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!
George (#142) said: “The comments to Marriage is Natural have been enlightening. There is no support for marriage.”
Since your spirituality is meaningless, your spiritual marriage is meaningless. There is no support for meaninglessness.
Thurston861 you are an irrelevant windbag.
Well put veritas.
EG’s writings are nothing more than knowledge that every man already knows inside; but has had suppressed. He is simply the vehicle for releasing that inner knowledge.
No man is irreplaceable. EG knows this fact very well having served in the military. His message is no different than Cary Roberts. The difference however, EG has shown to have the patience to “hold our hands” through the journey were on.
Not every man needs EG’s writings to understand what it means to be a man. There are however, many of us that need that kick in the pants to wake us up. I think I can safely say that nearly all of us that frequent this site have several things in common.
We are all very confused, and very pissed about the lives were leading. We see that it is wrong but don’t know why, or how to fix or change it.
Christ, I feel like I’m reciting the entire “Fight Club” monologue.
I don’t need someone to tell me whether EG’s philosophy and message is right or wrong. The mirror tells me it is right.
I also no longer consider myself an MRA. I no longer need that label.
I’M A MAN AND THATS THE ONLY LABEL I NEED!
Thurston #144 – “And since Government allows Muslims from Africa to come into this Country with their 3 woves and 17 children and live in a 3 bedroom Apt. in Boorklyn,”
Is this for real? Can anyone confirm this claim? If true, it’s an outrage.
Mike:
Any way you can get a WordPress plugin that will limit the numbers of characters in a comment posting? Some of the “characters” who have posted here are sorely in need of such a limitation…
the truth is gentleman..Those that are manic about Elder georges message (de-railing) the fragile mens movement should look in the mirror and ask themselves ..how could a movement so just and humane be in any way shape or form hinging itself on one mans message??
If we were to take masculine effective action, we could make the mens movement so broad and powerfull as to drown out any singular mans action!!
Those that are manic need only look in the mirror and ask themselves what is the social fear thats keeping me from holding out massive signs like Ray Blumhorst, or many of the other effective actions A man can take when they loose the feminist implanted social fear!!
John Black – your attemtps at merely killing off the messenger, Elder, does nothing to bolter the emptiness of your reactionary-emotionalst position.
Guilt by association type of issues do not make you strong.
In this case you grasp for some substance but completely miss the reality covered in the prior exchange that terrorists are not needed to destroy this society. It has already done that to itself in destroying the Men.
After numerous exchanges showing men generally incapable of understanding conceptual ideas, the truth of Elder’s message IS, no matter how you perceive the bow to stern pitch. it is simple not going to go back to level. Also, most of the real estate on the front end is gone.
So what are you going to do?
I know that there are already many men re-inventing standards and rules for their lives in the face of the insanity. They know the old things do not matter. They know that Statist Marraige is like jumping on to the Titanic pitched at 90 degrees.
But they are going to find a different way to go. And since Government allows Muslims from Africa to come into this Country with their 3 woves and 17 children and live in a 3 bedroom Apt. in Boorklyn, White Men are going to rediscover Polygomist Patriarchy.
Some will not care for it, some will, but Patriarchy and Women are still needed in a fruitful action to Rebuild Society.
Lots of ironies going on in this thread, Mike. Lots and lots and lots.
I’ve met Elder George on multiple occasions, and have asked him many questions in hours-long dialogue over his work. My opinion of him is positive. Yet many other people haven’t put in 1% of the effort I have into understanding Elder and his message. And they justify their negative opinion of him with phony arguments like, ‘The more you investigate something, the less likely you are to understand it!” or “I’m so awesome, I don’t need to put in any effort!”
That’s ironic.
Or my favorite irony, one man is so concerned with proving to Elder that America isn’t a sadistic society that he says things like, “We’re too tolerant!” and strives to get Elder kicked off the site for saying that America is sadistic.
That’s ironic, too.
Judge men by their apporaches, not by their opinions. A man who bets on the Super Bowl, and wins by assassinating all three opposing quarterbacks the night before the game, isn’t said to know much about football.
To Mike post #125,
I appreciated your response, but it did not answer fourthwire’s question, but actually supported his position.
The comments to Marriage is Natural have been enlightening. There is no support for marriage. That’s why our political parties don’t put it in their platform.
Fourthwire’s views represent his generation and perhaps the majority of our nation.
Except of course for the few sycophants.
Mike, aren’t you worried that he is using your site to recruit “useful idiots” which will hang around and drive away people who are trying to have an honest and rational debate?
Mike, if you can make it the twice and a bit Marshall’s distance to Tasmania, I will hang around and ply you with Fosters ’til it comes out your ears.
Thurston861 I realize that Mr Elder is not the only culprit, but that does not exonerate him, or you for whitewashing him.
John you need to stop defining Federal Judges. They do not like people talking about them.
John Black – one of the advantages of our traditional system of open discourse is that people like George are not allowed to speak in a vacuum.
Instead – as evidenced by this very thread – George’s words (and that of his sycophantic followers) are held up for vigorous analysis and deconstruction.
George’s message is thus effectively cut down to size and ameliorated by the very democratic process he despises.
So, rather than thinking of his ideas as a virulent ideological virus, we might more rightly consider him a useful inoculant against the sly brand of anti-Westernism he espouses.
Kind of ironic, isn’t it?
Amfortas #134 – chilling.
BTW – I’m thinking about getting a short-term gig in the Marshall Islands sometime in the near future. That would point me in the general direction of Tasmania. Maybe we can have couple of cold Fosters one of these days.
Mike if you go to dictionary.com you’ll get more definitions of treason. Let’s not forget that Islam has declared war on the West. They promised to wipe Israel off of the map. They said their goal was to provoke a clash of civilizations. And Mr Elder is writing for the Islamic media, fanning the flames with lies about America. If that is not subversive, a violation of allegiance, and giving aid to the enemy, then I don’t know what is. It might or might not be legal, but even if legal, it is still reprehensible.
Note that sedition, closely related to treason, includes any writing that brings the constitution into contempt, etc. Calling it communist, fits that definition.
Here are some definitions from dictionary.com (I deleted some extraneous material).
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
—Synonyms 1. Treason, sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one’s country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one’s government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense. 2.
1. Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
1. a crime that undermines the offender’s government
2. disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
3. an act of deliberate betrayal [syn: treachery]
the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one’s country or of assisting its enemies in war; specifically : the act of levying war against the United States or adhering to or giving aid and comfort to its enemies by one who owes it allegiance
Mike LaSalle said, George – #121 – “I find it shocking that none of the married men on MND have stepped to the fore and explained why they got married.”
I married #1 because I loved her. She said she loved me but after 22 years and me having supported her and the children and paid for all her education right up to PhD, she changed her mind! Femonazis got to her. Her love had no staying power. The love I had lives still. Unconditionally.
I lost one of my children, probably forever. The grief is not tolerable. Such grief cannot leave the soul undamaged. The other is my best friend now he is a man and can see what happened. It took a long time and many tears before I could trust again. But foolishly I did. It took much effort.
I loved #2 and she said she loved me. 9 years later she changed her mind. She took me for everything, material and spiritual. It broke my heart. Destroyed it. It does not beat anymore. The love I had for her still lives, as promised. Unconditionally. It is not mine though. It comes through me, but no longer of me.
Women today talk but don’t walk the talk. I will not trust again. I will not love again. Should I be unfortunate enough to ‘fall in love’ again, I will kill myself rather than take the pain. The Gnome is a dead man walking. Hell holds no fear for me.
Some comedian said (#131): “The objections by infidel have been dealt with in the threads he’s talking about.”
That is complete baloney. Many were ignored, others “dealt with” ineptly.
…independent enough to form his/her own thoughts by doing your own personal research on what is really meant with yin/yang.
Bart,
The objections by infidel have been dealt with in the threads he’s talking about. The reason we’re still stuck, is because these metaphysics are a whole paradigm shift.
Basically EG has applied the well known yin/yang concept. Now this concept is very weird, cause we’re not talking about binaries (yin is never totally yin, but only more yin than yang, and yang is likewise), or absolutes: yin and yang do only exist ‘opposed’ to each other. The yin/yang symbol is symbolizing both these statements.
Yang corresponds to ‘masculine’, yin to ‘feminine’.
Left and right are a similar in this manner, they only exist relative to something. They’re navigators of which the ‘existance’ can be debated.
So proof is no issue here. You can accept it, and use it, or leave it.
The ‘right brain’-functions are more designed to understand this concept, than the verbal linearity of the ‘left brain’.
Other sources on the subject will give a better light. I trust everyone reading this comment to be independent enough to form his own thoughts. I just give you the ’seed’; I’m not telling you what to think.
Julie (#128). It was another Infidel, not me. However, now that I know about the site I’ll go check it out. Thanks.
Bart, EGism is a religious cult. Like any cult, the followers do not seriously question the leader. Weak-minded individuals are drawn to such organizations. This explains why his followers think his metaphysical fairy tales are profound when in fact they are just dumb. If I wanted to read something profound in philosophy I would read someone like Kant, rather than waste my time on a philosophical peanut like George.
What’s disturbing is how none of his followers respond to logic. Many flaws have been pointed out in George’s articles, yet his impervious followers pretty much deny them all. Most disturbing of all is that they don’t seem to be the least bit fazed about the articles George wrote that John Black exposed. But this is what to expect from a weak-minded cult.
Infidel,
I saw you comment on http://menz.org.nz/
Thanx for dropping in.
sc567 – “Very interesting way of characterizing MMX
:D”
Yeah, ain’t that the truth?
The opposite of the Men’s Movement i not the Women’s Movement, but rather Men’s Refusal to Move.
EG, I read the articles you wrote that were posted by John Black and I think you are part New Age liberal and part radical Muslim. You seem to blame everything on America and are silent about the evils perpetrated by Muslims. I think you know America, for the most part, is not the way you portrayed it in the articles above to your Muslim readers. “Sadistic” you called us.
George – #121 – “I find it shocking that none of the married men on MND have stepped to the fore and explained why they got married.”
I got married (in both cases) when my partner got pregnant.
I thought it was the right thing to do.
Also, when I got married to #2, it was because I was (and am) in love with her.
BTW – today is our 9th wedding anniversary.
Happy day, though personal circumstances have us separated by a few thousand miles at this exact moment.
I can’t wait to see her again in a few weeks.
Then it will be high time for some serious aniverserating….
…. a bonehead AND a windbag.
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.
Infidel – are you jealous that nobody will play with you? poor thing. By the way, Article 61 of the Magna Carta was the cause for action of the D.I. It was therefore a matter of Right. The 40 days had long expired by YEARS. This sever error might be why none will play.
veritas,- it is good to se that some men understand that doing the old thing is pure insanity by definition, and others understand that doing noting is not productive nor active.
John Black – yes a handful of Men did found Western Civilization for the Father Abream came from Ur of the Chaldes where Hamarabbi’s Code was the Rule of their law, but since they allowed a system of gods to be created to undermine the truth that men are made in G-D’s image, the law then allowed the King to kill Men without accountability.
Not being so enamoured with such a thing, the Talmud teaches that at the age of 10 he smashed all of the idols except the bigggest one and placed the hammer in its hands, telling his father that the biggest one won. Thus, the idol smasher. the iconoclast exposed the Law of the Jungle disguised in Hamarabbi’s Code and crushed the false law of the land.
Exile was immediate. The rest of the law subsequent in the Decalogue was acknowledged to be the Great Foundaion of our Law even over the seepage of the Roman Law into the laws of England once held by the Romans (and the French under Norman 1066, and the Vikings who it is said the Jury came from but we know that the Jury existed as the Seventy Elders of the Sanhedrin).
So yes. The law that preceded Rome which collapsed completely is Torah, and it has survived to the greater impact of Western Civilization over Roman Law. So YES, these Men are the founders…but how far have we strayed and when since then?
By the way, under Hebrew law the Man had no power of Death over his wife and children as the Man did under Roman Law. THere is further evidence of the resiliency of the Law delivered through the Patriarchs. Right to private property comes from the scene of Adam and Eve being case out of Eden and having to work the ground. So that is foundational to Civilization of Mankind.
By the way U.S.C. 1 states that the Declaration of Independence is the Organic Law of the Land. In the DI it explains that all Right of the People come from a Creator, thus Evolution is an affront to the Right of Life for an individual Man, and thus Evolution places none into any account for their governmental actions against the Rights of Man and is therefore TREASON, as it denies the Power and Authority for the fuction that all Law is supposed to serve and make the idea of Right into the False construct of Governmental Priviledge.
Glad you are not reading this since I am a Bonehead.
No doubt absurdity and hypocrisy knows no bounds in this society, Cons my friend.
Women want 100% of the Power and 0% of the responsiblity.
This is why children do not have Rights over Parents under the structure of the law. (Look familiar?) If women want zero responsibility, they should ahve diminished rights for diminished capacity.
This work is not about repairing Feminism, so all of the issues you raise cannot be assuaged. There is just no way. Such is fixing the unfixable.
But have you noticed on the extreme Women are still attracted to confident buttholes? Despite Feminism?
There are natural forces to be tapped, and one by one. like what Virtue did with that young lady, she can be convicted and lead into understanding, because she is uncomfortable with the situation, she does have questions and confusion, and who dared to explain it to her? A MAN, who would dare tell her the truth.
He has a friend for life, and so does she.
WE cannot heal patients that do not want help. So please drop the problems of Socety and Women that do not want help. Let’s instead talk about the women that know something is seriously wrong. Such Women know in their hearts they need men and know that the State does not represent their interests.
i.e. The resounding inspiration of my Heart, Bitch. She never took a guy to court for Alimony. She never took a guy to court for child support to put them behind the Eight Ball and get crushed by the Courts. She has worked for every penny outrageous hours sometimes two jobs to pay the bills for her mistakes.
WOW No Fault divorce without Custody and Support and alimony. That is True No Fault Eh?
This type of woman is the Diamond in the Rough that the Marriage Revolution needs in order to make the start to rebuilding society.
Why can’t we talk about her, and the young Lady Virtue talked to?
Why can’t we talk about such women as the ones willing to follow Men? Or do they not exist, that we need to find a way to convert the peices of sludge and Coal into Diamonds and get exaserbated by that?
These women are out there. They are waiting for Men to lead.
Why is Bitch Good? I would have to suppose one singular thing her mother and Grandmother re- enforced in her as a Child. YOU WILL RESPECT YOUR FATHER AND SPEAK TO HIM RESPECTFULLY AND LISTEN TO HIM EVEN THOUGH YOUR MOTHER DIVORCED HIM.
When she was 17 she moved from the N.E. to NC to be with her DAD. Her Mother, brother and Grandmoter were all three murdered in an Elevator by the Boyfriend of a Next Door Neighbor’s Child who wanted money. (Her Mom was a Model, it was a robbery by tripple homicide.)
Her Dad is all she has now. For the one thing taught and/or ingrained into her that I know of I am in awe of, is the way she treats Men, and thus everyone, and thus all sane people who meet her adore her. Black or White, and seems more White People love her than Black.
Her Dad lives across the street from her. He often calls her over to turn his bed down for him before he goes to sleep. Former Marine or Navy tough guy, should be retired but still works as a Civ Cont Supp. I understand he is a workaholic as she is, and he never liked her estrainged husband, but would never speak against him.
I have only talked to the Man twice, once professionally and the other time on personal things. I understand he is more and more asking if she has heard from me. She is beginning to notice a sense of concern and approval about a Man in her life, for the first time.
She loves her Dad. He loves his Daughter. He is tight with her third child (only OW), she says they are like two peas…
I feel like I have received a great benefit from their relationship because of the way she treats me. Her male customers keep coming back becasue she makes them feel like someone, a Black Woman who gives them Hope in their hearts becasue she is plesant and sincere, encouraging.
So, do these women exist? Or is this a delusion?
Why must we talk about the losers? They will never get it, just like the Deadbeat Welfare Moms who come into her store and hate her for her cloths, or hater her becasue she wears makeup, or hate her becasue her hair is traight, or hate her becasue she wears colored contacts, or hate her becasue she has a carreer, or hate her becasuse she works so hard, or hate her because she does not think anyone owes her anything…
The World is full of them. They are as equally entitled as the White Witches of the Middle class. Why must we talk of them?
Because men are still married to such diseased vaginas?
They have two choices A.) keep hiding the truth be wimpy and divorced when they find a strong man better than you; or; B) start living the truth and take your best shot.
When Benjamin Franklin created his Club, they focused on the Men in town, what they were doing, who was successful, what was the key to his success, and how could he be emulated in other industrious endeavours and recognized for his success.
Can we talk of Good Women here, or are we destined to talk forever about the women who are incorrigible and imputent?
As for the point about it being Man’s Fault. in some cases the Weak Man married an incorrigible women and the Daughter was not taught respect for her Dad to then have ZERO respect for herself to ever have respect for anyone else.
Certainly it takes two to raise a child properly. The devaluing of the Man could happen even if the Man is home. But guess what, a Man can be valued even if he is not.
This is Patriarchy. Even Church teaches Honoring Father G-D even though we cannot see him.
Someone got to Bitch’s mother, and I suspect it was her Monther’s Mother, who aided and abetted this re-enforcment of Patriarchy, the value of the Father, even when her Mother was out of town working.
Imagine that! A Woman can never be anything unless she first understands how a Man is to be Treated and Respected?
So Yes Cons, women can bear the burden too. But we here are Men, and Men must take action, and reward themselves with the presence and company of Women who value Men with ferocity and balance.
Other than that, there is nothing to talk about these BRW (Beyond Repair Women).
There is no reason to restrain such BRW, I am certain that Hell is no half full of them, so there is room for them.
I am equally certain that if True Men offer a proper healthy and natural option to the false construct of this Society which tells woman to go out and get a Prisoner, that the Women who follow the Man who gives them this peaceful and fulfilling option will be respecting that Man. Yes, and following him too.
Are women responsible for their selection of the singular perverted option sold to themn by Media, Church, and Mother, becasue there is no Father to show them what is Right?
Is anyone responsible for not accepting a Gospel that has never ever been told to them in their language?
What is facinating is that Virtue told the Woman of a gospel that convicted her heart showing her that she had been following a path that was contrary to unspoken convictions of her own heart. I am willing to bet that her understanding of what is wrong for her in her heart is understood by her to be wrong, and is understood as painful to her essence when she violates the things she knows are Right.
Women of conscience, character, and conviction.
They need to be found.
To fourthwire post #107,
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.
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. It can’t be done. Virtue is its own reward. I can’t pour my value structure into you.
I wanted to get married as a young man and I got all the things I had hoped for. I also got a divorce after 25 years, which I hadn’t planned on but I have not regrets. If you ask me would I do it again the answer is yes. Even now.
Aside from having an inner desire to get married, I also felt it was my obligation towards the propagation and preservation of the species. It was for that reason that I volunteered for two years of active duty with the Navy.
Speaking of being in the military, men do not readily die for money; they die for principles. We are programming our soldiers to hate in order to get them to fight in Iraq, and then they come home and kill their wives and themselves. We did that in Vietnam too. The psychiatric wards in our VA hospitals are filled with Vietnam vets, and they have been for the last 30 years.
If this were a patriarchal society you wouldn’t be asking these questions, you would have been taught your responsibilities, and yes, so would the women.
I’m sure what I have just written will not satisfy you; if someone else can do better I ask them to do so.
Fourthwire, until you decide to look at marriage differently from a subjective level there is little else that I can contribute. I wish you well and hope that you get a change of heart.
Mike, can you give MMX and Cons a separate room to talk in?
“addition by subtraction”
Very interesting way of characterizing MMX
:D
On a side note, I’m amazed another certain indifideal hasn’t made attempts to share his vision lately :S:S
I’m all ear, and since I understand to have no critical mind, I might be a very very easy start.
There are three types of ideas.
If an idea proposes change, it’s part of the solution if it produces positive change. But if it produces negative change, it’s part of the problem.
However, if an idea proposes zero change by making no demands for change on anyone, then can’t possibly be a part of the solution! As such, it’s part of the problem.
Jack Black – “I don’t care one whit what you say MMX. You defend Mr Elder regardless of how absurd his statements are. You are a windbag with no mind of your own. That makes you an Islamo-fascist sympathizer as well. So go jump in a lake.”
Arguments aren’t won or lost by characterizing your opponent. They’re won by proposing positive change. Thus, how does your assessment of Elder George produce positive change?
Now, I don’t mean addition by subtraction. I mean, “What is your solution?” and “Did you need to knock down either myself or Elder George to propose your solution to us?”
cons – “How can we read articles and toss about statistics regarding women and domestic violence? They are not responsible ultimately.”
Well, how do those articles make the woman less likely to hit again? How do they make the man less likely to be hit? And how do they educate us so that we, as men, can either stay away from women who hit or become men who do not inspire women to hit us?
They don’t! do any of the above! They’re autopsy procedures. They only discuss victims, without providing solutions. Since we’re men of action, only solutions matter to us.
” How can we sympathize with any mans individual case where he has been financially fleeced, or may even be looking at jail time as an after effect of divorce and maybe a false accusation? It could not be her fault for filing false charges…after all had she been adequately led it never would have happened.”
How effectvie is our sympathy? Does it alter his plight one iota? Does it either reduce his jail sentence, give him more money, provide him with better job opportunities, punish the woman, or influence judges to intervene on mens’ behalf? It doesn’t do any of that!
Heck, the only part of that statement which has the potential to change the world is, “If she had been adequately led, it would never have happened.” A man can read this, possibly learn what adequate leadership is, and then reduce his risk of replicating the poor man’s plight.
“Why do I fear that lurking under almost every MRM platform is another rewrite of Blame The Males Manifesto?”
Do you want me to guess?
I can guess, if you’d like. Heck, it’d be nasty and probably right, because it’s my gift for seeing the invisible assumptions that inform peoples’ emotions.
Still, it’d only be a guess.
So, if yes, let Elder know, and I’ll pass on my guess through our collective email address. If no, no worries. You’ve taught me when to keep my mouth shut, so the least I can do is keep my mouth shut if you want me to.
Virtue (#99) said: “By the way do you guys get paid for each witch you find?”
Virtue, do you get paid each time you kiss George’s backside?
fourthwire – “MMX, I flat-out do not believe your statements that you are a man. I truly believe that you’re a liar (no offense intended!) and quite frankly am not concerned about “detracting from my position”.
Yes, I see that. In fact, it’s to the point that you cannot recognize an apology and respond to it civilly. In fact, you only ignored it and continued to push your point. When people lose touch with their civility, it doesn’t matter how awesome their arguments may be, because there’s going to be a needless war – needless because it could’ve been prevented if only one, or both, sides hadn’t lost their civility.
“In my last post, I meant to include a challenge to you: to name ONE significant benefit of marriage to American men that is not already available to those men without the legal, financial, and other risks inherent to marriage today.”
When people lose touch with their civility, all of their challenges are presnted as “Heads I win; Tails you lose.” The only way to win is not to play.
I already know how Elder will respond to your challenge. And I already know how you’ll respond to Elder’s response. Nothing for me to do now, besides grab some popcorn and watch the re-runs. (Though if one, or both, of you prove me wrong, I’ll openly apologize for that remark, too.)
MMX, yes it settles everything. It settles everything I’ve been saying anyway. What you stated is all I was looking for. I didn’t need a “but then what”, just the admission that they made choices.
As to the poison example, if she KNOWS it is poison and east it, it is her fault she dies. I am referring to her making choices about KNOWN things, not hidden dangers. If I sat a table with 10 plates and told 10 women that 5 plates were poison, the ones who sat and ate because the dish was chocolate and she “cannot resist” are 10000% responsible for death by poison. That’s the correct analogy, sort of, but not exactly because it only harms her. The poison we talk of harms everyone, but SHE makes the choice to eat it.
Some simpleton in #105 said: “That makes every one of our Founding Fathers guilty of Treason … ”
Of course it was treason — against the King of England! And he deserved it and they set up a better system. Are you saying America today deserves it and George has something better?
cons – “The contradiction is, we are being told men can and must control base nature…fine, but simultaneously saying that women cannot and shouldn’t be expected to. That is a contradiction, making men responsible for the womans allowance of character flaws to manifest. IT IS HER CHOICE in the end.”
Sure, it’s her choice, but does that settle everything? Is that observation the very last one that can be made?
Women, (and men!) right now, have unprecedented freedom to choose many different types of relationships, because the social pressure to punish bad choices is very low. But the problem is that maybe 90% of relationships are either non-existant or render one or both parties severely unhappy.
My viewpoint is this. If you give women unlimited freedom to choose what to eat for dinner, but 90% of the meals are poisonous, is it really women’s fault that so many of them die right away?
On a large scale, social level, the game is over. It cannot be fixed. Women, en masse, cannot be saved. But on a small scale, personal level, the game has just begun. Give women unlimited freedom to choose you, and present dishes such that 100% of them are non-poisonous.
If she stays with you, she’ll love the fact that she can eat freely without dying. And if she leaves you, presume that she’ll eat someone else’s poisoned plate and be done with it.
“MMX, still don’t understand the need to respond to my post.”
Cause I like you, and I’m here to help. Hopefully, it’s helpful.
must men just sit paralysed while the femi-nazi destroy America??
MMX wrote:
“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.”
MMX, I flat-out do not believe your statements that you are a man.
I truly believe that you’re a liar (no offense intended!) and quite frankly am not concerned about “detracting from my position”.
To paraphrase: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and tastes like a duck, then odds are that it’s a duck.
MMX wrote:
“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.”
I understand your argument and am not at all offended by your posts.
A forum like MND has to include a wide variety of opinions and perspectives.
And I agree that not everyone participating in the marriage boycott are doing so for the same reasons as you pointed out.
That particular reality does not concern me, nor do I feel a pressing need to “classify” participants in the marriage boycott according to their reasons for participating, either.
The semantics of a “marriage boycott” are less relevant to me than those are to you.
What is important to me involves the fact that fewer and fewer men are putting themselves needlessly in harm’s way by marrying under the present legal conditions.
MMX wrote:
“These risks disappear when a man “marries in spirit but not in state”.”
Not true at all….. as too many men have discovered to their dismay. In fact quite a few states have made cohabitation as financially and legally risky for men as marriage is.
In fact, even fathering children, accidentally or purposefully carries risks for men.
As for “marriage in spirit” are concerned, that’s relevant to those individuals who have left the living, at least until one is allowed to pay vaginamony “in spirit”, for example.
MMX wrote:
“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”.”
Consider it done, and thank you for your kind words, MMX.
I consider the marriage boycott to be “effective” when enough men refuse to marry that both men AND women pressure our courts and legislatures for changes that safeguard, protect, and provide men with the same rights to be in their families as women have rights to participate in the workplace. I thank Dave Usher for that particular perspective.
Thurston post # 95 … No need to be sad for me, nor to find “solutions”. I have already found my solution. I am happy single. But thanks for your thoughts.
How can we read articles and toss about statistics regarding women and domestic violence? They are not responsible ultimately. How can we sympathize with any mans individual case where he has been financially fleeced, or may even be looking at jail time as an after effect of divorce and maybe a false accusation? It could not be her fault for filing false charges…after all had she been adequately led it never would have happened.
Why do I fear that lurking under almost every MRM platform is another rewrite of Blame The Males Manifesto?
There is blame enough to go around and I am sorely disappointed that there exists on one extreme an over inflated view of a man’s influence on micro decisions, and in another case so little recognition of basic female cognizance.
I dare express pessimism about a group of people who, by increasingly belittling themselves and their forefathers, hope to bring about change in humanity. I’m aware of no group or movement that ever succeeded in leading without those who agreed to be led being convinced, actively engaged and changed, to choose to follow.
It is a profound spiritual truth that A.) you cannot change one thing about someone else and B.) you can only change yourself.
But by changing yourself, (refer to A. again) you still cannot change someone else.
They must change, actively, consciously, and willingly.
Give me an example of person 1 changing person 2 solely by person one changing, and without person 2 choosing to change.
Another question, under the leadership of men, if women suddenly were following along exactly as you envision, would they get credit for that choice? Would we be complimentary of these women? We shouldn’t be according to this “women as hapless and lacking self control” model. Does man get the glory for her positives since he takes blame fro her negatives?
You cannot say that women are in the mess they are in due to men at not their choices, and then support any accountability for women thereafter for any horrible crime or behavior whatsoever. Either they make choices or they don’t.
I said I would not get into point by point, but this is extremely frustrating and demoralizing to know that no matter how I may be wronged in life by a woman or women, it is really my fault for not leading. Call me weak, blind, un-spiritual, narrow minded, myopic, thick, Neanderthal, but I gotta see more then the simple arithmetic Man=Bad, Woman=Whatever Man Leads Her to.
To EG:
In my last post, I meant to include a challenge to you: to name ONE significant benefit of marriage to American men that is not already available to those men without the legal, financial, and other risks inherent to marriage today.
Mind you, marriage benefits children and women, but it has no benefits for men that are not already available without increasing the risk levels to those men.
And mind you, I’ve asked that question to a wide variety of men and women. So far, the best answer that I’ve received so far involve tax breaks for married couples.
Invariably, when I point out to the individual to whom I pose the question that the purpose behind tax breaks is to save the couple’s wealth (including the husband’s). Then I ask that individual just how many men SAVED WEALTH by marrying……… and at that point he or she realizes just how poorly they considered their first reply!
Founding Fathers…..Patriarchy…..Starting to Think that EG is really on to something.
Mr LaSalle
That makes every one of our Founding Fathers guilty of Treason……It makes the Second ammendment and the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights Treasonous.
Infidel wrote:
“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.”
Infidel, you are spot-on….. but I generally always tease those individuals who lack basic intellectual integrity (or spin-doctoring, if you will) as being “stupid”. In order to avoid appearing to be as dimwitted as I claim them to be, they invariably show more of their cards. Consider it to be my own means of flushing rats out of hiding……. and I’ve had plenty of practice in this and other forums.
No doubt MMX is not a complete moron……. she’s much more likely to be simply ignorant, openly or covertly happy with gender apartheid and intellectually “slimy”.
It’s all fine and good Thurston that someone must lead the dance. Guess what; there must be someone to be lead, a follower, a person who CHOOSES to be lead. All this talk of leadership and leading with no acknowledgement of the other’s choice to follow (or not) is nonsense in its most basic form.
Name the greatest leader of all time, in your opinion. Did that leader literally pull the puppet strings on the followers or did they, through leadership, demonstrate to the followers that it was beneficial to follow the leader? No matter how close you can slice this to there being zero responsibility on the part of the follower, it is an asymptote….it can approach zero but never reach it!
Someone please tell me is it the case that a woman will follow a man, but not CHOOSE to do so, rather she will be so mesmerized by him as to not be able to help herself. Similarly, she is so mesmerized by what the state is offering she cannot help but accept it and it is incumbent on man to intervene.
I rather think the current crop of entitlement women that Rudolv writes of are superior to these mindless impressionable automatons that inhabit a world with no accountability. In this world they could literally do ANYTHING and it is mans fault for not leading.
So how do you stand on Andrea Yates? How can it anger you that the fems want to blame the husband when you are advocating exactly that here?
There is a major disconnect here. In the world I envision you describing, perhaps it would be best not to marry, but rather to restrain women with straight jackets and muzzle them, lest their uncontrolled nature at no fault of their own get them in a problem. (SARCASM) Maybe men should be fined and jailed as their spouses break laws. Geez, absurdity knows no bounds.
And the spin-doctors (#99) try to make it sound like it’s just a “witch hunt”. Yeah right.
To EG: Regarding your post #20
“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.”
The marriage boycott (more apt than “marriage strike”) serves dual purposes:
1. It helps those men who participate in it to avoid being financially, legally, and emotionally raped by women and our nation’s “justice” system.
2. It does indeed pressure women to change. Women can indeed change if and when it suits them to do so. They might not WANT to change, but when change clearly suits THEIR interests, they can and do change…… just as men do.
From EG: “We are not adapting to the current situation, or at least many of us aren’t.”
That’s the point of the marriage boycott – it’s men adapting to the current risks inherent to marrying in America. And although men have been conditioned in decades past to seek wives, this conditioning is petering out…… which helps to explain the falling marriage rate in Western nations.
Feminazis like to claim that the falling marriage rate reflects career-women’s choices to remain unmarried…… ignoring the point that many of those same individuals cannot find men willing to marry them!
From EG:
“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.”
I disagree. And feminazis, claiming to act on behalf of America’s women ARE “running things” as related to marriage (which helps to explain why men are regularly financially and legally raped through divorce!). The government is indeed a major part of the myriad of risks inherent to marriage today, but please note that the politicians and judges have institutionalized misandry-laden legislation and court rulings to please women. And when more women cannot marry because it has become too risk-laden for men, those women will not be pleased…….. and will indeed clamor for “changes”. If the MRM is on the ball, then men’s groups will have a “shopping list” of changes to provide, lobby for, and endorse.
EG wrote: “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.”
Well, George, hate to be the first to break the news to you but we ALL die “alone”. But I understand the point that you’re trying to make…… enough to remind you that roughly 50% of men will die “alone” without “a loving wife to attend to your needs” because their wives divorced them, often taking the cars, house, children, bank accounts, most of his savings and more. Marriage IN NO WAY ensures that a loving wife is by one’s side when he dies! And that point doesn’t even address the point that in a minority of cases husbands outlive their wives.
And no, I do not want to father children, but even if I did want to father children, I would be cognizant of the fact that a wife could easily separate me from any such children (as regularly happens in America)….. without any effective means to redress such a separation.
EG wrote: “Life without marriage and family is hell on earth.”
Really? Who told you that? In fact, life without marriage and family is rather pleasant, since I cannot easily be blackmailed, coerced, or led in the legal-chute-from-Hell for slaughter at the hands of a “loving” wife and this nation’s family court system.
I can have sex with whom I please, enjoy those hobbies that I have, build my financial wealth, live where and how I please and more…… WITHOUT interference or coercion from any woman.
Perhaps that’s your idea of “Hell”, but it certainly beats playing “Russian Roulette” with three loaded cylinders.
EG wrote:
“I realize what we have is unnatural, and we must work to find a solution for ourselves. A marriage strike will not do it.”
I have no objections to finding alternative solutions to the “hostile home” (as opposed to the “hostile workplace”, but until feasible solutions for change come about, I (and growing numbers of other men) will choose to delay marrying (or avoid it outright).
If Western societies refuse to consider men as more than expendable financial slaves, then I don’t particularly care if those Western societies are replaced by societies who value men (and hopefully women and children as well!).