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.
Possibly related posts...
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!
Dear George,
1. “The Wesrern World has always been feminine” Well, let me tell ya, George, Caesar’s 10th Legion wasn’t big on sensitivity, nurturing and caring. The Mediaeval world did venerate the mother of Jesus with some of the greatest buildings ever created but it was men who had the power. Anditto for the period from 1450-1850. I would like to do some research that wasn’t peropganda for either side to see what it was that started this terrible, terrible mess.
2. Does anyone else remember the panic that hit American women in the 80’s when the study came out that said that large numbers of Baby Boomer women would never marry because there would not be enough men? All hell broke loose.
And now you don’t have to go very far to find those angry, once oh-so-confident
men-hating feminist women living out their lives alone and with the rest of “the
girls”.
And has anyone ever seen a book entitled “How to Get a Wife”?
Women need marriage for their biological fulfillment. The delusion that a woman can raise a child on her own is nonsense and the rarity of it happening only proves the rule.
The problem now is how to make it worth men’s while to get married.
And I find it very interesting that in 159 posts, I have not seen the word “lesbian” or heard the effect of the intusion of homosexuality into our marital system. Does everyone think that “The Sisterhood” didn’t do anything to Male-female relationships? Lesbian woman and heterosexual men are sexual competitors, remember?
John Dias (#158), if MMX had not been twisting my arguments and putting words in my mouth, I can assure you I would have needed far fewer posts. Maybe there ought to be a rule against twisting things and blowing smoke, but policing that is more work for Mike.
Conservativation wrote (in 154):
But that gives me carpal tunnel syndrome. And besides, all these words go into a database, inflating its size, and causing Mike to get overcharged on his ridiculous $400/month hosting fee. Maybe if we could stop being such chatterboxes and say what we think with finality, Mike would be paying $8/month for hosting (what I pay for my Web host). Lastly, and seriously, WordPress is just a bad platform for long and unthreaded comment wars like this. It does get excessive, especially when MMX and infidel come to the party.
Thurston861 said: “John Black, you have no idea how much I am involved in shaping the future.”
Thurston861, I couldn’t give a hoot. Anyone could say that.
Yes Mike re: #147. Bill O’Reiley was quite outraged when like 5 of those kids died in an apartment fire this past winter. It was national news. Even the lay out of the apartment.
John Black, you have no idea how much I am involved in shaping the future. Those in the past who called me irrelevant are now either gone from the scene or are not speaking my position from 8 years ago.
Fourthwire – are you still here? I thought you were happy with your choice?
Cons – we can dirg and lament, or we can start talking about how to spot good character adn natured women. Marriage is certainly the trap for the shrews, but we do not need to talk about them as mush as how to spot the gems in the rough.
MMX- remember, there are people who make things happen, people who watch things happen, and people who wonder WHAT HAPPENED?!
Here we will see Men who will fit all of those categories, and in facing events they will prove their worth, not by what happened as much as… are they a Man who is going to make a solution for his life, or is he a man who wants you to come up with the solution and do all the work for him as well.
Now please excuse me I have to go cry now because John Black is a meanie.
Yeah! Right!
Elder’s last few words of this article are: “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.”
fourthwire – Given your post #152, is it safe to conclude that you won’t be joining Men’s Action, since you have no intention of bolstering marriage?
Thurston, I’m not using my contentions here to justify action or inaction. I’m not using them to cast negativity, pessimism, or futility on efforts. In fact I’m not using them at all except, since you (and I agree) like to quote The Art of War, and “know your enemy” it is important to see what I am saying. Not that women are the enemy, but knowing one’s enemy means tactics, rationale, plans, predictions, behaviors, motivations, etc. Metaphorically, to go into battle believing that men must fight themselves and that the opposition, be it people or concepts, has no WILL, and therefore care not what the will is would be foolhardy. Believing, to use EG’s terminology, that the enemy will be purely receptive is naïve. He never said that and I do not believe he thinks that.
Broad brush and big picture is great. It is interesting, illustrative, and telling. But where sword meets sword it looks different than in the landscape painting, and there are others wielding swords who do not wish to be cut down, and how.
Ignore them at your peril.
John Diaz, suggestion, scroll down, the words pass by more quickly.
Infidel you are a funny guy, keep doing what you are doing man.
MMX, sure send me an email and analyze me. Don’t count on accuracy but it could be fun.
Thurston wrote:
“KRS and fourtwire, so good to know you will not be participating. FW you have made it clear that you are the one quite happy with gender aparteid.”
Thurston, try not to be a moron if you can possibly help it. I realize that I’m asking for quite a bit there….. but humor me and at least try.
And since you’re obviously ignorant about the nature of the term “gender apartheid”, so please feel free to ask someone a bit brighter than you are and more patient than I am for a bit of assistance.
To EG (post #121):
EG wrote: “Your candidness is appreciated and I have done my best to answer your questions. I find it shocking that none of the married men on MND have stepped to the fore and explained why they got married.”
George, you deserve no less than a candid reply if for no other reason than you apparently sincerely believe your own words. And I know that you have done your best to answer my questions…… and yet you have not come up with a reasonably satisfactory reply regarding which benefits marriage provides for men that are not already available without the risks inherent to marriage for men.
Having other men explain why they got married would NOT necessarily answer that question, by the way. Those men may have married for good reasons or for bad ones, but beyond a doubt, they married without receiving any benefits whatsoever that were not available to them WITHOUT marriage.
EG wrote: “You’re asking for a material benefit for marriage just as the West is always looking for a material representation and proof of a spiritual truth. ”
George, having a government-enforceable means of regulating marriage and divorce that invariably works out to a woman’s favor under the present legal system neither requires spirituality, nor does it prevent spirituality.
In fact I challenge you to provide one iota of evidence (or better yet, PROOF!) that the act of remaining unmarried precludes spirituality. Marriage does not guarantee spirituality, or even necessarily encourage it.
EG wrote: “Virtue is its own reward. I can’t pour my value structure into you.”
Marriage and virtue are unrelated concepts. And I don’t ask you for your value structure – I have developed my own value structure, thank you.
And I might add that while I’m challenging you regarding the benefits of marriage for men, you have written quite a few points that I DO agree with.
And now that I know just a bit about your background, I can assure you that we have quite a bit in common – but that’s another discussion entirely.
EG wrote: “Aside from having an inner desire to get married, I also felt it was my obligation towards the propagation and preservation of the species.”
I…. and growing numbers of other men do not share your inner desire to get married. And with a world population above 6 billion and still climbing, I would suggest that increasing the population does not necessarily equate to preservation of the species.
EG wrote: “I’m sure what I have just written will not satisfy you; if someone else can do better I ask them to do so.”
George, I thank you for your reply and for attempting to answer my questions.
And I would point out that your values seem to be at least partly driven by your beliefs – beliefs that I do not always share. Please don’t take that personally – when I read those of your points that I agree with, I usually make no comment whatsoever.
EG wrote: “Fourthwire, until you decide to look at marriage differently from a subjective level there is little else that I can contribute. ”
But George, I have done my dead-level best to consider marriage OBJECTIVELY, NOT SUBJECTIVELY. Managing risks and benefits in one’s life DEPENDS upon objective analysis, after all.
…149…150…attack the message, not the messenger…
—–
#148 ggreen67
Thanks very much from me for such a clear description!
Everyone who has read it just roughly, read it again!