
July 26, 2007 at 7:30 am
thurston861 said,
in the way that marriage is treated it is & enforcible contract, just only against the men due to the naked bias of the Guild, its courts, & the laws it authors as our shadow government (wait til they find out that they have been had by a power that they fostered which will cast them into prison because they have out lived their usefulness to the marxist plan.)
In penetrating the minds of the Guild, the weakness of written law and due process which opened up the destroyers & plunderers of marriage was unfortunately Blackstone.
For in even opening the door the law has redefined abuse from the state’s perspecctive, allowed a man to be called down under the witness of a single woman not two, & thus by crook entered into the home.
The former protections of woman going to her friend, then to friend’s husband, then to church council, council appearing at his door for account & inspection, & if then necessary immediatly administering the lash before all, reduced he said she said & subjected the evidence directly to the public eye, not what a lawyer could twist it to be.
Men walking or shrinking from this responsibility has now made Man’s life tyranny.
Child seeing father beaten was told to obey his father when council departed, woman tended his wounds knew she would be next if he had a complaint, man knew the penalty for failure to use council of the church for greivence against his wife.
So the cycle would begin & marriage defended, home secure from state (the king-who is never to be in the home for one day all he sees within will be his…is it not so now?) and all parties understanding the pain &penalties of their disobedience & contention.
That was when there was church and spirituality. The cohabitation laws were effective in forcing relationships to be accountable spiritually, by the state splitting the parties up, especially when thie contentiousness became a nuisance.
It failed at Blackstone, & church relinquishment of duty.
July 26, 2007 at 9:04 am
The Gonzman said,
And this requires an “Ofisshul Guberment Dokument” Why?
July 26, 2007 at 9:46 am
MMX said,
Except, Super-Angry Divorced Guy, I’m not a Statist. I get it. You’re Super-Angry Divorced Guy, so you get to make all sorts of wild accusatiosn against me. Whereas, since I’ve Never-Been-Divorced Guy, then I have no excuse. Your pain gives you license.
At 12:00pm you say that people don’t need permission from the State to get married. But at 12:01pm, you say it’s the State’s responsibility to enforce the marriage vows. These two ideas are self-contradictory. Because only those with power can deny permission. If my father forbids me from marrying a woman, it’s only because he has power: more life experience, better judge of character, better sense of who I am, and so on. But if my father is a moron, then his forbiddence is insignificant.
” And if you - or Julie - have a genuine and rational dispute with this, by all means, articulate it.”
Men who portray marriage as a State-created problem only sit back and wait for the State to fix things. Whereas men who see marriage as a personal duty both (a) fight against the State’s perspective and (b) have the ability to marry happily despite the rising divorce rates.
Men who portray marriage as a State-created problem don’t understand that values are the currency by which marriages either succeed or fail, not State enforcement!
You might not believe this, but if the government gave me a card which said, “MMX is entitled to rape one woman and be free of prosecution.”, I would never exercise that permit! Why not? My values don’t permit me to engage in such behavior.
But when men espouse that the State is to blame, they do so because it moves the discussion away from Values and towards the power of the State. For when the discussion is centered on Values, then every divorced man has to crucially examine his own Values to see what he permitted his wife to get away with. (John, she told you she admires the characters from “Sex and the City” and you married her anyway!?!? What were you thinking!?!?)
And it’s really difficult to claim Moral Sanction Through A Painful Divorce while constantly fielding questions about your own conduct… (Where did you meet? When did you sleep with her? Did you observe how her mother treats her father? Did you outline the rules by which she must conduct herself, or did you leave it all to fate?)
Naturally, since these questions are designed to make a man realize, “Well, damn. I shouldn’t have done that! I guess I played a major role in creating my own pain…”, some men do their damnedest to assure that no one is allowed to ask them.
July 26, 2007 at 12:44 pm
fourthwire said,
Think about it. Humans have been alive for thousands of years before the Gonzman was born, and they’ll likely persist for thousands of years after he dies. The vast majority of human beings before his existence believed in marriage in some form or another. Future humans will likely believe in marriage, too. ”
Focus please, MMX. There was never any doubt that you cannot refute the Gonzman’s argument that marriage in America today provides men with NOTHING beneficial or enjoyable (he provided a partial listing of such activities) that are not also available to men WITHOUT MARRIAGE.
Furthermore, enjoying those same activities without marriage means less unnecessary significant risks to men’s financial, emotional and other aspects of health and well-being.
In other words, the Gonzman’s “approach” is factual and objective….. which no doubt fails to connect with anything in the space between your ears.
Marriage in the past and marriage in the future does not improve those legal, social, civil, and criminal circumstances that provide marriage in America with such unnecessary significant risks for men TODAY.
“But instead he says, “I’m such a big individual, that everyone else has to prove the worth of marriage for me.” His aggressive questioning of julie was not designed to find a sincere answer, but instead to intimidate a woman who is stronger, healthier, and more concerned with the world than he is.”
Focus again please. And try to stop thinking with your ovaries. When you attempt to pawn such an addled attempt at logic off as an “argument”, you no doubt inadvertently propel anyone at least slightly more intelligent than a bucket of pond water somewhere near “rocket scientist”.
For starters, your concern about the Gonzman “bullying” Julie is amusingly misplaced. For all of her self-admitted ignorance about the nature of men’s rights issues, at least she’s not nearly as self-deluded and apparently stupid as you seem to be. Frankly you ought to be concerned with being heaped with a fair bit of scorn and ridicule yourself, based on your apparent inability to separate present-day realities and facts from your brain-damaged blathering on the topic of men’s risks through marriage in America.
“Thus, fourthwire, it’s not his argument, but his arrogance. No man can defeat another man’s arrogance.”
LOL……….. Actually I find YOUR “arrogance” trying to foist off such a lame attempt at an argument as having the scarcest hint of credibility far worse than any of the Gonzman’s posts that I’ve ever read.
You are well over your head trying to dispute either his argument OR his wording on the nature of marriage in America today.
He’s spot-on….. and Julie is apparently doing just fine without your rather clueless “support”. Any woman who lacks the intestinal fortitude to read blunt posts on MND can always turn on their television to watch and hear no end of programming devoid of any relevance to men’s issues.
July 26, 2007 at 1:20 pm
sc567 said,
#37 infidel said,
EG said: “From the largest nebula down to the smallest form of life know as the monera, all life engages in that activity.”
Nebulae are clouds of gas and dust, they are not life forms.
July 25, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Don’t get yourself stuck in details: words are ambiguous and imperfect. For some things we don’t have words, so we use existing terms.
Switch on your ‘right brain’ (symbolism, allegory, concepts) to paint the picture and derive the point from it.
Which are the most powerful countries? The western, exporting their ’stuff’ all over the world.
Forgot about India? Tibet? Point is all main religions originate somewhere on the Asian continent. What seeds religion? Spirituality. As said: switch on your ‘right brain’.
July 26, 2007 at 5:52 pm
julie said,
Gonzman IS right and I have read a few of his articles and one in particular stands out. The one where he met up with a man who had put him down for fighting men’s rights and holding a group for men. And yet this man who put him down now needs his help and understands. How ironic. What a predigament for Gonzman.
I find that also. Men who are married think that the men who are divorced somehow brought it upon themselves. As if somehow they make mistakes. And you have to wonder whether you want to turn the other cheek. Or throw shite back in their face.
What is REAL is that this is often true. And if Gonzman is honest to MMX he would say that he does get a number of men in his group that SHOULD take responsibility for what has happened to them. The sad part is that it is easy to look from the outside and judge where someone went wrong. I too have groups for single parents and today there are single fathers. And many of them are young because their women are so screwed up that they are left with them and continue on being a provider and protector. They don’t like to take the state funding yet some do because they will cruise with life instead of trying to fight. But then I have also known many case for the past 2 decades (as a girl, not woman way back then) where women have just walked out on their children and the state has had to step in. Can you imagine what it is like for children to come home to a note that says, “Sorry, I won’t be coming back. ” And then they get locked up as criminals while the state decides to devide them and provide only the basics. I don’t buy this behaviour.
But that is nothing compared to the kids that have 2 parents who are both too busy at the pub and/or gambling and collecting welfare cheques to put food on the table or do homework or God forbid ask their kids how their day went. Why, because the state has screwed up men and women. We are 4 generations down the track of feminism in some families.
Gonxman is way to busy to even remember me and that I first spoke on this site when he made an article that said, Welcome one and all, even conspiracy people. I was open enough to write, “Thanx for the invitation.”
I am all the way in NZ and yet I have people around me who know the Rockefellers personally. Very bad bunch this lot.
Some of their ideas are sensible. Sure, if I was running the world, I would have the same ideas. People are idiots on the whole. So I too have the right to say, “Why is this my problem?”
Gonxman has picked one small piece of the problem and yet just as the men in my country who are doing the same thing he is realising, (this is just my opinion) that he has the answer but things are so far down the track that it is near impossible to rectify it.
But he is 100% right on what he says. We have a section in 2 laws that make men obsolete. Seriously, this is bad.
And MMX, you have to understand that although you may not like the messenger, the message is real. You may be worthwhile to your wife at present but your mankind is obsolete to society, in fact all western society and growing through India, Hong Kong, Japan, China and the eastern countries. Our group did a documentary for the Japanese Government because we have the highest rate of single parents in the world. Yes, feminism is so big here but it is not that it is so big that is the probelm but that it is so powerful. Our leaders are aboslutely radical. And the leaders coming up. Why, because they only think that men are BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD. And why do they think this? Because they only deal with women who are hurting and only care for them. They don’t care for the children over the age of 12.
Give me a break. Boys over 12 get testoterone. Now they are looking to put them in prison like an adult. We have such a fatherless problem that we are insane. Seriously insane. And every man or males group that steps up to care is confronted by radical feminists that say men must pay for something that didn’t even happen. They say men controlled women for thousadns of years hyet they don’t get it. Men were not controlling these women. They were providing for them. If a woman had a job, every other woman and man saw this as the man could not provide. Instead of looking at the truth of history we get fed bullshit of someone’s screwed up idea. We get leaders who are trying to push the answers of their onw personal life onto us.
Learn MMX, learn. Gonzman is not the message. But don’t worry, I too take people on face value. In fact, i am one of these people who look at the person speaking to me when I decide to listen or not. It can be frustrating listening to MRA when you are like this because you judge the person who is giving you the truth instead of the truth itself. Don’t give up challenging and learning. All you ned is an open mind to accept truth. And Gonzman is only one person in this. There are many and you WILL find the one or two or three or so that you can relate to.
July 26, 2007 at 6:02 pm
julie said,
July 26, 2007 at 6:19 pm
infidel said,
Why are so many people so quick to excuse EG’s dumb mistakes? EG says nebula are alive and you try to defend that indefensible statement. No, it’s not a problem with words, it’s a problem with EG who is often saying things that make no sense. Nebulae are not alive. Just admit it. If EG says otherwise it’s up to him to prove himself, explain himself, or correct himself.
sc567 said: “Switch on your ‘right brain’ (symbolism, allegory, concepts) …”
Don’t give me this right brain nonsense. Symbolism, allegory, and concepts are all supposed to make sense and should be explained. Why does EG seem to find it so hard to come up with “symbolism” (or whatever) that makes sense?
July 26, 2007 at 6:47 pm
infidel said,
July 26, 2007 at 6:50 pm
mruffolo said,
And Pharisees [Pastors] came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs [castrated man] who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019;&version=47;
Wisdom to men about dealing with women from one of the smartest men who ever lived - Solomon. He wrote this about 3,000 years ago.
“I turned my heart to know and to search out and to seek wisdom and the scheme of things, and to know the wickedness of folly and the foolishness that is madness. And I find something more bitter than death: the woman whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are fetters. He who pleases God escapes her, but the sinner is taken by her. Behold, this is what I found, says the Preacher, while adding one thing to another to find the scheme of things— which my soul has sought repeatedly, but I have not found. One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=25&chapter=7&version=47
The best government governs least - abolish family court.
July 26, 2007 at 7:24 pm
infidel said,
The fact is that we need to use *both* sides of the brain as much as possible, not one or the other. Who wants to shut off one side and think with just half a brain?
Anyway, the link below shows that the idea that the ‘right brain’ and ‘left brain’ think differently has been greatly exaggerated. So if by ‘right brain’ you mean, for example, be more artistic, then why not just say, “be more artistic”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function
July 26, 2007 at 7:25 pm
sc567 said,
July 27, 2007 at 6:10 am
infidel said,
July 27, 2007 at 9:13 am
sc567 said,
my reply you’re asking was already in the thread I’m refering to, because it has much more to do with the EG-stuff than this article.
And if you think EG’s stuff is dumb, why wasting so much energy?
July 27, 2007 at 9:31 am
The Gonzman said,
What it makes you is a blowhard who doesn’t know what he is talking about, super-stupid @ssbag.
At 12:00pm you say that people don’t need permission from the State to get married. But at 12:01pm, you say it’s the State’s responsibility to enforce the marriage vows. These two ideas are self-contradictory. Because only those with power can deny permission. If my father forbids me from marrying a woman, it’s only because he has power: more life experience, better judge of character, better sense of who I am, and so on. But if my father is a moron, then his forbiddence is insignificant.
Why no, mon idiote, it is the state’s refusal to enforce the marriage which makes it useless. This makes going to the state - for a contract which won’t be enforced - stupid.
Try to follow along, lump of coal for brains - if I offered you a business contract with similar enforcement provisions to marriage, you’d be a dunderhead to take it. You’d prefer doing without, seeking someone truly trustworthy, and doing business on a handshake.
Men who portray marriage as a State-created problem only sit back and wait for the State to fix things. Whereas men who see marriage as a personal duty both (a) fight against the State’s perspective and (b) have the ability to marry happily despite the rising divorce rates.
Men who portray marriage as a State-created problem don’t understand that values are the currency by which marriages either succeed or fail, not State enforcement!
Hmmm - so the state is useless, and two people can make a real marriage without a piece of paper, because it is them, not the “state” which make the marriage?
And here I thought you disagreed with me, when you were just being disagreeable.
You might not believe this, but if the government gave me a card which said, “MMX is entitled to rape one woman and be free of prosecution.”, I would never exercise that permit! Why not? My values don’t permit me to engage in such behavior.
Excellent.
Of course, you are presuming that if the state gives a woman a “Use the Strap-On on MMX” that you will be immune because you’re such a helluva guy.
But when men espouse that the State is to blame, they do so because it moves the discussion away from Values and towards the power of the State. For when the discussion is centered on Values, then every divorced man has to crucially examine his own Values to see what he permitted his wife to get away with. (John, she told you she admires the characters from “Sex and the City” and you married her anyway!?!? What were you thinking!?!?)
And it’s really difficult to claim Moral Sanction Through A Painful Divorce while constantly fielding questions about your own conduct… (Where did you meet? When did you sleep with her? Did you observe how her mother treats her father? Did you outline the rules by which she must conduct herself, or did you leave it all to fate?)
Control freak. Explains a lot.
Naturally, since these questions are designed to make a man realize, “Well, damn. I shouldn’t have done that! I guess I played a major role in creating my own pain…”, some men do their damnedest to assure that no one is allowed to ask them.
And naturally, since it is easy for a self-righteous prig to pontificate from a position of abject ignorance, the attempt to do so to try to make themselves look smart.
What I “permitted” my wife to get away with, sirrah, is what? What should a man do, especially in this day and age? Short of violence, how exactly can you dissuade someone from doing something which, however morally objectionable you may find it, is perfectly legal and within their rights as a citizen to do?
Didn’t think so.
Thanks for playing.
July 27, 2007 at 12:06 pm
scottkirk said,
A country cannot continue to jail thousands of innocent men…divide and conquer hundreds of thousands of fathers from sons..
They might win some innitial battles (which they have) but they also sow the seeds of their demise!!
July 27, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Burton said,
Of course, the real problem is not so much women, but with men in power who suck up to female voters, and who enhance their own personal power by putting down other men. Already, you can see politicians passing more laws to restrict men’s choices by expanding co-habitation law to become de facto marriage, by limiting men’s ability to marry foreign women. All passed by the usual mob of hypocrites and felons in government.
MRAs need to take seriously the statement that “marriage is the foundation of society.” We need to realize that this very society is the problem. Because by attacking marriage, we can bring down this rotten edifice that has its boot on our necks.
Now at this point I hear someone saying, “But wait, without marriage we will have more crime, more drugs, more social disorder.” Duh! That is what we want–to unleash the forces of chaos which we can exploit in order to bring down the system. Men need to realize that we are in the same position as the civil rights movement was prior to Brown vs Board of Education. We have become second class citizens. We face an oppressive system. Did segregation go away because of a court decision? No. It took mass acts of civil disobedience, it took uprisings in the ghettoes. It took millions of people in the streets. It took social disorder, the complete alienation of youth, mass drug use to expand minds, in order to bring about real civil rights.
Today, it will take radical and sometimes revolutionary action to bring down the anti-male system.
Who in their right mind thinks that the “family court” system will go away of its own accord? Or that the prison-industrial complex is going to lose all the millions of men who are being sucked into it? Or that the lawyers who have made a racket out of “sexual harassment” suits will give up their six-seven figure salaries to make us happy? Or that university womyn’s studies programs are going to dissolve themselves and instead teach something rational, like engineering?
Just to give an example: MRAs talk about ending the all-male draft. Well, the draft was ended in the 1970s not because the government decided to be nice, but because there were millions of people in the streets protesting it, because the draft radicalized much of the armed forces. The government ended the draft because the alternative was revolution and mutiny. I know, I was in the armed forces in the 1970s. Going to the all-volunteer system probably saved the country.
So we have our historical example. Let’s stop thinking we can win this by some sort of magic trick. Time to bring down the system! Start by saying “no” to marriage.
July 27, 2007 at 12:16 pm
scottkirk said,
July 27, 2007 at 12:19 pm
MMX said,
The state doesn’t have the power to enforce the marriage contract! Just like the State doesn’t have the power to prevent me from being murdered! (It can punish the guy after I’m dead, but that’s not the same thing.) Just like the State cannot prevent me from being robbed. (It can punish the robber for me, and maybe get me my stuff back, but that’s not the same thing either.)
PS - Name-calling makes you look like a girl.
“And here I thought you disagreed with me, when you were just being disagreeable.”
But I do disagree with you. Your approach is a big sham, and I can see through it. I’ll let my next reply to Burton form the substance of my objections.
“Of course, you are presuming that if the state gives a woman a “Use the Strap-On on MMX” that you will be immune because you’re such a helluva guy.”
Except that’s not what the State says. It says, “If you marry someone who wants to use the strap on you, and she does so, then we’re not gonna bail you out.” My immunity comes not from the State, btu in my ability to judge the people I’m with.
This is also why blaming the State disempowers men, because the State cannot teach a man to evaluate women, to clean himself of unrealistic expectations of marriage, and to have a back-up plan in case it all goes wrong. All three of these things are a man’s responsibility and duty.
What I “permitted” my wife to get away with, sirrah, is what? What should a man do, especially in this day and age? Short of violence, how exactly can you dissuade someone from doing something which, however morally objectionable you may find it, is perfectly legal and within their rights as a citizen to do?
That’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it? But when you call my workable and reliable approaches “being a control freak”, are you really interested in learning the process? Or are you more interested in protecting your position of, “I couldn’t help it! No man could possibly help it! Nothing can be done!”?
PS - the “control freak” thing. Name calling really does make you look like a girl.
July 27, 2007 at 2:00 pm
The Gonzman said,
I am a businessman, sirrah. The State enforces business contracts all the time.
It isn’t a question of “can’t,” sirrah - it is a question of “Won’t.”
Just like the State doesn’t have the power to prevent me from being murdered! (It can punish the guy after I’m dead, but that’s not the same thing.) Just like the State cannot prevent me from being robbed. (It can punish the robber for me, and maybe get me my stuff back, but that’s not the same thing either.)
Of course, dumbfnuck, contracts can only be enforced in the breach of them. Your grasp of the obvious is staggering. Fault divorce used to do that - behave badly, breach your contract - pay the price. No fault - does not - it’s useless.
PS - Name-calling makes you look like a girl.
Yeah, I know I hit the mark, Commander Obtuse.
But I do disagree with you. Your approach is a big sham, and I can see through it. I’ll let my next reply to Burton form the substance of my objections.
Demonstrating something? By You?
Well, I suppose there is a first for everything. We wait with baited breath, El Stupido.
Except that’s not what the State says. It says, “If you marry someone who wants to use the strap on you, and she does so, then we’re not gonna bail you out.” My immunity comes not from the State, btu in my ability to judge the people I’m with.
Crystal Ball? Chicken Entrails? Amazing Psychic Powers with Springtime Fresh Scent? What do you use, Karnak?
The state says exactly that in my business dealings, sirrah. I signed a contract today with a vendor. My vendor tries to hose me - I can take that vendor to court, and collect damages. Why won’t the state do that in a domestic partnership contract?
What use is it? Why do I then need the state to “register” something, and get their permission? Why do you need state sponsored marriage?
This is also why blaming the State disempowers men, because the State cannot teach a man to evaluate women, to clean himself of unrealistic expectations of marriage, and to have a back-up plan in case it all goes wrong. All three of these things are a man’s responsibility and duty.
Exactly what I say - except that I don’t urge men to, after doing all that, torpedo themselves by binding their agreements to arbitration by a hostile, and corrupt, system.
That’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it? But when you call my workable and reliable approaches “being a control freak”, are you really interested in learning the process?
You have yet to demonstrate any such thing, sirrah.
Or are you more interested in protecting your position of, “I couldn’t help it! No man could possibly help it! Nothing can be done!”?
Bullshit. Something can be done. The minute you get off the government tit, stoip registering yourself with them, and understand that a woman of true quality wouldn’t insist you put yourself under the authority of the state, you solve many problems.
PS - the “control freak” thing. Name calling really does make you look like a girl.
Ah, shaming language. How very feminist of you. Learn that from Hugo Schwyzer, a$$tard?
July 27, 2007 at 3:04 pm
infidel said,
I have my reasons.
SK, speak for yourself, not for me. Don’t put words in my mouth.
July 27, 2007 at 3:48 pm
MMX said,
Right. Business contracts involving the selling of tangible things like washing machines. Those are easy to enforce! “Your Honor, John said he would sell me 650 rollers at $45 by June 2nd 2007, but he only delivered 620 rollers!” The judge can clearly order John to either (a) produce 30 more rollers or (b) give John $1350. Any additional fines and punishments will be meted out at the judge’s disrection according to business law.
But tell me, Gonzman, how does a judge make one man cherish a woman? How does it make one woman honor a man? Can a judge order your ex-wife to love you? And can she make her love you extra in order to make up for her lack of love from earlier in the relationship?
Seriously, if you could tell me how to do this, you’d be unfathomably wealthy. If you could patent a pink liquid called Love, Honor, and Cherish juice, and sell it to newlyweds, you’d own America.
So why haven’t you? Right. Cuz it’s impossible.
July 27, 2007 at 3:52 pm
infidel said,
Maybe EG should keep his ‘nebulae are life-forms’ folly in his own articles/threads. If he brings up his religion here, I can refute it here so people on this thread can also see what a fool he is.
July 27, 2007 at 4:00 pm
MMX said,
Again, this kind of name-calling doesn’t suit you well. How much do you know about my methods? ZERO. So, why do you have an opinion of them ahead of time? Gonzman, not even God tries to teach a man who has closed his heart and mind. And since my creatvie powers are far short of Divine, you’ll understand why I cannot answer your question until your attitude is fixed.
You have yet to demonstrate any such thing, sirrah.
To you? No, I haven’t. Columbus couldn’t convince the majority of his contemporaries that the world was round, because they were too devoted to their own belief systems to consider his words. Even today people insist that the moon landing is fake, because they first began with the notion that it was impossible to reach the moon, and then they never left it.
Your Tactic of assuming something is impossible, and then insulting people before they can even explain themselves is a sign of closed-mindedness. If God cannot fix that, why should I be expected to?
July 27, 2007 at 4:01 pm
MMX said,
Period? More like dot-dot-dot…
Yes, the marriage strike can be a weapon that good men can use to bring down “The System”. But it also can be a weapon by which lazy and unproductive men justify their inactivity and glorify the freedom that the feminist destruction of marriage has wrought.
How to tell the difference between the two.
A good man will openly state that the best chance a man has for developing spiritually is through getting married and having children, while a bad man will cheer about the fact that he can get “just as good” without getting married.
A good man will state that the ideal of a happy marriage never changes, regardless of how much the outside world deteriorates. While an unproductive and lazy man will taunt anyone who declares that excellent marriage is the ideal. His entire message reduces itself to, “Neeener, neener! You can’t make me get married!”
A good man will take it upon himself to actively petition for a change in laws so that all men can respectfully and reasonably be married. While an unproductive and lazy man revels in each divorce, and reads every “horrible divorce” story as a chance to brag about how smart he is to bever get married.
A good man knows that marriage is good for both men and women, so he wants women to make the right choices - to marry upstanding, respectable, and successful men. While an unproductive and lazy man will collect stories of women who make horrible choices, and revel in the pain that they create. (If they’re really hardcore about this, they’ll make a signature like, “Suck it up bitches!” and make a name for themselves solely by commenting on these “Woman ruins her life with her stupidity” stories.)
A good man knows that marriage is a good thing for men, so he’s always urging them to learn how to do it well, to become successful and responsible, and to learn how to evaluate women. While an unproductive and lazy man encourages men to enjoy their freedom, not worry about their own development, and watch the destruction of society.
“Already, you can see politicians passing more laws to restrict men’s choices by expanding co-habitation law to become de facto marriage, by limiting men’s ability to marry foreign women. All passed by the usual mob of hypocrites and felons in government.”
And, yet, no one has suggested how to use the laws against them.
1. If gay marriage becomes a reality, every MRA can marry another MRA. (After all, the State can’t define whether a person is “really gay” or “really married”). After that, if the State declares an MRA to be married to a woman through co-habitation, then the State has deliberately made him guilty of bigamy.
2. Even without gay marriage, a man can live in two places: the house with his “wife” (no State marriage needed), and the house with his “cover woman”. The “cover woman” is a trusted friend whom he is not in love with. Since, he’s splitting time between two dwellings, then the State will also make him guilty of bigamy if it declares him married to either woman. (Because if the standard works for Woman A, then it must also work for Woman B.)
3. Even with a “cover woman”, a man can live with another couple. John is in love with Jane, and David is in love with Diane. If the State declares John married to Jane, then it must also declare him married to Diane. If it makes this move, it makes the man guilty of bigamy.
It should require no explanation that men who wish only to revel in their single status will never devote their creativity to ensuring that other men can get married, or to use the State against itself.
July 27, 2007 at 4:27 pm
The Gonzman said,
What a joke you are.
So why haven’t you? Right. Cuz it’s impossible.
And then…
Your Tactic of assuming something is impossible, and then insulting people before they can even explain themselves is a sign of closed-mindedness. If God cannot fix that, why should I be expected to?
Your words, @$$tard - not mine.
So, you’re suggestion is… more of the same.
Well, hell - why didn’t *WE* think of that?
Platitudes, you sanctimonious F*cknozzle. All you are is full of platitudes. “Pick a woman who won’t do that to you.” No sh!t, Sherlock? Gosh, go ahead and hand that loaded gun to a woman - just pick one who won’t pull the trigger on you.
Well, hell. Our problems are all solved. Someone notify LaSalle, we can start pulling the plugs here and selling the furnishings on eBay
Or - and this is crazy enough to work - you can get married all you want. You can make those promises that only two people can make and keep anyway. You can execute legal documents such as wills, power of attorney, etc. Everything that is associated with marriage and makes it meaningful and sacred…
…Except for that piece of paper which allows the State to come in and hose you.
Since you’re “not a statist” MMX, I guess this shouldn’t bother you. State can’t “keep” your vows, can they? Can’t “sanctify” your marriage, can it? Since you claim not to worship the state, it shouldn’t matter a whit if you are married in any meanigful way and just don’t have the State’s (Holy, holy, holy!) blessing on your union? Right?
RIGHT?
Or is their a reason - besides your abject idiocy - that you keep pushing the whole “You’re marriage isn’t a real marriage without the Permission Slip from Mommy Government” meme?
And all a lot simpler than convoluted, Rube Goldberg sham marriages. Just say no to big brother.
Just declare your freedom to do as you will.
I know it’s scary with your snivelling, craven, slave mentality. And hey - rather than lie to the state and live your life in the shadows, being a man and openly saying “Screw You” is probably beyond you, you p*ssy-whipped, conformist bedwetter.
Pathetic.
July 27, 2007 at 7:00 pm
julie said,
Your comment 57 was awesome.
July 27, 2007 at 8:11 pm
scottkirk said,
July 27, 2007 at 9:12 pm
scottkirk said,
July 27, 2007 at 9:16 pm
DadWith2Girls said,
I am so apologizing for my post #1 above.
All of this tangential blather and gossip and bad theory…. and a whole lotta great diversionary story-lines! (MND is a dangerous collective narrative…. Mike LaSalle clearly understands this …)
All I initially wanted to say was —
“vaginas are (theoretically) dangerous.”
This thread proves why feminists are totally correct in being afraid of the men’s rights’ movement.
Inherent male logic and its dangerous tendency to link concepts and arguments and satire and irony is always on display, even during the most vehement disagreements … the kind that end most female friendships and turn feminist blogs into hormonal conflagrations.
MND-MRA Fight Club?
Not really. Not ever.
Just a matter of afew decent blokes attempting to discern what is still true….
Good to see that the playful spirit of the “evil” patriarchy is still alive and well!
July 27, 2007 at 9:57 pm
MMX said,
July 27, 2007 at 10:13 pm
MMX said,
Oh, no. I did much more than that. You’ve declared yourself the expert on business contracts, and then accused the State of “not enforcing marriage contracts the way they enforce business contracts.”
I merely pointed out that business contracts are simple to enforce because they deal with tangible things like money and washing machines. Marriage vows, however, deal with intangible things like love, ho