Marriage is Natural
Several of the comments made as an aside in response to my blog Let’s Stop Trying to Fix the Unfixable indicated support for the equivalent of a marriage strike, and expressed a belief that it has produced fewer divorces. If we carry that thinking to the extreme and nobody gets married then obviously nobody will get divorced. Life will also become very empty and society will cease to function.
My message promotes patriarchy, a societal structure in which most people marry. Marriage is not only necessary for the propagation and preservation of the species, it also provides for your health, well being, and enjoyment. I have addressed the importance of marriage in recent articles and will not take your time to review them here, other than to say that the prime relationship between men and women is for the purpose of propagating the species.
Those who are leery of getting married, I well understand your concerns considering the draconian laws that exist against men in general and husbands in particular. A man can only be responsible for what he has authority over. The government has removed all authority from men, yet holding him responsible for family actions has grown. Many states now fine parents for the offenses of their children but prohibit any form of disciplining them.
In addition to the severity of laws relating to marriage, the laws relating to single men and women are just as lopsided and normally favor the woman. Not being married does not help you under those circumstances.
Married life is natural to humankind and to men in particular. Men build teams, groups, organizations, families, and tribes. We do this inherently as part of our efforts to propagate the species. To not get married is to capitulate to the enemy; it is joining their camp. The Marxists and liberals don’t believe in marriage. By not getting married you give power to their cause.
Marriage is a major consideration of Men’s Action. I have a booklet available entitled Why Marriage, which extols the importance of marriage. Patriarchy is family, and there is no family without marriage.
Now what are men to do? Can we change these draconian and punitive laws? That would be trying to fix things, as would be having meetings with various political groups. There is no fixing of anything. It’s all going down the tubes. Why meet with groups who have created this mess and have no understanding of the differences between those who have testis and teats? There is no way to convince that level of ignorance of anything relating to family.
Two courses of activity can lead to improved relations with the opposite sex that will lead to a stable marriage. The first requires action on an individual level. The world around you is the one you create. An example is abused and beaten women. If they move from New York to Chicago they get abused again. If they move from Chicago to Los Angeles they get abused again. They have a very high rate of recidivism. However, if they change within, they no longer draw men to them who will abuse them, nor will they press the wrong buttons of a normal man. So too, if a man understands and lives his masculinity, he will draw unto him women who respect that trait, which Denis, explained in detail in a response to one of my blogs. This is a truism my brothers, and it works.
Improving you relationship with women does not negate all the negative laws around you; a second step requires that you associate with like-minded people and create a community that will support and reinforce marriage. Both of these steps can be taken through Men’s Action.
Don’t sit and wait for someone to make your life better—it won’t happen. Join with like-minded people at Men’s Action and make it happen.
I'm also the Chief of Men's Action to Rebuild Society, an organization that not only addresses the issues confronting you, but takes action to resolve these issues. | More from Elder George
Stumble It!
August 7th, 2007 at 1:27 am
I was referring to actual turning points that steered us like a giant ship into a different direction, or perhaps like a hapless hiker down a slippery slope.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:24 am
To CaptDMO: I had in mind more specific political/social events such as the vietnam antiwar movement, hippies, free love, womens lib and equal rights. Society seemed to be plodding along at equilibrium until the 60’s when the pot decided to boil over and the genie left the bottle.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Using logic, monogamy is best because the male to female ratio is 1 to 1. If the ratio ever changes dramatically either way (2:1, 3:1) perhaps we will have no choice but to have multiple wives for one husband, or, multiple husbands for one wife.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:14 am
Mr. Black, All I saw there was a Man writing an article pointing out that if the alleged terrorist hate us because we are allegedly free, then the Patriot Act is our SUrrender Document.
It cannot be made anymore simple.
We do not actualize, nor preserve that which and what we are by disintegrating that which and what we are.
Such is perposterous.
There is little doubt that from the Phillipines to Paris, Islam has been pulling off terroristic acts, and even the Bosnian War which we joined in to help Islam establish Muslim Western Nations in Europe is proof that not only had Islamic terrorism, geneocide, and insurgency been an active and current activity, but your Precious GOvernment has aided and abetted the Global Islamic insurgency, jsut as it sold nerve Gas to Saddam.
No difference at all.
If such a government is your friend, then you deserve whatever they do to you.
If you want SOlutions, not someone who creates the problem and then sells you the solution of poison to freedom wrapped in the Flag, keep talking to Elder George.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Oh yeah,
“Was there a specific point or specific incident, a series of incidents, or a gradual shift that lead us to our current situation?”
Consider milestones.
Stationary agriculture in the Nile Delta
Aqueducts
Loom
Printing press
Postal System
Indoor plumbing
Prophylactics
Municipal gas light
Telegraph
Typewriter
Sewing machine
Retail canned goods
Trains, freight and passenger
Electric stove
Frozen foods
Radio
Telephone
Air travel
The Great War
Refrigeration
WWII
TV
Automatic transmission/power brakes
“Pep” pills
Tranquilizers
Feminine birth control
Viet Nam
Satellite communications
Cable TV
The Web
The Internet
Cell phones
Match those up on a history time line, I think that may shed some light on the increasingly fractional cycle of unintended consequences.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:09 am
More of Mr Elder’s anti-Western talk can be found in this article of his. Of course, America has many serious problems, but he likes to dishonestly portray the worst of America as representative of America. I also suspect that he is misrepresenting Bill O’Reilly. In any case, he has nothing bad to say about America’s enemies who are often worse in many ways and routinely torture people (even their own citizens, I believe).
After reading the article below, I think Elder is a Muslim fanatic and a liar. I call him a liar because his portrayal of America is clearly unfairly distorted. Rather than take my word for it, read it for yourself on the web at the link below.
I put in capitals the words and phrases that I found most disturbing.
Torture as Accepted Warfare
Publication time: 23 September 2006, 14:30
BILL O’REILLY in a column titled Red-Hot Torture appearing in the 9-15-06 issue of the New York Post used SADISTIC humor to justify torture.
He thought it funny that Abu Zubaydah had been stripped naked, put in a room with freezing temperatures, and then subjected to high volume renditions of Red Hot Chili Peppers. He broke. He confessed.Yah Yah we showed him.
O’Reilly’s column represents the viewpoint of a national TV figure and syndicated writer, a man who REPRESENTS THE THINKING OF A LARGE PART OF AMERICA. His article appeared in a high circulation New York newspaper. I have not seen any evidence of reader outrage. This thinking has been accepted and represents the further collapse of ethics and morals in America. Why should we show surprise at a TV documentary indicating that AMERICA HAS THE MOST VIOLENT BOYS IN THE WORLD, when they live in A SOCIETY THAT NOT ONLY CONDONES TORTURE BUT ALSO PROMOTES IT WITH SADISTIC HUMOR?
As I reflect on the decline of ethics in our society I think of the words of Sufi al-Hassan al-Basri who said, “The good things have departed; only the reprehensible remains, and whoever is left among the Muslims is afflicted.” His statement applies to all people today regardless of their faith.
The reprehensible remains because of the destruction of the family, the natural God-given form of human communal structure and means of propagating the species and developing spiritual growth. Once the family lost its position as the focal point of human activity self-centeredness blossomed along with a materialistic and ignorant lifestyle. As stated by the prophet Jeremiah, people now “worship the work of their own hands.” They believe they can improve upon the works and activities of God, whether by developing seedless watermelons or bringing life into this world. They have supplanted moral and immoral with legal and illegal. They have created a world outside of the one God created, and it doesn’t work. The Koran states: “Your worldly riches are transitory, but God’s reward is everlasting.”
Making money has taken precedence over the spiritual development of the race. Making money has replaced the nurturing activities of women. The state has taken over responsibility of children; it provides schooling, meals, recreation, and baby-sitting, while modern mothers make money. And what do the men do? They make money too. And who provides for the moral and spiritual development of the race?
Many of the religious feel that God will take care of things. God has already given to humankind more than it can imagine; however, God does not do the work that he created and ordained man to do. Adam received his instructions and they have not been changed to this day. A society that devotes it primary energies to the acquisition of material things will collapse as a result of its ignorance. Is it any wonder that such a society tortures its enemies?
(Elder George is chief of Men’s Action to Rebuild Society and can be reached at mensaction@aol.com )
http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2006/09/23/5683.shtml
August 7th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Mr. Black it appears that you fear polygomy?
So you do not fear women being forced into marrying weak men because the strong man is only allowed one woman?
My woman at this point, is all for me having more than one wife. It certainly allows her to know who I am with if not her.
She came to this realization in loving me, watching me leave town, and then not doing anything about following me, and finally a 19 year old female wandering into my life.
For some reason who and what I am in her life was more important than her possessing clear title to me. (Could this be because I expressed the truth that I would not delude myself with believing I could hold clear title to her?) She also understood that such an expectation of her to possess clear title to me is unrealistic since she is married to har job. (She made it past 40 without me, and I wander onto the scene and she is going to drop everything that has been constatn in her life. Yeah, Right!)
See, she has choices, and I cannot be her job that she has known for so many years. Marriage to me does not pose those same challenges and rewards as her work. SHe thankfully loves her work, and serving others.
So should she be dened the arms of a Man in her life? A Man she can trust and be open to?
Should she deny that Man any opportunity for children and family because she cannot give children due to her age? Should her inability to give children make her desolately alone?
At this point, and I might change my position later, I think that women being forced to choose from weak men to marry is devistating not only to patriarchy, but to society as a whole.
Now, in the case of a polygomous Patriarchy, do not Men have a duty to other men to not monopolize the female population as well as cultivate disadvantaged Males to become strong Males by Mentoring?
WE are talking about REBUILDING a SOCIETY, not propogation of feifdoms and sexual monopolies.
In light of this, are you still afraid?
August 7th, 2007 at 12:59 am
A comment to this blog can’t help but do one of the following: (a) glorify the problem as if it were the best solution, (b) state the the problem cannot be solved, so we all might as well learn to love it, (c) discuss the problem without proposing a solution, (d) discuss the problem in a veiled attempt to get someone else to provide the solution, (e) attempt to solve the problem with an ineffective solution that causes more problems, (f) attempt to solve the problem with an less-than-stellar solution that merely exchanges one set of problems for another, and finally (g) effectively solve the problem with a solution that creates fewer problems.
There’s a pretty simple guideline as to whether a comment is part of the solution, or part of the problem.
“If it empowers the individual to take complete control of his life, without relying on anyone else to provide him with an answer, in order to become self-sufficient, confident, strong, and independent of predatory influences (whether other men, women, or government), then it’s part of the solution. Everything else is just a waste of time.”
August 7th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Here is another article Mr Elder wrote. It is VERY anti-Western politically and frankly, it is hard to not interpret it as pro-terrorist because he doesn’t seem to think that using words like “terrorist” or “extremist” is appropriate, especially if preceded by the word “Muslim”. If you want to read it for yourself on the web, go to the link at the bottom of this post. In my view, Mr Elder is all wet on his politics and has his facts wrong. I find it disturbing that he condemns the West for their treatment of suspected terrorists while at the same time he overlooks the torture that Muslims do to their enemies, which is far worse than the way the West treats its enemies.
More Support for Torture
THE MEDIA’S efforts to justify torture have reached frenzy.
ELDER GEORGE
Monday, September 25, 2006
Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of U.S. News and World Report in an editorial in the September 25th issue entitled How To Play Hardball, promotes the conducting of torture to get information that could save lives. He attempts to do so legalistically and emotionally, but not ethically or morally, because these values offer no basis for such treatment.
He also does not address the more common scenario of torturing people who had no information to give, or wrongfully detained people such as many of those in Guantanamo. If we torture the wrong ones, well then shucks we made a mistake. We said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which we learned that he didn’t. Shucks, another mistake. We said he had ties to the terrorists, but our own intelligence has recently disproved that. Shucks, so we made another mistake. We thought the people would be dancing in the streets once we ousted Sadam; shucks another mistake. Well how much have these mistakes cost in human life? According to the most conservative reports emanating from the UN 30,000 Iraq’s have been killed due to out presence there.
That’s more people than the total of all killings attributed to terrorists. And from what I understand, more people than Sadam ever killed in a similar period. Well, shucks I guess some of the innocent have to bite the dust in order to make sure that we can maintain safety and security.
It is important for the administration to have the public accept these results and not challenge them, and Mr. Zuckerman, a man of substantial influence, does his best to accommodate the government on that score. He does so through The New York Post on an almost daily basis, as well. His efforts and those of other media have produced excellent results. No public outcry has arisen; and no public outcry has arisen against surveillance cameras, or against the intrusion into our personal lives resulting from the Patriot Act.
Not only has acceptance been successfully developed, but also propaganda efforts against Muslims have increased. The words terrorists, extremists, and Islamofascists, receive increasing usage. More frequently the word Muslim and Islamic precedes terrorist and extremist. Fear motivates people to relinquish their liberties and accept what they would normally consider immoral or unethical. We are a feminine oriented society and a strong motivator in a woman’s life is the desire for security. By indicating to her that she will be safer if people are tortured will make her more tolerant of the action.
Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan will not cease until those nations to Western ideology. What we now do in these nations differs little from what we did to the American Indians. It differs little from what we did in Korea and Vietnam. We do not stop our efforts in the internal affairs of nations until they submit to the yoke of Westernization. We do not realize that in the process of condoning these actions we surrender our freedom.
(Elder George is chief of Men’s Action to Rebuild Society and can be reached at 1-(212)874-7900 Ext.1329. His Website is http://www.mensaction.net)
http://www.jews-for-allah.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2855&view=next&sid=0ac796e3c3df7db65006c611c8dbe39a
August 7th, 2007 at 12:37 am
Sorry, in regards to above should have said the ratio was 50 females to one male.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:37 am
wtexas,
Several good points.
I see it like this.
At some point after the short sighted gratification needs of youth are simply
fully exercised, and men grow from “Those damned kids” into “Those old fogies”
with the experience of witnessing first hand the never ending crops of
“Some animals are more equal than others”, Then certain truisms come to light,
and a recognition of patterns throughout the ages becomes self evident.
Those same “easy life” trappings that you mentioned are, in essence, the same “fat and lazy” aspects that have inevitably led to the collapse of many a world power, only to be over run by more “lean and hungry” ones.
You don’t “have” electricity 24/7, you buy it. Now you are addicted to it, and you’re screwed if the source is shut off no matter WHAT the cost.
This may be hard to believe, but some entire civilisations operated quite well without supermarkets, democracy, and notes from an academic foundation accredited, and government licenced wonk to allow the dispensing of remedies for tooth ache at an astoundingly inflated cost.
Sure, these arguments could just as easily been discussed in previous years, their
basics just seem to keep arising as each generation deems “Some animals are more equal than others”, and don’t be duped for a SECOND that “liberal” society tries to treat every person of either gender equally. “Liberal” society always seems to demand that someone else do the actual heavy lifting while they merrily play the fiddle long into the cold fall nights.
Perhaps folks may see some patterns recurring in Aesop’s Fables, The Bible, Torah, Koran, Geoffry Chaucer, Shakespeare, Brothers Grimm, and a wealth of oral folk
tales from ALL ages of ALL corners of the world where the written word was useless to the common man.
Probably won’t see that kind of critical examination of recurring cycles, with exponentially decreasing duration, in human sociology offered to folks BEFORE they’re armed with ballots, or bullets. And you certainly won’t see it wherever mandatory adoption of (ie.)”No child left behind” is the catch phrase of those that would “educate” the public.
No this does not address exactly what EG is getting at in this post. Keep reading Sci-Fi. It ALL gets addressed by that medium too if you don’t get stuck on one author. Even Stephen King paints with a full pallet in this area.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Jack Chalker had many gender issues as plot devices in his books. Some of his societies were female dominated, others male. The majority of Mr. Chalker’s writings were science fiction and fantasy. A common occurance was a male transorming into a female and vice versa. One of his societies was insectlike, the females had intelligence and the males were sperm producing caterpillars who were eaten after copulation. In another story a human male character found himself turned into another species, he became a bipedal intelligent bull, the females were similarly bipedal cows, had low intelligence, and serviced the males. The ratio of males to females was perhaps 50 to 1, so each male had a harem. When this guy eventually made his way to his spaceship he used the machines to turn himself back into a human, and since he found the bull/cow society to his liking, he then transformed his female comrades into cow counterparts who catered to his every whim. Sometimes Mr. Chalker’s stories went in the opposite direction. He had one powerul female character who preferred women, any males she captured had an option – be transformed into women or die. He had many strong male and female characters and many weak ones. Some characters submitted to their circumstances and some rebelled. The climax of one of his novels has a woman and man actually merging and combining with a supreme magical force, turning all 3 into one godlike being. It was described that the male logic, the female empathy, and the magical force were needed to create the god.
All in all, some good material for those who like the genre.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Mr Elder, in the same article you said, “As much as Muslim women have been portrayed as victims of a male chauvinistic society, the patriarchal environment and training that they have been raised in accounts for their positive behavior in maintaining what the West is so ready to eradicate.”
Do you think that Iran is the role model for the West?
August 7th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Mr Elder, I found an article of yours called “The Western Attack on the Muslim Family” on the web at the link below. In it you say: “In the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions, all their texts clearly show the relationship of men to women and the importance of the patriarchal-polygamous structure. These texts also abound in stories of how society crumbled when the patriarchal- polygamous structure was abandoned.”
Is polygamy really the answer? There will be a lot of unwed men if your brand of marriage takes hold. Is that fair to them? Is that any better than the situation we have now? Also, how many women would like to share their husbands with another woman?
http://www.myislamweb.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-3815.html
August 6th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Some feedback to you EG. I will explain how I take some things you say, and since I am probably typical of the audience of MND then probably many readers take it the same way. One of your columns recently spoke that Men will, Women do. As in “Men Will It and Women Do It”. In that context, the man sits in the chair, decides what should be done and how it should be done, and the wife and/or daughters do it. The man says when the grass will be mowed and the wife mows it. Not only that, but the man is happy he’s in command and the wife is happy she’s shed the burden of captaincy of her life and relishes in the wise decisions of her godlike husband.
Like I said, just feedback of how I take your writings. From that specific article you gave no examples and I extrapolated what you implied.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
EG, I try hard. I really do. Your article started off well, built up steam and persuasivness and even garnered some agreement from me. With some small provisos.
Then you fell over with outlandish claims to history. All the points you raised until the Greek nonesense were pretty good ones.
I guess Cons answered as I would, expanding the perspective to include realities that we cannot just avoid by averting the eye. But EG, your answers to others simply exacerbate my problem with your overall approach; the indefensible statements that you are prone to.
Look at this one: “We men are not adaptable” #20.
Are you serious? (in my best John MacEnroe voice)
Or this: “Do not expect women to make change” #6.
Really?
And the doozy: “Women do what is expected of them” #27.
Oy Vey.
I think that just like extreme feminists, you just can’t help it.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
To EG: don’t know if you read much scifi but much of what you talk about reminds me of the author Jack Chalker’s Soul Rider series. A society with the technology to transform minds and bodies creates a culture where the men are leaders and the women are transformed into Pamela Anderson esque bimbos with technologically enforced low IQ’s and the capability and desire to be sex machines and the ability to have child after child while still maintaining an hourglass figure. Basically the Stepford Wives in Space.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
My question boils down to this: we are having these discussions about how bad things are and the need for change, right now in August 2007. Could we not have had the same arguments in August 1907, 1807, 1707, 1007, 507?
I say the earth never had a society living in Utopia and there never really were “the good old days’. I also say societies and cultures are continually evolving and we should act to guide this evolution toward a desired direction.
Some of what you have to say, in my perception, seems to point toward taking power away from women. Anytime you take something away you will have a fight on your hands.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
EG I have a question. You are saying now we should and can change society, change for the better and to make our lives better by living in accordance with your Gender Philosophy. Well then, was there ever a time when society was actually better? Measurably better? What about the 50’s? Good if you were a white male perhaps but not for people of color so much. What about anytime before the 20th century? Good for wealthy elites but not so good for the common man/woman. We live in a very cushy age in a first world nation. We have electricty 24/7, access to food everywhere, good medicine, easy lives, we have much to be thankful for. We also have a very liberal society that tries to treat every person of either gender equally. So, how and why did things start to become to disarrayed and troublesome? Was there a speciic point or specific incident, a series of incidents, or a gradual shift that lead us to our current situation?
Also, I believe that the entire thrust and nature of your arguments is viewed as Victorian and archaic. I envision you as an older fellow in a smoking jacket sitting in a den, wisps of smoke curling from your pipe, perhaps with a pet owl perched on a coatrack and certainly a loyal beagle at your feet, pondering the mysteries of gender. In other words, nice but so last century. As such, only a small percentage of the population will ever “get” what you say. I don’t suppose there’s any way you would update or jazz up your verbiage, but it would go further to reach a younger crowd raised on the internet, XBox, and instant messages.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Elder George, why the secrecy?
August 6th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
MMX, with all due respect, I wasn’t asking you.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
fourthwire – Four things.
(1) I am not a woman, no matter how much you insist that I am. And calling me a woman detracts from whatever ability you have to explain your position.
(2) My major point was not meant to be a personal attack, and I’m sorry if it seemed that way. My major point was that “marriage strike” equates all sorts of men into the same “movement” – the materialistic player who sees women as sex objects, the shy and unexperienced young man who has never had a long-term relationship, the older and experienced man who wants to marry but cannot find the right woman, the spiritually mature man who is ready and able to marry a godo woman, and the “married in spirit but not in state” man who enjoys a loving wife with minimal risk. These men are too different to be lumped together into a movement. Because the term “marriage strike” inappropriately glues people together, it has to be re-defined.
(3) “My arguments address the needless REAL risks inherent to marriage in Western nations for men.” These risks disappear when a man “marries in spirit but not in state”.
(4) I hope you’ll comment on my solutions. You seem quite logical, so I’m hoping you’ll give me feedback on the differences between the ineffectvie and effective versions of the “marriage strike”.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
To Bart,
My article explained two steps. For more than that become involved with Men’s Action. My website is http://www.mensaction.net.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
To monkeyinthe mirror,
I undrstand your situation. My youngest son is 34 and unmarried. He wants to get married, but the pickings are slim and the risks are high.
Women do what is expected of them. Our society no longer expects that they be good wives and mothers, in fact it looks down upon it, so women are reluctant to become that.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Bart – “Elder George, you say we must work outside of the government. How do we do that?”
It’s exactly how it sounds.
Do you need government to:
(a) find a good job that makes you feel happy to do, as well as pays you what you need?
(b) show a woman that you’re a man of strong character, heart, spirit, and mind?
(c) help you separate a female predator from a good woman?
(d) enjoy women’s company: as friends, lovers, or a wife?
(e) to get married in spirit?
Of course not! all of these things are in your hands.
If you tell a good woman, who loves your heart, spirit, and soul that you are married to her in spirit but you cannot give her a state-witnessed wedding, is she going to say no?
Marry her in spirit, but not in front of the state.
It really is that simple.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
All this publicity over the so-called Marriage Strike has overshadowed the fact that most single men are that way, not because of any involvement in an organized movement, but because they have been unable to find a suitable mate in today’s society.
I should know, because I fall into that group. I’m past middle-age, and have never found a single (read available) woman I would trust with the power afforded her by today’s absurd laws. I believe there may be some out there. But the percentages are so low, the odds of finding one are ridiculously high. For those of you so lucky, I congratulate you. You have found something infinitely precious.
At this stage in my life, I have little hope for children. But I may still find that special woman who wants to be a woman, and who wants to be with this man. Meanwhile, I take my other family responsibilities seriously (helping my parents and siblings), and I keep looking. I have not found my life to be (with apologies to Elder George) a “living hell”. I have been in a few long-term relationships that could be described as such. Until I find the right woman, living alone is much less painful than being with the wrong person.
That does not make me a “Marriage-Striker”. It just means I have made some mistakes, and I’m learning from them.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Elder George, you say we must work outside of the government. How do we do that?
August 6th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Fourthwire (#18) said: “As you can read for yourself, I lost my patience with MMX’s idiocy….”
In my discussions with MMX, I used to think it was a lack of rationality (”idiocy”), but I came to believe that, in addition to that, a lot of it is spin-doctoring.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
If you want to see the negative effects a marriage strike will produce take a look at the African-American community. Great society legislation destroyed the African-American family. They hardly get married anymore. Do you think they are happy? Ask them. If there is any one segment of this nation that is ripe and ready to work outside of the system it is they, both men and women.
What was done to the African-American community is now happening to the rest of America. The enemy is close to declaring complete victory. It’s time to fight back, and not getting married is not fighting back; it is capitulating.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
cons – A few things.
(1) Thanks for smacking some well-deserved sense into me regarding infidel on the other thread.
(2)Usher’s attack provided this most valuable lesson: people like him, who want large-scale government solutions to our problems first propose ineffective solutions and then censure other peoples’ perspectives. In fact, any solution which DEPENDS ON OTHER PEOPLE to accomplish its task will be ineffective and nasty, like Usher.
Keep that in mind when discussing the so-called Marriage Strike.
————————————————————————————
(3) “The marriage strike is an attempt to influence women”
The Marriage Strike is a seemingly-deliberate mixture of highly effective personal solutions and highly ineffective collective ones. If you mix the ineffective messages with the effective ones, you’re not going to get a productive message.
These are the ineffective ones.
(3a) The If You Don’t Know, We Won’t Tell you aspect of the Marriage Strike takes more pride in hurting women, rather than providing a solution.
(3b) The Dateless Saint aspect of the Marriage Strike takes more pride in appearing awesome for not getting married than it does in poviding a solution by which men and women can safely relate to each other.
(3c) The Dramatic Overcompensator makes tons of money, has lots of property, and sleeps with many different women, but does this mostly to brag about their status and to talk down to men who marry unhappy, or don’t have any girlfriends. But it, also, doesn’t provide a solution.
—————————————-
And these are the effective solutions.
(4a) The Sneaky Dater enjoys womens company, doesn’t blame them for “ruining marriage”, and is looking to get married. But he knows how to assess female predators, and has nothing to do with them. I remember one date was going very well, until I asked her what she felt about the characters of Sex and the City. She said she admired them very much and wasa huge fan of the show. I ended the date right there, and told her that I could never relate long-term to someone who admires the women on that show.
(4b) The Walking Billboard was displayed exceptionally well by Virtue. He wore a shirt that speaks about men’s rights, and drew in a woman for conversation.
Virtue – Did you get her phone number? 100% serious – did you? If she’s old enough to be your mother, you still should’ve gotten her number, because (a) she was moved so much by your words – (She cried!?!?!) – that she was listening to everything you said, and (b) every woman knows many other women, so you could’ve conceivably gotten a date out of it.
Now, the Walking Billboard is going to attract some dangerously crazy women, so you’ll have to be able to handle the abuse if you go this path, but it’s very effective at getting the message out. Rather than relying on the MSM (who hates us anyway, and will just call us “losers who can’t get laid”) to intrepret our message for us, we;ll just send it out there ourselves.
(4c) The Marriage in Spirit plan doesn’t need a wedding and a marriage license, but only wishes to find a woman who values a man’s heart, soul, mind, and spirit, and will marry him without the wedding and the ceremony. It tells women that the materialistic vision of marriage is completely off-base and replaces it with a more natural, more sane version.
The ineffective methods of the Marriage Strike are rooted only in talking about the problem over and over and over again. This makes women hurt, but doesn’t give them hope. While the effective methods of the marriage strike will make a woman hurt, but will offer a rational, meaningful, and attainable solution to men’s problems.
Choose one, or the other, but you do have to choose.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
To fourthwire,
I understand the situation you describe in Comment #10 except that the marriage strike will not cause women to change. Women are adaptable, then can and will adapt to anything.
We men are not adaptable; that’s one of many reasons why we make change. We are not adapting to the current situation, or at least many of us aren’t. By not getting married it will not cause the women to do anything. They are not running things. It is the government that has created this mess. It’s not worth changing, so we must work outside of it.
Do you want to die alone in an old age home? Wouldn’t you rather have a loving wife attend to your needs and hopefully enjoy the presence of children and grandchildren? Perhaps you are young and figure you will never age and die, but you will.
Life without marriage and family is hell on earth.
I realize what we have is unnatural, and we must work to find a solution for ourselves. A marriage strike will not do it.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
MMX wrote: “Ehh, fourthwire has called me a vagina and a woman on several occasions. One moment of niceness doesn’t make up for a pattern of unapologetic nastiness. I understand that you only commented on what you saw here, but you’d be betetr off doing more research before you say something like, “fourthwire made no personal attacks.”"
More likely, I wrote that you ought to stop trying to THINK with your vagina….. and whether you care to consider being a woman to be an insult or not does little to improve your amusingly deficient sense of logic, girl.
MMX wrote: “Oh, and my argument wasn’t a personal attack either. If fourthwire cannot see the spirit world, then he can’t declare it invisible.”
Your blathering about “the spiritual world” is simply another example of your apparent inability to think or write logically, MMX.
In fact I do not waste time trying to “see the spirit world” and I have not “declared it invisible”, and you might have noted as much if you did not have the IQ of a bucket of pond water.
As for your rather misunderstanding of “factual and objective” for “niceness”, you merely underline your shortfall of IQ points.
Mind you, I’m not particularly attempting to be “nasty” to you….. but then again, I am a firm believer that moronic female trolls (that would include you, Einstein) richly deserve a few insults.
So consider this: I am amused by your apparent brain damage, MMX….. but I don’t take it personally.
MMX wrote: “Clearly, my favorite argument, you assume that I’m a woman, because I like marriage and talk about the spirit world. Well, given that I’m a man, and your detection system can’t pick up on that, I’d say it’s time for you to trade that one in for something that’s way more effective?”
LOL……. I assume that you are a woman because of those little clues that you provide such as an an apparent inability to address logical arguments or provide much in way of one yourself. You might BELIEVE that you’re bright enough to “masquerade” as someone born with testicles……… but that’s the point where your aspirations diverge from reality. You practically provide the prototype for “idiotic attention-whore”, after all.
MMX wrote: “And it exposes what I’ve seen many times before – another so-called Marriage Strike supporter who has to scream insults and errors at the top of his lungs – as if he were trying to convince HIMSELF more than anyone else.”
Sort of how your brain-damaged yammerings attempt to convince yourself that eventually you’ll find some sucker of a guy willing to marry you, MMX?
Then there’s the point of “geniuses” like yourself attempting to “masquerade” as men on MND………
See how the phrase “exposes what I’ve seen many times before” as well works, girl?
August 6th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Hello Denis – good to see you posting here.
As you can read for yourself, I lost my patience with MMX’s idiocy and provided her with a few well-deserved insults.
August 6th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
“”marriage provides men with no benefits that are not also available to those men WITHOUT marriage.”
MMX wrote: These comments remind me of those made by men that, “Men cannot possibly be friends with women, because they’ll always want to have sex with her.” The inability to be friends with women is an inability, a lack, a void, a demerit. It is not the highest word on the subject, because the lack of a skill can never speak as well about a subject as a skilled person can. ”
MMX, I don’t give a rat’s ass what my comments “remind you of”, particularly when my arguments and your arguments bear little in common. My particular point underlined the fact that MARRIAGE PROVIDES MEN WITH NO BENEFITS THAT ARE NOT ALSO AVAILABLE TO MEN WHO REMAIN UNMARRIED. And that point has nothing to do with any “inability, lack, void or demerit”……. Try to focus, please.
MMX wrote: “Similarly, people who believe that marriage provides no benefits that cannot be found outside of marriage, are expressing an inability to feel the unseen, spiritual world. They’re ardent materialists, who can accept nothing but materialistic arguments – often in the form of statistics and / or divorce cases.”
It’s difficult to give much of a rat’s ass about “similar” arguments leading to “an inability to feel the unseen, spiritual world”. Those individuals who place priority in living in an “unseen” world are welcome to find one and live in it. My arguments address the needless REAL risks inherent to marriage in Western nations for men.
MMX wrote: “Fourthwire, your inability to see the spirit world is noted, but don’t expect your inability to outweight anyone else’s ability.”
MMX, your inability to provide even RUDIMENTARY logical arguments has been noted (and laughed at!)…… Tell me – were you BORN as stupid as you seem to be or were you dropped repeatedly on your head as a child?
Have any nearby man help you to parse a logical argument for you, otherwise you can expect to unwittingly provide more entertainment, Einstein.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
OK I can see that we are back to this again!
If there was a will for a Marraige Strike such a Strike would fail.
Setting aside the fact that Men and Women not having families falls completely to what the Marxists want, and its equally hungry Mate in the form of Family Law lawyers are waiting for the flesh of those who let go and fall into marriage, a Marriage Strike will fail if at the end of the Strike the Men return to the same factory and working conditions.
You are not going to do that Gentlemen, are you?
It is time for the issue to be defined that this is the Statist Marriage Strike. The State and the government no longer invited into the lives of Men and Women.
Because the law is trying to out manuever the effort of the People to escape, Men and Women are no longer going to be able to co-habitat anymore, thus Marraige Redux will have to be in a shape and character outside of the cohabitation guidlines of the law.
The Man will have his place to go when she is mensurating. That wipes out any hohabitation of 28 days much less 30, or even 7 years for any term of commom law to come into play.
Each person agrees here. None of you men here are interested in the quicksand pit of Statist Marraige.
Elder is talking about Marraige Redux, of Reloaded, or REVOLUTION.
So, what we need to call this is the Statist Marriage Strike, Phase I. then comes the redefinintion and revision that makes it Safe for Men to be with Women. Thus begins the Marriage Revolution, Phase II, the solution we give to Righeous women that cry when Virtue explains the equal prison and pain that Men feel.
I am sure that women in her heart sees the suffering of Men now. I am sure she now knows that ther must be a solution to give all equal justice to end suffering.
The Marriage Revolution must recreate, and give the young Lady a Path to Hope.
Men are the only ones who can give the Path to Hope.
Women will follow Men who give them Hope.
Not men who Strike only to return to their slavery after a tantrum.
I know you MEn are not interested in that, so start talking about what the Revolution will look like, and where it gives all Hope together.
Long Live the Marraige Revolution!!!!
August 6th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Denis – (1) “What a hoot!! Clearly the ability to be spiritual does not have staying power for over 50% of marriages.”
Statistics are materialistic, anti-individualistic, and aspiritual. So, to you, it looks like you scored major points with your comment. But, to me, it’s obvious that you don’t understand the spiritual.
Statistics rely on averages, which rely on blending everyone together – kinda like what would happen if you stuck your hand in a powerful blender and hit puree. Once your hand is shredded, it ain’t a hand no more. So, if you want to study peoples’ hands, you’re better off shaking them, one-at-a-time, to sdee how they function.
Marriages work the same way. By relying on statistics, you’re blending the stable, long-term marriages with the Anna Nicole Smith fiascos. You’re much better off keeping them separate and learning from the good ones, than you are in blending them together and obscuring the good ones in a sea of bad ones.
(2) “And since materially it is men who lose when the spirituality ends I’d say men are far less materialistic and far more generous-or as fourthwire might say STUPID.”
Nah, I’d say you can’t use failures to understand successes. Watching me slice my tee shots over and over again isn’t going to help you drive like Tiger Woods, as effectively as watching Tiger Woods. Learn from the best and forget the rest. But look at the failures, and you’ll become one yourself.
(3) “fourthwire made no personal attacks on anyone (unlike you)-he simply layed out the facts for the men.”
Ehh, fourthwire has called me a vagina and a woman on several occasions. One moment of niceness doesn’t make up for a pattern of unapologetic nastiness. I understand that you only commented on what you saw here, but you’d be betetr off doing more research before you say something like, “fourthwire made no personal attacks.”
Oh, and my argument wasn’t a personal attack either. If fourthwire cannot see the spirit world, then he can’t declare it invisible. That’s like, if I cannot hit a golf ball over 300 yards off the tee, then I have no right to declare it impossible for someone else. Same applies to you. If you can’t see the spirit world, then you can’t understand Elder’s message and approach. But that doesn’t mean Elder’s approach won’t work for those who can see the spirit world.
(4) “You can afford to take a chance on marriage and spirituality-unlike a man you have everything to gain and nothing to lose, e.g., the kids, the house, future income.”
Clearly, my favorite argument, you assume that I’m a woman, because I like marriage and talk about the spirit world. Well, given that I’m a man, and your detection system can’t pick up on that, I’d say it’s time for you to trade that one in for something that’s way more effective?
Calling me a woman makes your entire argument fall apart, Denis. And it exposes what I’ve seen many times before – another so-called Marriage Strike supporter who has to scream insults and errors at the top of his lungs – as if he were trying to convince HIMSELF more than anyone else.
“(unlike gonzman and fourthwire I have no problem with providing personal insults.)”
Quoth the philosopher Crow, “If it makes you happy, it can’t be that bad. But if it makes you happy, then why the hell are you so sad?” Spiritual happiness looks the same, no matter what religioin or spiritual path the individual took to get there. But spiritual unhappiness takes many forms. Insults, and having “no problem using them” is proof of unhappiness and unrest, not peace.
As I’ll tell cons when I get back from work, the Marriage Strike is a mixture of highly ineffectiev, arrogant, collective approaches and highly effective, humble, individual ones. As such, it’ll only work when men purge the ineffective methods from the effective ones.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Isn’t it strange that we are told how much more spiritual women are then men, how much more devoted as worshipers, and how they must lead the family on spiritual matters? But remember, the family that prays together stays together….until it breaks up!
August 6th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
What a hoot!! Clearly the ability to be spiritual does not have staying power for over 50% of marriages. And since materially it is men who lose when the spirituality ends I’d say men are far less materialistic and far more generous-or as fourthwire might say STUPID. fourthwire made no personal attacks on anyone (unlike you)-he simply layed out the facts for the men. He gave men the cost/benefit analysis. Your ability at self-deception is impressive. gonzman simply ignored you because you are an idiot with another agenda. (unlike gonzman and fourthwire I have no problem with providing personal insults.) You can afford to take a chance on marriage and spirituality-unlike a man you have everything to gain and nothing to lose, e.g., the kids, the house, future income. It’s easy to be a woman in today’s Estrogen Paradise. Men HAVE to be on guard, and women like you want to repackage that idea and sell it as selfishness. Typical.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Mike (#8) said: “I certainly hope no reader here buys anything George is selling about the ancient world.”
Mike, it’s poetic license. Throwing in historical “information” makes his fairy tales sound more authentic.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
fourthwire – When you say, “Besides, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, marriage provides men with no benefits that are not also available to those men WITHOUT marriage. None. Zero. The Gonzman wrote a rather eloquent post about this point a couple of weeks ago.”
If Gonzman was secure and eloquent in his position, he would’ve answered the series of questions I asked him. Instead, he hid his ingorance with multiple insults, poor examples, and, finally, a clear evasion of my questions.
“marriage provides men with no benefits that are not also available to those men WITHOUT marriage.”
These comments remind me of those made by men that, “Men cannot possibly be friends with women, because they’ll always want to have sex with her.” The inability to be friends with women is an inability, a lack, a void, a demerit. It is not the highest word on the subject, because the lack of a skill can never speak as well about a subject as a skilled person can.
Similarly, people who believe that marriage provides no benefits that cannot be found outside of marriage, are expressing an inability to feel the unseen, spiritual world. They’re ardent materialists, who can accept nothing but materialistic arguments – often in the form of statistics and / or divorce cases.
(You’ll also note that the Gonzman bragged about his many houses, cars, and women – a true materialistic stance.)
Fourthwire, your inability to see the spirit world is noted, but don’t expect your inability to outweight anyone else’s ability.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
However positive, supportive, and uplifting marriage has been for men historically, it has become a crapshoot…… and quite an unnecessary one.
Marrying in America under the present legal framework is risky business indeed – for the extremely brave, trusting, and foolhardy among men.
And it plays into the hands of those women whose self-centeredness has made a mockery of the phrase “til death do us part”.
Would you put a revolver to your head with three loaded cylinders (out of six)? Those are roughly the odds that men face when they marry….. the odds of facing a divorce, with all of the emotional, financial, and other misery inherent to the process.
Marrying simply feeds the beast (or at least rings the dinner bell!). When enough women are tired of not being able to find marriagable men, they will clamor for changes….. and after enough failures to make those changes necessary to provide married men with equal reproductive, civil, criminal, and social rights, eventually they’ll get it right.
Alternatively, American society will be overtaken by other societies who DO protect men’s rights better…… at least well enough so that forming a family will not become fraught with danger.
I see no reason for men to sacrifice themselves by willfully placing themselves at risk through marriage.
Nothing would please the feminists and lawyers more than for men to continue to play Russian Roulette under the current gender apartheid laws in effect…….. not to mention those women who pressure men to marry, get control of his ATM card, then gradually take away his freedom and pleasures in life until he has become a virtual financial slave – modern-day Expendable Man.
Under the current laws in California and other states, a woman can cheat on her husband with his best friend RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM, call the police on a trumped-up false D.V. or rape allegation, have him arrested, thrown out of his own house, separated from his own children, forced to live on 13% of his takehome pay through vaginamony and child-support decrees, and driven to misery, madness, and suicide.
Can men change this state of affairs? You bet….. by refusing to marry until men’s rights are given the same legal protection as women’s rights.
And men who cannot wait for this state of affairs to exist are simply putting the revolver to their heads…… with three loaded cylinders.\
Besides, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, marriage provides men with no benefits that are not also available to those men WITHOUT marriage. None. Zero. The Gonzman wrote a rather eloquent post about this point a couple of weeks ago.
And if the current marriage boycott does not produce enough pressure, imagine when the coming male birth control pill greatly reduces yet another danger to Western men: the danger of reproductive rape.
Whenever I hear a woman bemoaning about “how it’s so hard to find a good man”, I invariably tell her why this state of affairs came about…… It’s generally an eye-opening conversation, to say the least.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Funny thing happened to me the other day…..I went into a store to buy something….it had a hefty price tag and I paid cash for it. I plopped down $800 in hundred bills down on the counter to pay. The woman selling me the product looked at me and said “Don’t throw money at me like that I am a woman.” The tone of voice was friendly and the comment was made in jest…..but only partly because when I responded ” I should be safe your wearing a wedding ring” She mumbled under her breath “Well your money isin’t safe.”
I just had to smile…..the funny thing is she thought I was smiling at her.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:37 am
George #2 said,
Oh, please.
I certainly hope no reader here buys anything George is selling about the ancient world.
The Greeks “tried city-states” because they were “feminine”? Holy crap, George. That really is a statement “founded” on abject ignorance.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:50 am
It is better that a man remain single, if he can.
However, a man needs a helper. A traditional woman is best.
Thanks for sharing your story veritas.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:36 am
To Veritas,
Do not expect women to make change. They will support men who have the courage to make change. Let’s not blame women for the mess we have. We did it and they are suffering because of it.
It’s time for men to make change. The name of the organization is Men’s Action. Take action and the women will support it.
Step up to the plate and the women will cheer.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Well put conservativation….
The groups that do not support marriage are already having there way with or without a marriage strike. What the marriage strike takes away is there funding.
Though we have all read the exception to the rule, a man cannot be held to support a child that is not his. On the same line, a man normally cannot be held to provide half or more of his assets if he does not marry.
Of course this is a tough choice for any man to make. His very soul compels him to seek these things (a mate and offspring). Its what were here for. Looking over the short list EG compiled is reason enough to let the whole house of cards crumble.
I believe as EG, and most others do. Everything starts with the family. We as a society; as a species, cannot function without it. Unfortunately, to restore the importance of the family in our society will take more than simply pleading and fighting with those who have created the current environment.
Though we don’t know it, we do hold all the cards. If the system doesn’t want to play fair with us. Then we simply don’t play.
MGTOW (Men Going There Own Way).
August 6th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Why meet with groups who have created this mess and have no understanding of the differences between those who have testis and teats? There is no way to convince that level of ignorance of anything relating to family.
Right on.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:58 am
A young women on the street approached me after seeing my..
SICK OF MALE BASHING IN THE MEDIA…MENSACTIVISM.ORG sticker!!
I gave her some facts…
suicide rates boys/girls
death span gap men/women
institutional false allegations in divorce phenomena
And what started as a hostile encounter turned quite interesting for her!!
I told her one of the reasons males aren’t commiting to marraige these days is they hear the horror stories of other males, and sense the anti-male bias all around them!!
I told her me not commiting is kinda like a marraige strike …and her eyes watered up!! as they should!!
Conserve is right..women need to come on board with reform..And I feel the most effective “WAKE UP CALL” is to point out to these women why the men are no longer getting hithched!!
August 6th, 2007 at 8:48 am
There was never balance in Western society. It was always femine oriented. That’s why the Greeks tried city-states.
You’re suggesting that we fix things. I’m suggesting that we start anew.
I relalize that as Solomon said there is nothing new under the Sun, but I am talking new for Western society. Men’s Action to Rebuild Sociey receved the motivation for its name form the book of Isaiah, which states, you shall rebuild on the old foundations, you will be known as the rebuilders.
The old foundation is patriarchy. Would you care to join the rebuilding project?
August 6th, 2007 at 8:32 am
This is one of those splitting hairs matters for me. We had a long discussion some time ago about “changing” women and men through positive and negative reinforcement, not that I delude myself into thinking I/we have such direct and immediate influence. But there is a law, I may consider it a natural condition, that when you make something available for free, as in government provides, the demand increases with the availability.
This presents a conundrum. Today’s American woman has available to her the force of the law to GET what she wants from men. This applies in marriage, work, and generally in all areas where the genders mix. Whether she uses it or not, it exists, and sits there on her shoulder speaking in whispers, “you needn’t take that from him, you can just call him on it, everyone knows men are _________, just claim X and smooth this wrinkle in your life”. That is where there mere existence of the onerous laws is problematic. While it may be futile to try and change the laws, it is I believe equally troubling and as unlikely to succeed to simply ignore them. They exist, therefore they will impact.
That is why I spend so much time regarding the church. It is a huge organization(s) that once actually served as a stop gap to the sludge of society creeping into families. In fact there exists no other organization at this moment with that potential.
So unless and until either the whole set of dominos falls over, or there are like minded people to be found in large groups everywhere, the marriage game not only carries risk, it is a greased skid to ruin.
The marriage strike is an attempt to influence women. As unlikely as that outcome seems, it is less likely to influence laws before those who benefit from the laws cry out so loudly that politicians cannot ignore it. I am not so enthusiastic about marriage strikes, but I am enthusiastic about anything that is a mass wake up call, and I haven’t seen a suggestion yet that carries the power to reset societal thinking without there being huge collateral damage.
People claim that fundamental thinking cannot be changed, especially in gender. But look at how feminist thought has evolved, and spread. That was fundamental thinking that was changed over time. Driving that paradigm out and back to a time when there was balance is needed. The government has been there carrying the water as the flawed thought developed. Either the thinking must reverse the government, or the government must stop supporting the thinking. Until then, we really do have a gender relations fundamental problem. That is not anti-woman. It is fact.