From the SpearheadFilesFebruary 14, 2010
In the terminology of the Venusian arts aka "Game," the acronym AFC, stands for Average Frustrated Chump. This article deals with an even sadder specimen of the male species – the
Average Married Chump.
![http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif]()
Disclaimer: This article is intended for those of us suckers, fools, naive idiots and morons that either got married before we knew better (such as myself), or are dumb enough to sign on the dotted line for Marriage 2.0. despite knowing better. Yes, we get it, all you MGTOW-ers and PUA-ers – getting into Marriage 2.0 with a Western Woman is dumb, crazy and foolhardy. Better to go your own way and avoid women altogether…or just game the young sluts or crazy cougars for commitment free, protected sex. Believe me…we get it.
Nevertheless, there are men that have or intend to get married. This column is intended for those of us that are crazy and foolhardy enough to think we can actually marry a Western woman and and have children to create a family – and not be emasculated, pussy-whipped, cheated on, cuckolded, divorced and ass-raped with vagina-mony and child support judgments in our Soviet-styled family court system. In fact this article is actually about how a married man under today’s marriage 2.0 regime can actually do his own part to avoid all of the pitfalls and dangers of today’s divorce – child support racket.
I write this disclaimer, simply because I’ve observed numerous discussions of marriage in the “man-o-sphere” invariably always have a chorus of MGTOW-ers and PUA-ers that always have to weigh in with their “you married guys are idiots” or ” it’s best to avoid marriage all together.”
Thanks guys…we already know. We still have to deal with our own realities, and telling us over and over again how stupid or foolish we are may make yourself feel better about yourself and the path you chose to follow…but it doesn’t actually help those of us that are already married or who intend to get married and have children in the future.![http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif]()
Most of us already know what
Marriage 2.0 means. Most
Spearhead readers know about the history of the feminist movement and it’s deliberate and destructive unleashing of the demons of unrestrained female sexuality upon society. They actively subverted and corrupted Marriage 1.0 – the institution of Patriarchy – to deliberately destroy the foundation for civilized society, so as to build a Brave New World Order based on the illusion of “gender equality.” That, of course, was merely the mechanism to inculcate a sense of victim-hood into women so that they would rebel against the gender roles that were clearly defined under Marriage 1.0, and forgo getting married at a young age when they are most fertile, so that the likelihood of having multiple children in stable homes with a Father as the primary authority figure in that home, would become a near obsolete anachronism. The proof is in the pudding – the Demographic decline of the West is a fact, and proves that the real goal of feminism was and is all about population control.
By taking up the mantle of Patriarch, and having a successful marriage with multiple children -- while increasingly dangerous to men and their children under the current feminist regime -- is in fact a blow to those that seek to prevent the formation of stable, male-headed nuclear families in the first place.
So what can you, as a man, do, to become that Patriarch whose wife and children love and respect?
While it is a complex issue – and there are so many variables at play, it is impossible to ensure ONE CORRECT way to make a marriage in today’s feminazi-fucked world work, there are a number of things you can do to at least lessen the odds as much as possible.
To start with, there are a few things that all men who are contemplating marriage need to consider:
The Principle Feature of Female Sexuality is HypergamyUnless you understand this principle fully and completely, you
will have trouble in your marriage.
To put it succinctly – the key to surviving — and indeed, even thriving — in marriage 2.0, is to behave and conduct yourself as if you were in marriage 1.0…the old school definition. You
must"wear the pants." You
must be the literal and figurative Head of your household. If you cannot do this, than marriage in today's Brave New World Order is not for you. You should indeed go your own way or confine yourself to gaming women for short term relationships with no commitment implied or given.
Remember: NO woman respects a man she can rule. Any man she can rule, is a man she will have contempt for. Any man she has contempt for, she simply cannot lust. And if she doesn’t lust you, she certainly will not “love” you.
To put it even simpler than that, you need to understand the key to a successful marriage is establishing and maintaining a relationship based on the reality of her hypergamous instincts. The first thing you must do to ensure success, is of course to choose the “right” woman.
So what are the qualities of the “right” woman? After all, we men of
The Spearhead, hold a special scorn for women that continually make the empty claim “Not all women are like that!”
In terms of morality, attitudes and behavior, indeed, not all women are “like that.” There are women who have been raised in an environment that makes it far more likely she will have the self-control, maturity and awareness to accept your leadership role to make sure you have a successful marriage.
In short…here are the characteristics that make a successful marriage with a Western Woman more likely -
*
Was she was raised in an intact, happy nuclear family?This is perhaps THE most important prerequisite you should have in assessing whether or not the great risks involved with marriage in today’s society are worth taking on with any particular woman. In many ways, we human beings develop the same attitudes, behaviors, habits and ethics of the people who raise us. From childhood, we are given a template of life that we both consciously and subconsciously follow. Women from a broken home were raised within that template. When a woman comes from a broken home and raised by a single mother, she will internalize the same attitudes and behaviors of her mother, the same attitudes that broke her own mother’s home up greatly increases the chances that she will break up your own home that you try to make with her as well. This is especially true if she comes from a broken home for which the mother places all of the blame for the breakup of the marriage on the ex-husband/father.
*
Does she have a positive, respectful relationship with her Father?Take careful note of any prospective wife’s relationship with her father (the guy she considers as the primary male that raised her..not necessarily her bio-dad). Does she respect him? Is he an authority figure to her that she admires, and will listen and follow his advice? If she doesn’t respect the male authority of the home she was raised in, she’s not going to respect your attempts at exercising male authority in your home either.
*
Is she is younger than you?This one factor really gives a man a “head-start” in establishing a relationship of proper balance – one in which the man and the woman fulfill their complementary gender roles. It also increases the likelihood that she is either a virgin or relatively inexperienced. By virtue of your older age, you will hopefully have accomplishments, achievements and experience that she will admire and respect. She will be “looking up to you” from the very beginning. That’s a much easier place to maintain your “up” status if your relationship is founded on that to begin with. Besides, if your goal is to have multiple children, it doesn’t make sense to marry an older woman. How many kids did Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore have again?
*
Does she have a sense of moral awareness and justice?Observe her attitudes and beliefs when she is presented with scenarios, dramatized performances or real life examples of the issues that are directly related to marital success. What is her opinion of a friend that she knows is cheating? Does she condone, excuse or justifies her friends or family members doing things like cuckolding, cheating, or divorcing? What are her opinions of movie stars, rock or pop stars and other celebrities that engage in all sorts of marriage destroying behaviors? Does she hold men and women equally accountable? Does she think it was perfectly alright for Tiger Woods wife to hit him with a golf club? Take stock of all the examples that show her attitude when they present themselves. All of the attitudes she expresses that adhere to what feminist society would consider ‘politically correct’ are bright, red flags.
Ignore them at your own risk.
*
What are her life goals? Does she understand the realities of her own biological clock and the opportunity costs of pursuing the education/career track versus having children?Listen to what she says are her primary goals in life. Is she following the feminist script of education-career- then maybe a kid or two onto the road of fulfillment and
"having it all" as a supermom? Or is she perfectly content to stay home and raise children? Will she support you in your own career goals? Will she complement your own life’s mission goals…or is she determined to set her own goals (which inevitably end up competing with yours, not complementing them.)
*
How does she manage money and credit?Is she a compulsive shopper? Does she consider shopping to be a primary form of entertainment? Most importantly…does she have credit card debt? If she finances her compulsive clothes shopping with credit cards that she never pays off in full, she will be dragging you into
debt slavery right along with her after the wedding. Oftentimes, the “experts” will cite “money troubles” as the leading factor in a marriage breaking up. In politically incorrect terms, this usually means she spends more than they can pay off, and she resents him for failing to “provide.”
![http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif]()
Now, let’s just say you think you’ve found “the one” who fits the bill. A woman that is least likely to give you the gift of a broken home, child support/vagina-mony mandated slavery and alienated children. You go ahead and get married.
While the previous list of characteristics are definitely founded on the principle that “not all women are like that,” after all, not all women are raging sluts living the feminist dictated lifestyle, it is after marriage, when you settle down into a routine of daily living with each other, that in fact you will find out that ALL women ARE indeed just like that.
Lose her respect, let her take the role of authority in the house, and you’ll see how ALL women are driven by their hypergamous instincts. While she may be in fact a woman who steadfastly doesn’t believe in divorce…who takes her vows seriously (probably because of a religious belief), perhaps she won’t divorce you — but eventually you’ll wish she did. Her contempt for you and your emasculated state will absolutely pollute your home environment. Her disrespect for you will infect your children, poison the atmosphere and you will end up with what is commonly known as a “dysfunctional” family.
How do you avoid this? Here’s a list of bullet points to consider:
- Strive to lead your home on solid moral principles, especially
focused on honesty.
- Study “Game” or learn the art of seducing women. Than seduce your wife…over and over again.
- Don’t become predictable.
- Constantly DHV (Demonstrate Higher Value). Always remind her at every opportunity that presents itself as to how lucky she is to be married to YOU.
- “Neg” her regularly with light-hearted, playful teasing.
- Learn to recognize her
shit tests.
- Understand that ULTIMATUMS are the ultimate shit test. Never, ever, EVER give in to an ultimatum.
- Call her on her bullshit…the biggest of which is using sex as a bargaining chip. The second you give into her attempts to make sex a bargaining tool, you’ve placed your sex life into the category of competitive rather then complementary. It’s a power play you WILL lose.
- Be decisive and confident. Ask her for her opinions…but NOT her approval. This also ties in with not being predictable. Plan things for her and your family to do…but don’t tell her about it. Just tell her “we got plans, get ready.” Give her as little details as possible — only enough to ensure she wears the appropriate apparel. Tease her whenever she asks about your plans…in this way, you build up her sense of anticipation and mystery. If you learn to do this right, you can actually make her excited about doing things that would otherwise be repetitive and mundane.
- Never let her dictate big purchasing decisions. You can take her opinion into account…but remember that you should have final say. No bargaining either. “We’ll get the minivan now, you can buy your sports car later.”
- Maintain friends and interests of your own…especially those considered “masculine.” Hunting, fishing…whatever. Something for which you can go and do without her. Never give up your hobby or recreation ESPECIALLY if she tries to get you to stop. Hunters, hunt. Fisherman, fish. Surfers, surf. Skiers, ski. Ballplayers, play ball. She knows what kind of guy she’s marrying and the hobbies he enjoys. Her trying to get you to quit your hobby or activity is really just a shit test to see how much of a spine you have.
- Never EVER let her “OWN THE HOUSE.” Don’t let her designate one area as your “man cave” and the rest of the house is her domain to decorate and furnish as she desires. Let her have some rooms…like bathrooms and kitchens (especially since your not going to marry a woman that isn’t spending significant time in the kitchen in the first place…). Make sure the common rooms have evidence that a MAN lives there too. This, of course, does not mean you shouldn’t have your own “man cave.” Just make sure it is not the ONLY room in the house that looks like a man dwells there.
- Do NOT be afraid of her emotional state. She is a woman, and emotional instability is simply how she is designed. As Roissy stated so eloquently in his
The 16 Commandments of Poon:
"You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her."
If all this seems like a little too much to remember, there is a simple shortcut you can use to keep yourself in check. When talking with her, or contemplating talking to her, you can maintain the correct
relationship dynamic by asking yourself a very simple question in your mind: “Am I talking to her as if she were my lover…or as if she were my mother, and I her child?”
You don’t ASK FOR PERMISSION to do anything. That’s what a kid does, begging mommy for permission.
She’s not your mommy…never forget that. Because as soon as you fall into that role, you will become that AMC. That pathetic version of a walking zombie, trapped and miserable in a sexless marriage to a woman that doesn’t respect you, and is not motivated to stay in shape and attractive for you.
We all know that marriage in this day and age is mostly a bad deal for men…nevertheless, if you do decide to take the plunge, remember that you do have some control in how it turns out.
![http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif]()
Notable Commentary from the Original PostWulf February 14, 2010 at 14:26:
Excellent article and advice.
I did it, but not with an American girl.
25 years ago I realized my choices here in the U.S. were dubious at best, so I chose to marry a Chinese girl from overseas. In-laws 15,000 miles away is an assetand a Chinese father-n-law will tell his daughter to “fly-right” if he senses anything negative over the phone.
We’ve had a girl and a boy together. They are out of High School and the daughter is on her own. Parenting in today’s culture of death is quite difficult.
Elusive Wapiti February 14, 2010 at 16:39:
Amen Amen Amen.
In my first marriage I married a peer with well-hidden justice issues and with parents who disliked me.
She also had a thick umbilicus to Mommy–I recommend that fellow readers add this to your list. A difficulty in cleaving from one’s parents will be a barrier to cleaving to you.
All of these led to marriage destruction and my enslavement.
I remarried a woman 7 years my junior whose parents like me and who don’t sow seeds of discord. The difference is amazing. While I don’t do all the things you recommend, I do quite a bit. Bottom line is that I’m much happier.
PS happy v-day to everyone.
Welmer February 14, 2010 at 16:47:
"Elusive Wapiti wrote:She also had a thick umbilicus to Mommy–I recommend that fellow readers add this to your list. A difficulty in cleaving from one’s parents will be a barrier to cleaving to you."
Yes, in-laws can wreck a marriage. I think baby boomer mother in laws are awful. I’m worried that if I meet another woman I’ll be very distrustful of her parents, if not outright hostile toward them. I was always a polite, accommodating son in law, and for that I got a knife in my back and my children hijacked by my MIL.
Baphomet February 14, 2010 at 16:49:
The only girl I came close to marrying came from a spectacularly dysfunctional household. Acidhead parents, meth dealing brothers, whole nine yards. She was stable and quite impressive in a lot of ways but constantly let herself get pulled into family crap, which is why I broke up with her. Ten years later, she is still caught up in family drama and it’s really held her back in life.
Moral of the story: if you marry the girl, you’re also marrying her family, either literally or in her personality defects.
JayHammers February 14, 2010 at 19:36:
Thanks for this, HL. A few comments/questions:
"The proof is in the pudding – the Demographic decline of the West is a fact, and proves that the real goal of feminism was and is all about population control."
As you know, correlation does not imply causation. Do you really think it was all planned out this way?
"Does she have a positive, respectful relationship with her Father?"
What if she respects and loves her father but he is at times overly controlling? I don’t think this will create problems if you handle it right, but it is probably even more important to be strongly in control in such a relationship. Thoughts?
Men’s News Daily also had an article titled
8 Red Flag Dating Phrases that Should Send Men Running which made some good points as well, although I don’t agree with #8 in all cases.
Carnivore February 14, 2010 at 19:41:
Great article!!
Two comments based on observations over the years:
Before getting married, if she’s an only child, forget it. Run, don’t walk!
After getting married, YOU manage the finances. Can’t stress it enough. If you don’t know how, get off your butt and read a book on basic budgeting or take a class. Don’t believe her if she says we both can manage the money. Even worse, don’t just hand over your paycheck every week (i.e. because it’s easier for her to pay the bills). Over time, she’ll figure out that a judge can get rid of you, and she’ll still get about the same amount without having to cater to you.
Be a MAN and wear the pants.
grerp February 14, 2010 at 20:28:
What is the upside for the paragon above? Is there any genuine regard? Any true respect or are you still just waiting for the stars to align just right so she will turn on you?
I meet all the above criteria: stable family background, father I respect, younger than my husband, never had any debt, inculcated value system, mother and housewife now, etc. And for this I get to pick out the curtains in my kitchen? That seems pretty patronizing. Bare minimum: I want to be seen as a valuable contributor and helpmeet.
jaz February 14, 2010 at 20:41:
good questions, Grerp.
Read the site to understand men’s rants and the factors that have unbalanced our culture. Reading not recommended for the tenderhearted.
Snark February 14, 2010 at 20:43:
Well, grerp, I can’t speak for the other guys, but I’m of the opinion that relationships have become a zero-sum power game, and I’d quite like men to win for once.
Big Jay February 14, 2010 at 21:07:
Grerp – In that case the first question is this. Are you actually contributing something of value? Are you working to make sure your partner feels loved? It isn’t about keeping the woman in the kitchen. It’s about a real functioning relationship where the whole equals more than the sum of its parts. Understanding hypergamy is useful for men to actually build a functional relationship.
Take a look around at most married couples. The division of labor is a joke. The guy works his ass off at work, comes home and helps around the house, the wife spends all their money, and more, and complains that she has to work too hard and that nobody appreciates her.
grerp February 14, 2010 at 22:04:
I have found this site quite enlightening and have been reexamining the women and couples I know as a result. And I will give you this – I have known a lot of unstable, capricious, and dishonorable women whose actions will ultimately backfire on them when they are older, alone, and without resources.
I do what I do not because I am a saint or a perfect angel of femininity, but because some time back I did the math and thought this was the best way of maximizing stability and minimizing drama both for myself and for my husband and child. My husband doesn’t cheat on me not because he is without sin or temptation, but because I give him ample cause to feel that he is unlikely to get a better deal elsewhere in the form of an organized, drama-free house, good home cooked meals, emotional support, and an attractive partner.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always done far more housework, even when we both worked full-time – mostly because he absolutely won’t do it and I don’t like to live in a filth pit.
Big Jay February 14, 2010 at 22:25:
A lot of the advice in this article applies to women seeking stable men as well. Understands money, raised in a stable family to model his own on, reasonable life goals etc…
For me the distinction of hypergamy has been an absolute revelation. So much data from my teens and twenties fell instantly into place (I’m 32). I can look at myself and see the primal urges that have their effect on me. Hypergamy fits the data I see in how women behave as well.
I also like Hawaiian Libertarian’s distinction about treating my wife as my wife, rather than my mommy. I can look back on the past 7 years of marriage and see that a lot of instances where my wife was frustrated with me was when I wasn’t stepping up to the plate and being a man worthy of respect. Obviously a rare occurrence because I actually am the man.
aussie girl February 14, 2010 at 22:49:
All makes a great deal of sense.
Why is it then that so many men freak when a girl says she is more interested in staying home with her children than persuing a career? Sure, while I’m single I work to pay the bills (teaching music to young children) and I love my job. But if I say that I am not interested in persuing a high powered career and making loads of money lots of guys freak. I think it is more important for a mother to stay at home and care for her children and make a good home for her husband.
Snark February 14, 2010 at 22:57:
Why is it then that so many men freak when a girl says she is more interested in staying home with her children than persuing a career?
Because, unfortunately, they’ve bought into the feminist lie.
What I said up there about relationships as a zero-sum power game was unduly harsh. It was basically reactive.
I don’t believe things have to be that way at all, but unfortunately, often they are. And when they are – which is not always – women have the full weight of the law behind them. I’d like to see a change which gives men some negotiating power in those relationships. That’s a modified and more accurate version of my first post here.
Puma February 14, 2010 at 23:31:
Aussie Girl: “Why is it then that so many men freak when a girl says she is more interested in staying home with her children than persuing a career?”
You have your feminist sisters to thank for that. Thanks to the no-fault divorce laws that they have legislated in the 70’s, there is now a very simple equation:
Stay At Home Spouse = Lifetime Alimony
Given that marriages have a 50% of divorce, a man has better odds playing Russian Roulette than playing with the SAHS thing.
Puma February 14, 2010 at 23:32:
… and I never particularly liked Russian Roulette either.
Renee February 15, 2010 at 00:39:
I have to say that maybe within the past year or two, I’ve considered the possibility of being a stay at home Mom. To put it in perspective, I don’t know anyone in my family who were stay-at-home-moms. Maybe my grandmothers, but I don’t know for sure. I have a happily married aunt with two sons who not only stays at home, but home schools them.
To me, it’s…well…practical. Instead of working, driving around the kids, having to do household chores, etc. (because more often than not, it’ll probably be me doing it), it’ll be easier if I take work out of the equation.
Now that doesn’t mean I won’t have side jobs or part-time jobs (I may or may not, who knows). As long as it doesn’t get in the way of my roles as wife and mother. Doesn’t hurt to have a hobby, side job, what have you, to give you a chance to explore your interests and interact with other adults, not to mention putting a little cash in the savings and your pocket.
What does “Neg” mean by the way?
mgtow February 15, 2010 at 01:53:
@Renee
Go to Roissy’s blog and find out what is a ‘neg’.
The marriage strike/boycott by men is well under way and gaining momentum as I am typing this. Many educated young men in the early 20s are wising up to the raw deal that is marriage; they are not even in the ‘I don’t mind getting married in future if I meet a special one’ mode. They sure bloom early these days.
Marriage, at its very core, is nothing more than a business institution, under contract law. Love, commitment and romance are nice ideas but overrated and irrelevant within the context of marriage. If there is love and you are into a monogamous relationship, why do you need to sign a contract?
The truth is the vast majority of married men did not want to marry in the first place. They only proposed to:
1) Fulfill religious obligation.
2) Stop the nagging, shaming and/or ultimatums from the woman.
3) Peer pressure and irrational fear of ‘dying alone’.
4) A fear to ‘lose the woman’.
5) Get legal vagina.
6) Fulfill fatherhood fantasies.
In addition, the terms of the marriage contract are highly disadvantageous to the man. Best way to play a rigged game is to NOT play it. Walk away from Marriage 2.0 and be a free man.
Mr. N February 15, 2010 at 01:55:
aussie girl,
Pardon me if I’m mistaken but I imagine we run in similar circles although different continents. Many men in our group are pretty indoctrinated with feminist propaganda.
Its a matter of fishing. You’re not gonna catch good fish if you’re fishing in the wrong part of the river. (Which I assume you already are.) Even then if you catch the wrong kind of fish, or too small you’ve got to throw it back. I recommend finding a good young s. cantorum and letting some of the young men shamelessly flirt with you.
As far as feminist indoctrination goes I have the impression Australia is even worse off than here.
Renee,
People have different definitions of neg.
Mystery defines it as:
“Any gambit used to convey that you are not a potential suitor.”
wow February 15, 2010 at 02:07:
Women have a hard time accepting that men may have a higher threshold for a messy house. The housework isssue in marriage is a red herring. No amount of cooking and cleaning will make her love you more. I did everything in my marriage and it was never good enough.
Puma February 15, 2010 at 02:13:
Below is a blog by a man in MA who spent Christmas in the Boston jail, because he had lost his job and could not pay alimony after 13 years of payments. He is paying his ex $40,000 a year — and she is making $80,000 a year. He is just out and now he has to go back to trying to make the payments even though he has no money:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2582919/how_i_spent_my_christmas_vacation_ or.html?cat=17
Welcome to the U.S.S.A. !!!!
3DShooter February 15, 2010 at 07:04:
My own observation regarding the first two items in the articles list:
“*Was she was raised in an intact, happy nuclear family?” and,
“Does she have a positive, respectful relationship with her Father?”
might be better coalesced into:
“What is her mother’s relationship to her father like”.
In my own, anecdotal experience, I would have to say that women over time become their mothers. As such they take on the traits of their mother’s. My ex was from an intact nuclear family. Her parents have now been together some 50+ years. And my ex had a quite good relationship with her father.
However, he was and is a timid and cowed man. Though not initially, over time this became her expectation and when she didn’t achieve it – well there are millions of those stories so I’ll spare the biography.
Bottom line for men actually thinking of the now insane institution of marriage – take a good look at her mother. Her personality, how she relates to her husband, how she maintains a home, her relationship with her children . . . That is the person you will be waking up next to in 20 years – can you deal with that outcome? Take a good close look because your future lays their if you choose to step up on the barrel and put your head in the marriage noose hoping your bride to be won’t kick that barrel out from under you one day.
krauser February 15, 2010 at 10:48:
Married dudes don’t have much sex either per this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/7232739/Want-more-sex-Get-a-divorce-survey -suggests.html
Kathy February 15, 2010 at 13:02:
Depends on your situation Krauser.
From your link.
“Gary Fitzgibbon, a chartered psychologist and business coach, said: “The big feature of the workplace in the past 10 years has been stress, and that is clearly undermining people’s capability to perform sexually”
I’m a stay at home Mom so have a lot more time and energy for hubby. ;)
I have long suspected that this was one of the main reasons that my hubby was happy for me to stay at home while he brought home the bacon! Lol.
Win win situation..
novaseekerFebruary 15, 2010 at 14:30:
wow wrote: "Women have a hard time accepting that men may have a higher threshold for a messy house. The housework isssue in marriage is a red herring. No amount of cooking and cleaning will make her love you more. I did everything in my marriage and it was never good enough."
This is something I found as well. It is a red herring issue for the most part and used as a stalking horse for other issues. It’s mostly about control, I think. Many marriages today are political battles where control is constantly being negotiated and renegotiated in subtle ways. Eventually someone ends up being in control, because the other party stops resisting it, and in most US marriages, it is the wife who is in control. This leads to a lot of discontent, because as HL points out, although women push for control constantly, when they actually *have* that control, they lose respect for their mate, which kills the relationship eventually, even if the couple never actually divorces.
wowFebruary 15, 2010 at 15:02:
The 3 stages of a modern relationship:
1. She loves you because you do nice things for her.
2. She takes advantage of you because you do nice things for her.
3. She actually despises you and is repulsed by you because you do nice things for her.
Get married and you will understand what I just wrote.
I was an alpha, got married and became a beta because I didn’t understand the above. Now divorced, I am an alpha once again…..
Never believe the marriage fairy tale.
jaz February 15, 2010 at 15:14:
@nova,
I must disagree with you regarding the essential vrs. pretext nature of having a clean home for most women.
clean home is essentialclean home is a pretext.
The position along the scale varies between women and at different times for the same woman, but the nesting instinct is real and she just can not relax when the home is a mess.
Zammo February 15, 2010 at 15:38:
"1. She loves you because you do nice things for her.
2. She takes advantage of you because you do nice things for her.
3. She actually despises you and is repulsed by you because you do nice things for her."
Yup, this happened to me. Towards the end of my marriage I actually kept a log of everything I did at her request. I was so good at running errands and doing everything she wanted that she lost all respect for me.
grerp February 15, 2010 at 16:30:
"...she just can not relax when the home is a mess."
Compare an all women’s dorm with an all men’s dorm. Really, there is no comparison. My BIL and his roommates once had to spend hours cleaning their shower to get it up to par in order to be allowed by their RA to leave campus at the end of the year. Hours.
Why did women want dorms to go co-ed? Please explain.
I always requested to live on an all-women floor in college. Say what you will about women, but it was quiet, clean, and I was never sexiled from my own room when I need to sleep or study.
krauser February 15, 2010 at 16:51:
Every woman I’ve known was far messier than me.
Men = tidy
Women = clean
novaseeker February 15, 2010 at 17:18:
It’s funny what has been written about dorms.
My own experience in college was 180 degrees the opposite direction. During my upperclassman years I lived in a co-ed coop dorm — a dorm where we cleaned it ourselves in a work crew that varied by week and took a couple of hours a week to do. The least desired crew was, hands down, cleaning the *female* bathrooms. Why? Because the female bathrooms were a disastrous mess due to the much larger number of toiletries and so on that women tend to use, and which can mess up a bathroom. The men’s bathrooms were very simple and much easier to clean as a result of this.
In my experience men tolerate clutter more than women do — that’s true. I also see that in the office. However, my point about the chores was a different one. In my experience the hoo-hah about house cleaning and so on is not due to the guy not doing enough around the house, but to disagreements about the way he does it — it’s almost *never""up to her standard", regardless of what it is. This reflects a control issue — the woman cannot let go of control of the house domain.
Antiphon February 15, 2010 at 19:30:
JayHammers:
The proof is in the pudding – the Demographic decline of the West is a fact, and proves that the real goal of feminism was and is all about population control.
As you know, correlation does not imply causation. Do you really think it was all planned out this way?
Yes, it seems to have been planned out this way. You should read National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200) which was complied by the United States National Security Council under the direction of Henry Kissinger. It was adopted as official U.S. policy by President Gerald Ford in November 1975 (wikipedia: NSSM 200).
The text can be found here: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf See esp. pp. 99-100.
Here are some highlights:
"For women, employment outside the home offers an alternative to early marriage and childbearing, and an incentive to have fewer children after marriage. The woman who must stay home to take care of her children must forego the income she could earn outside the home.
Improving the legal and social status of women gives women a greater voice in decision-making about their lives, including family size, and can provide alternative opportunities to childbearing, thereby reducing the benefits of having children.
AID should encourage, where possible, women’s active participation in the labour movement in order to promote equal pay for equal work, equal benefits, and equal employment opportunities."
Granted, much of this has to do with limiting population growth in the developing world, but there was no need to do this in the West, it had already been done. The question is, then, was feminism in the West promoted with the same goals in mind.
There is certainly an anti-family bias even among western women and men. Look at what is happening to the Duggar family. Read letters to the editor whenever a story about them and their 19+ children is run. They are all anti-family and anti-children.
The way to break down society is to break down families. The way to break down families is to break down women. Women need fathers and husbands to keep them in line. Your average PUA rarely takes the time to do this.
I would add one more thing to look for in a prospective wife: Does she want a bunch of kids? Nothing keeps wives busy like a large family. Of course this is hard to do if men plan to get themselves neutered after 2.1 kids.
(Wait…you mean men might have to make some sacrifices, too? That’s not what the MRM is about! We want our wives submissive and out earning some money and taking care of Braden and Mackenzie and being sexually available, all while cleaning the house. “M”RA, get with the picture.)
Antiphon February 15, 2010 at 19:33:
Sorry, some of you might be fortunate enough not to watch TV or read tabloids and so you probably don’t know who the Duggars are. See hereand here. Antiphon February 15, 2010 at 19:47
Kathy:
“win win situation…”
Hear, hear!
An interesting survey: stay-at-home wives vs. working “wives” and the fulfillment of the marital obligation.
And: sex = children = (presto!) instant female commitment
Men, want to keep that hypergamy in check–knock your wife up as often as possible…and make children an expectation of marriage.
novaseeker February 15, 2010 at 20:02:
"(Wait…you mean men might have to make some sacrifices, too? That’s not what the MRM is about! We want our wives submissive and out earning some money and taking care of Braden and Mackenzie and being sexually available, all while cleaning the house. "M"RA, get with the picture.)"
There isn’t any consensus, actually, which is why speaking of the "MRM" is a bit misleading.
TFH February 15, 2010 at 21:30:
Even the Google Ad embedded in this article assumes that the MAN is evil. The SEO keywords in The Spearhead article still map towards a misandric ad.
The assumption is that only men betray. We would never see a man who was cuckolded in such an ad.
Also, a woman seeking a man’s money after SHE decided to leave is also a betrayal.
The misandry is deep.
TFH February 15, 2010 at 21:33:
AussieGirl,
"But if I say that I am not interested in persuing a high powered career and making loads of money lots of guys freak. I think it is more important for a mother to stay at home and care for her children and make a good home for her husband."
The asset division laws are very leftist. Hence, a man absolutely MUST marry a woman who makes nearly as much, or the same (or more) than him.
To not do so is suicide.
Of course, this makes it harder for a lot of women to marry. You have feminism to thank for that.
The reason women don’t fight these very obvious examples of feminist damage to women, is because women don’t understand cause and effect very well.
TFH February 15, 2010 at 21:36:
grerp,
I am glad you are here and asking good questions. A sane woman is all too rare, but is appreciated.
Stick around for the long run, and keep asking questions.
Keoni Galt February 15, 2010 at 21:59:
@ Jay Hammers:
"As you know, correlation does not imply causation. Do you really think it was all planned out this way?"
For sure. But I don’t wish to derail the thread here. Suffice to say, one can simply research the link between “Women’s Studies programs” that are a part of nearly all Universities in the US and their primary funders: the Rockefeller foundation. The super wealthy elite that operate the giant, tax-exempt, “non-profit” foundations have literally funded the research and development of birth control, abortion, gender studies programs as well as financing of a wide variety of media sources that all push the feminist memes and indoctrination. The “feminist” movement and all of the cultural influences that brainwash women to seek “equality” in did not just arise out of happenstance.
What if she respects and loves her father but he is at times overly controlling? I don’t think this will create problems if you handle it right, but it is probably even more important to be strongly in control in such a relationship. Thoughts?
What exactly is “overly controlling?” That can mean a man that micromanages every aspect of his daughters life or it can mean a Father that doesn’t let his daughter do things she wants to do and complains about him being “controlling” because he won’t let her do things he knows are bad for her.
Father: "No, you cannot go out on a date with that biker thug!"
Daughter: "You’re so controlling!"
In that case, it’s a good thing he is “controlling.”
Arbitrary February 15, 2010 at 22:07:
I was never sexiled from my own room when I need to sleep or study.
I think that’s more a function of good roommate choices than a matter of gender…more than once I’d had female friends complain of getting sexiled because of their female roommates. On one particularly amusing occasion we wound up with an impromptu party at my apartment when half-a-dozen sexiles all came over at once.
Men, want to keep that hypergamy in check–knock your wife up as often as possible…and make children an expectation of marriage
That strategy only works for so long (and is a Sisyphean venture to begin with)…it’s better than nothing, but worse than Game. In particular, don’t depend on this to convince a woman to stick around forever; after all, the presence of children increases the fraction of divorces initiated by the woman, suggesting that it will tend to have a larger effect on what you are willing to tolerate in a partner than the other way around.
Antiphon February 15, 2010 at 22:08:
novaseeker:
Yes, I get your point. My language was a bit intemperate. It gets very frustrating to see men who have bought into feminism acting as though they are real men because they chase women. This point was made above by Snark.
Patriarchy = “rule of the father”–the only effective tool against feminism is a return to strong marriages based on proper sex-roles. “Stay-at-home mother = lifetime alimony” (Puma) seems to me pretty simplistic. Most of the divorced women whom I have known were working women, rather than stay-at-home mothers.
Though I haven’t see statistics (I doubt that they exist), I would imagine that most women who find another man while they are married find them at work. My wife doesn’t really know any other men. She knows lots of women (mostly other stay-at-home mothers). There is very little opportunity for her.
If there is going to be any movement among men, feminism is the enemy, not women. Women are the victims of feminism. It is not White-knighting to save women from themselves and their delusions. Women need men to lead them. If all that men are doing is leading them to bed, why should they respect them? Men who chase women have a weakness for women.
Antiphon February 15, 2010 at 22:14:
Arbitrary:
The “presence” of children, or the “number” of children? There is a big difference. How many mothers of 5 kids are leaving their husbands? Do divorce rates climb with each child? I know a woman with 9 children–do you think she’s a flight risk? I think that it is rather unlikely.
As for convincing your wife to stay by keeping her pregnant, obviously that’s not going to work. You need to ask a girl up front whether she wants a bunch of kids, i.e. before asking her to marry you. If her answer is, “2 kids, then back to work,” keep looking.
Keoni Galt February 15, 2010 at 22:19:
@ grerp:
"What is the upside for the paragon above?"
A happy marriage to a man that she loves, respects, and lusts.
Is there any genuine regard? Any true respect or are you still just waiting for the stars to align just right so she will turn on you?
Of course. A good marriage in which a woman’s hypergamous instincts are well served will result in a couple that lasts and is far less likely she will “turn” on you. One thing you have to understand here is that many women have no understanding of their own basic nature. When a husband falls into a dynamic where his wife becomes the “mommy” authority figure, she will grow to resent and despise him for it…even if she consciously doesn’t realize it. This is where you get those women who cheat and/or divorce who state such sentiments as “I’m just not happy!” or “I need to find myself” or “I just can’t do this anymore!” type of justifications for their infidelities and/or divorce filings.
"I meet all the above criteria: stable family background, father I respect, younger than my husband, never had any debt, inculcated value system, mother and housewife now, etc. And for this I get to pick out the curtains in my kitchen?"
Sure…and you also have a husband who you cannot henpeck into submission when you want to feminize the living room and make everything frilly and flowery…and he firmly makes his mark and tells you “I live here too!” Grerp, you need to understand that many a man lets his wife OWN the entire house, and the only things he’s allowed to decorate is his “man-cave.” My only point here is that a man should definitely have SOME say in the house he lives in too looks. A husband can and should compromise with his wife in determining the decor of the house they share.
“Yes dear, the lamp shades and curtains look fine..but we ARE leaving my trophy deer head on the mantle! No, I am NOT going to put it in the garage!”
That seems pretty patronizing.
Quite the contrary – it’s not letting your wife cow you into submission.
"Bare minimum: I want to be seen as a valuable contributor and helpmeet."
Nowhere in my article do I advocate treating your wife like dirt, or treating her as useless. This is about not letting her “wear the pants” and take the role of “head of household.”
A man who does head his house most certainly WILL have a wife who is a valuable contributor and helpmeet. For one thing, if he takes his proper role, there will be far less conflict in the home, so they will both be able to appreciate what both bring to the table.
TFH February 15, 2010 at 22:37:
One thing you have to understand here is that many women have no understanding of their own basic nature.
Always needs to be said. Women have no ability to understand how women think, any more than a 10 year old can write a textbook on child psychology.
Arbitrary February 15, 2010 at 22:51:
The “presence” of children, or the “number” of children? There is a big difference. How many mothers of 5 kids are leaving their husbands? Do divorce rates climb with each child? I know a woman with 9 children–do you think she’s a flight risk? I think that it is rather unlikely.
The only statistics I’ve seen on the matter were children present/not present, and were not broken down by number. Note also that it wasn’t an overall divorce rate statistic; I don’t know how that changes with the introduction of children–rather, the statistics show that the fraction of divorces initiated by the woman goes up when there are children involved. This is more or less as one would expect, since the man has a much lower chance at primary custody.
The point of what I was trying to say was that, since children are more of a deterrent for a man considering divorce than for a woman, a man should not depend upon the presence or number of children in determining his divorce risk, since he will almost certainly overestimate his safety on that basis.
As for convincing your wife to stay by keeping her pregnant, obviously that’s not going to work. You need to ask a girl up front whether she wants a bunch of kids, i.e. before asking her to marry you. If her answer is, “2 kids, then back to work,” keep looking.
This section contains the answer to the question of the previous section; if for whatever reason the mother of 9 kids had that particular number as her goal, she may well be as much of a divorce risk as the mother of 2 (hell, we might as well go with the 2.1 I expect you basically meant). That said, desiring more children tends to be correlated with being religious, and that is a good indicator of lower divorce risk.
Keoni Galt February 16, 2010 at 00:41:
One of the reasons I was inspired to write this article was some commentary I read from
Marky Mark over at
Talleyrand’s blog and
PMAFT’s recent article, both describing married men with the look of “walking death.”
MarkyMark wrote:
"This is an outstanding post! Here is a succinct, powerful warning of the downsides of marriage. With few exceptions, every married man I’ve seen has that look of walking death; they’re just waiting to be buried. They’re like caged lions who were once free; you can see the lack of life in their eyes and demeanor, because they, like their lion counterparts, once knew what it was like to be happy and free…"
PMAFT wrote in his article,
Exiled to the Car and the Garage:
"These married guys who pay for the houses they live in have been exiled to their garages. Where are these guys spending their free time, particularly the weekends? In the garage repairing their cars. The auto repair class they take also gets them a night a week away from their house.
What does this have to do with the Dodge commercial? The other place that married men have been exiled to is their car. At home the married man is dealing with a harpy of a wife (and maybe ungrateful kids). Most of the rest of the time, Monday through Friday, is at work which means dealing with work related crap. The only time during weekdays the married man has without crap (unless he has a really great job) is when commuting to and from work. This is where the Dodge commercial comes in. It says to married men that in the only time on weekdays you have without crap, you should be as comfortable as possible. I suspect that’s also why more and more cars are coming with options like surround sounds and other luxuries that would have been considered exotic not that long ago.
I have also noticed how the married men that I have worked with (at any job I have had) always have the longest commutes. For the most part it has to do with satisfying their wives’ desire for large houses and the only way of doing that unless a man has lots of money means buying a house out in the sticks. From my POV as a single man, this sucks. The married guy is paying money for a house in the middle of nowhere for space his family doesn’t need with corresponding heating and cooling bills and many other expenses. This is on top of the long commute which under the best conditions sucks. To me a long commute is just extra dead time compared to a short commute. However, to a married guy a long commute while it sucks does have a side benefit, more time away from both home and work. The Dodge commercial indirectly taps into this because again you want to be as comfortable as possible during your long commute.
This commercial from Dodge really taps into what happening to married men, in some cases beyond what was intended probably. I wouldn’t be surprised if a few single guys got the message that getting married is a bad idea.
These guys are making references to the AMC – average married chumps. Men whose wives wear the pants, rule the roost and hold them in utter contempt. These are the kind of guys that behave as if their wives are their authority figure. They have the look of the walking dead, because they are simply beaten down and exhausted. Anything they would like to do that would bring them some measure of happiness…he doesn’t do, because he’s afraid of her disapproval.
Which brings me to my main point I was getting at with this article: it doesn’t…nay, it SHOULDN’T be this way.
A man who is the head of his house doesn’t “ask” his wife if it’s ok for him to go on a fishing trip with his buddies.
A man who is the head of his house doesn’t “ask” his wife if it’s ok for him to buy a car he really wants.
A man who is the head of his house doesn’t “ask” his wife if it’s ok for him to stay out after work and have a few drinks with his buddies.
The AMC is in fact walking death. He is emasculated, usually sexless (his wife uses sex simply as a bargaining chip), and can do no right.
He can “do no right” because he’s trapped himself into the false idea that “RIGHT” is based entirely on his wife’s approval.
If a married man does it right…he has a wife seeking his approval, not he seeking hers.
I certainly don’t have the “walking dead man” look…although, back in the early years when I was the clueless AMC, I probably had it too.
grerp February 16, 2010 at 01:12:
I think that the kind of woman you’re ultimately describing, the kind that signs up for being a wife and mother first, has to be two things (well, at least two things). She has to be a long-term thinker and she cannot be an attention whore. There is very, very little in the the housewife role for women who need lots of attention and validation. I got a lot more validation when I was working than after we had my son. I was good at my job; I got good performance reviews. People would tell me that I was funny or told good stories or was helpful or would notice what I was wearing if I’d made an effort. Babies don’t care what you wear – they spit up on it if it’s silk or terry cloth. My son thinks scatological humor is the bomb – the funniest thing going.
The job itself is very repetitive. It can feel like you’re on a treadmill when you make dinner, then clean up, or when you’re picking up toddler toys for the ten millionth time knowing that tomorrow they will be right back where they were. Then there’s laundry. You have to look really far down the line to see that you’re making a difference. You have to visualize.
I made dinner tonight – shrimp and noodles with broccoli and asparagus in a garlic butter sauce. It was not that expensive because I made it from scratch, because I bought the shrimp and broccoli and butter on sale and froze them, because I bought the asparagus in bulk when it was in season and blanched and bagged it individually and froze it. Everyone assumes cooking is for no talents, but it can be like standing in a circus ring and directing, making sure that the broccoli gets chopped first because it will take longest to cook, then the water gets put on to boil, then the sauce started, etc. And then you put it on the table and 15 minutes later your work is history.
Honestly, if I’d been cooking for just me, I’d have had an apple and a cheese stick. Food is not that important to me. However, it seems to make my husband and son feel cared for to have meals like this. But to make this meal at reasonable I had to plan it well in advance, and spend the time in the kitchen cooking it when I could have done something I found more enjoyable.
The thing is, men are never looking for long-term planners or women who can live outside the limelight when they are dating. They want 9’s and 10’s and flirty personalities and long, tanned legs. This I know from experience.
Keoni Galt February 16, 2010 at 01:22:
"I think that the kind of woman you’re ultimately describing, the kind that signs up for being a wife and mother first, has to be two things (well, at least two things). She has to be a long-term thinker and she cannot be an attention whore."
No, it’s OK if she’s not a long-term thinker or an attention whore – as long as the husband is a long-term thinker, and not beholden to her emotional manipulations and trying to always “please” her.
As for signing up to be a wife and mother? Absolutely. Otherwise there really is NO point in getting married in the first place, given today’s legal and cultural risks that marriage exposes men to.
The thing is, men are never looking for long-term planners or women who can live outside the limelight when they are dating. They want 9’s and 10’s and flirty personalities and long, tanned legs. This I know from experience.
Sure. But men who KNOW better, and are aware of the legal realities of marriage 2.0, will not marry a 9 or 10 with a flirty personality and long tanned legs..if she’s still not a suitable wife and mother-of-his-children material. They’ll just pump and dump ‘em.
JayHammers February 16, 2010 at 03:05:
"What exactly is “overly controlling?” That can mean a man that micromanages every aspect of his daughters life or it can mean a Father that doesn’t let his daughter do things she wants to do and complains about him being “controlling” because he won’t let her do things he knows are bad for her."
I was referring to micromanagement of a daughter’s life, taking it a bit farther than just being protective of her. Overly controlling, overly protective, I guess. Not initially willing to let another man into her life at all.
I suppose that’s not necessarily a bad thing as long as the daughter is willing to let her man take over the mantle of decider-in-chief. And a woman with an over-protective father is probably better marriage material than the daughter whose father lets her get away with anything.
Antiphon February 16, 2010 at 03:38:
grerp: Your post could have been written by my wife. Your points resonate exactly with things she has said to me. It’s good to see women fighting the good fight. Your husband and son have much to be proud of!
Arbitrary:
"That said, desiring more children tends to be correlated with being religious, and that is a good indicator of lower divorce risk."
Exactly: lots of kids = religious (esp. traditional Catholic) = lower divorce risk. That’s a point I have tried to make often at The Spearhead, but people don’t like the religious angle. Whether you agree with K. Marx or Our Lord, religion is a useful bond that keeps people (even women) in their proper place.
Antiphon February 16, 2010 at 03:40:
grerp: One more point: Believe me, cooking takes a lot of talent–I’m sure your husband much appreciates it.
TFH February 16, 2010 at 04:08:
HL,
On one hand, it is often said, even by Mystery and Roissy (ironically enough), that the sole purpose of existence is to reproduce.
On the other hand, it is universally accepted in these parts that marriage is a bad deal for men, that has a million little needles slowly killing him (even if he avoids the Divorce court grinder).
So, all things considered….
Do you regret the path you have taken? You have a kid, which many say is ‘the goal’. The alternative would be to still be a single guy, surely pulling 8s and 9s well into your 40s, with no burden of marriage, but also with no kid.
Do you regret your current path?
Carnivore February 16, 2010 at 04:35:
A lot of good conversation here. Few things to add….
Rebel wrote:
"Keeping a tight control of the budget is not enough. You must also state very clearly and BEFORE the marriage that YOU will be the master in the house.Make sure your sweetheart understands and AGREES."
Yes, no question about it – these are the things that are discussed before marriage. As an example – two people I know got married – perfect wedding, perfect couple, blah, blah – and were divorced within a year. I asked a mutual acquaintance about it. Said they got divorced because she wanted to continue her career and he wanted children and a stay at home mom. So, why did they get married? Oh, they both like to travel and play golf. Well, duh, you’d think you’d talk about that before getting married, eh?
Here’s another rule: if your sweetie’s divorced and, in this day and age, her ex got custody of the children, run, run, run!! I actually know someone in this situation – yup, he married her and is now in a living hell.
I find the discussion about housework interesting. One thing American women (maybe most Western women) have lost, it seems, (or were never taught) is the ability to take joy in their housework and be proud of a job well done. A linen closet with everything neatly folded and organized; closets and drawers the same; laundry crisp and clean – previous generations of women tried their best to achieve these things because they knew it reflected on them. No women wanted the dreaded label of slattern. (Is that word even used anymore?) Husbands were proud of wives who were good homemakers. Sure the work is repetitive. And a station on a factory assembly line ain’t?
I visited an elderly relative who has a Polish immigrant as a caretaker/housekeeper. It was a pleasure to watch her in action – her efficiency and obvious pride in her work. I hadn’t seen that attitude for years.
joeblow February 16, 2010 at 04:52:
I think a lot of people here are forgetting that this post is for those of us already married, so complaining that marriage doesn’t work, you should never get married etc. is beside the point. What if you are married and have been for a long time ( as in my case ) and you have a big stake in getting it right? It isn’t so easy to just walk away.
In my case I have been married for nearly 30 years. While it wasn’t the worst marriage in the world the last quite a few years have been a total wreck with us both being miserable with each other. Over a year ago I discovered a few mens rights links and started at least standing up for myself in the inevitable arguments my wife liked to have, though that didn’t actually stop them.
Then quite by chance I discovered this site and all the other guys like Hawaiian Libertarian talking about using Game in marriage. I began to realise the truth that in a big way it was my fault for being such a beta guy with my wife. I ( very clumsily at first ) tried gaming her. Well the result has been so totally outstanding that I almost cannot believe the change in our relationship. The last two months have been some of the best we’ve had and it is getting better each day. We have had sexual exploits that I have wanted to do for our entire marriage but she always refused. Now she seems game for almost anything! I have a perpetual grin on my face – imagine that after 30 years :twisted:
Anyway – thanks Dave ( and others ). You literally saved my marriage. I was ready to walk out mentally if not physically.
Carnivore February 16, 2010 at 05:06:
Antiphon wrote:
"Exactly: lots of kids = religious (esp. traditional Catholic) = lower divorce risk. That’s a point I have tried to make often at The Spearhead, but people don’t like the religious angle. Whether you agree with K. Marx or Our Lord, religion is a useful bond that keeps people (even women) in their proper place."
OK, I’ll go out on a limb here. I’m a Traditional Roman Catholic (it’s in my profile, eh ;) ). It really pisses me off when I hear guys dropping religion because it’s too feminine. Granted, the average local Christian church of whatever denomination, is pretty wussified, with women running everything with an emasculated priest, minister, pastor OR with a priestess, ministress or pastrix. Guys, you’ve got to look, because the real thing is out there.
So, I’m going to toot my own horn, because that’s all I know. This isn’t meant to be a theological debate, just an example. In case you don’t know, a Traditional Catholic believes any teaching by the Pope, on the topics of Faith and morals, MUST be accepted and obeyed. Here’s a few such teachings on the subject of this thread, which are still in force. Humbly submitted for your consideration. Peace.
There is hardly a point on which the Church had insisted more than the father being the head of the family. The father’s authority is ordered to the good of the family as a reflection of authority of God. The Council of Trent reiterated the teaching of the Church Fathers, instructing that the father should act as head of the family, and the mother should yield to him “a willing and ready obedience in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety” (“The Duties of Married People,” Catechism of the Council of Trent).
Perhaps with an eye to feminist currents already rumbling at the beginning of the 20th century, Pope Leo XIII addressed the question of authority in marriage straight on in his Encyclical Arcanum divinae sapientiae (February 10, 1880), reaffirming the age old teaching:
“The husband is the chief of the family, and the head of the wife. The woman, because she flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not indeed as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting neither honor nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties.” (n. 26)
In his Encyclical Casti connubi of December 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI warned about the “false teachers” who, in the name of “human dignity,” would try to persuade wives to abandon the obedience owed to their husbands. “This is not emancipation but a crime,” he strongly stated (n. 74). Further on, he stresses that the essential order of domestic society cannot change, because it is founded on something higher than human authority and wisdom, that is, the authority and wisdom of God (n. 77).
Pope Pius XII spoke similar words of caution, instructing Catholic women to ignore “modern influences” telling them they are in every respect the equal of their husbands. Speaking to a group of newlyweds, he told them: You are equal in dignity, but this equality does not preclude a hierarchy that establishes the husband as head, and the wife as subject to him. This hierarchy is not just necessary, but indispensable for unity and happiness. Catholic men and women have the duty to combat the changing social conditions that undermine hierarchy in the family. (“Allocution to newlyweds,” of September 10, 1941 in The Woman in the Modern World, ed. by the Monks of Solesmes, Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1959, pp 64-6).
David February 16, 2010 at 09:18:
Carnivore
This is good stuff and looks familiar. Unfortunately John Paul II wrote “Mulieris Dignitatem”, which some people – I believe wrongly – have used to undermine the traditional Catholic teaching on the Headship of the husband. I believe that, properly read, it is congruent with the traditional teaching, as is the same pope’s Familiaris Consortio. The teaching on Headship has a considerable weight of tradition behind it.
I have been pushing this point a lot here myself. Not everybody is religious, still less Catholic, but if you are, you have this teaching and understanding to fall back on.
Wives should obey and respect their husbands.
The article under discussion is really very good. I can attest that “gaming” one’s wife works. Of course, you have to use common sense, and not overdo it, but a man must make it clear to his wife that he is not afraid of her tantrums. Many men become appeasers and once you head down that path, you are lost.
My simple advice: treat your wife as if she were beneath you in a hierarchy (which I believe she is). Nine times out of ten, she will fall happily into line. David February 16, 2010 at 09:24
And if you don’t want to do something, just refuse. I never cook, do laundry, or iron. I do help with dishes, childcare, and a few other things. I occasionally vacuum. But I have actually told my wife that some jobs are, quote, “beneath me”. I would never do something as demeaning as mopping the floor. That is woman’s work.
Another thing. Just because she claims to be offended or angered by some remark or action, don’t always believe her. Secretly, she is quite likely to be titillated.
As for looking good for you, I can attest that my wife has worked harder to look good since I started seriously “gaming” her.
Carnivore February 16, 2010 at 13:29:
joeblow wrote:
"Well the result has been so totally outstanding that I almost cannot believe the change in our relationship. The last two months have been some of the best we’ve had and it is getting better each day. We have had sexual exploits that I have wanted to do for our entire marriage but she always refused. Now she seems game for almost anything! I have a perpetual grin on my face – imagine that after 30 years :twisted:
Anyway – thanks Dave ( and others ). You literally saved my marriage. I was ready to walk out mentally if not physically."
Joeblow – although I’m a pessimist lately, it’s success stories like yours that give a glimmer of hope. Peace.
grerp February 16, 2010 at 14:23:
"Always needs to be said. Women have no ability to understand how women think, any more than a 10 year old can write a textbook on child psychology."
I would dispute this. Women are very socially savvy. I can often better dissect what is going on at my husband’s work second-hand, than he can first. Women can fine tune their antennae to the smallest of social currents.
I do think that women don’t know how men think about women, what they value most about women, and what they truly want from a man sexually or otherwise in a relationship. “Love” blurs everything there. Women tell themselves they want guys who will worship them and shlep around the house for them and yet in movies and and books and IRL what is truly seen as “romantic” is really domination.
I hate to even type that. I grew up in the evangelical tradition (am now Catholic) and heard James Dobson quoted more times than I can count. While I don’t disagree with many of his points, the smug way he talked about women and marriage always made me want to throw up.
novaseeker February 16, 2010 at 14:47:
grerp wrote:
"Always needs to be said. Women have no ability to understand how women think, any more than a 10 year old can write a textbook on child psychology.
I would dispute this. Women are very socially savvy. I can often better dissect what is going on at my husband’s work second-hand, than he can first. Women can fine tune their antennae to the smallest of social currents."
This is true — women are more finely tuned to social cues, generally speaking.
I do think that women don’t know how men think about women, what they value most about women, and what they truly want from a man sexually or otherwise in a relationship. "Love" blurs everything there. Women tell themselves they want guys who will worship them and shlep around the house for them and yet in movies and and books and IRL what is truly seen as "romantic" is really domination.
I think a lot of the confusion comes from mixed messages that are spun at women. Women are told that they deserve to get it all — the guy who is intelligent, ambitious, successful, compassionate, caring, nurturing, passionate, very handsome/sexy and so on. It’s a long list, and some of these things are not very commonly found in one person. So compromises must either be made, or waiting must happen. There’s a lot of buzz around the internet about this at the moment due to Lori Gottlieb’s new book (really she parleyed her Atlantic article into a book, basically) — I think the negativity of most of this buzz reflects the problem you describe. Women are told that they want it all, and believe that, too, but at the same time seem to have much less grasp on what they really *need* in a partner, as opposed to a seemingly infinitely long list of "wants".
Long-term relationships and marriages need to be both romantic and pragmatic. That’s not terribly easy to swing, honestly, and in a long-term relationship with children in the picture, it can be harder to make room for the romantic side of it. In order for the romance to work, however, in my own personal experience the guy needs to have some kind of "dominance"— not in a domineering way or a rough way, but in an assertive, confident, masculine way. Unfortunately for both men and women, the number of men who can pull this off naturally is small and getting smaller due to the way boys are being raised in the culture today. Boys are also told that women prefer sensitive, compassionate nice guys who are equalist partners. And women *do* like these qualities, it’s true. But not *only* these qualities — there also has to be a masculine sexiness, and much of that has to do with being masculine/dominant in a confident, smooth way. The failure of our culture in inculcating this in boys and young men hurts everyone really and is a main reason why we see things like Game becoming mainstream.
Nevertheless there is a lot of dissonance in some modern women. The following example, just to take one, is quite revealing, if a bit intemperate: http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/561877622.html Lots of dissonance there for men to dissect in terms of how that woman in particular wishes to be treated inside the bedroom vs outside the bedroom. It kind of indicates the confusion inside a woman like her as to what she really wants in a man, other than saying "I want it all!".
I hate to even type that. I grew up in the evangelical tradition (am now Catholic) and heard James Dobson quoted more times than I can count. While I don’t disagree with many of his points, the smug way he talked about women and marriage always made me want to throw up.
Dobson really didn’t really succeed in convincing people who didn’t already agree with him, thanks to that manner you describe here.
GlobalMan February 16, 2010 at 15:35:
JayHammers February 14, 2010 at 19:36
“As you know, correlation does not imply causation. Do you really think it was all planned out this way?”
The evidence for the depopulation program is out there and easy to find. JD Rockefeller was the chairman of the population control council formed by Nixon in 1970 and reported in 72 which recommend passing the ‘equal rights’ bill. This was followed by the UNs population control conference in 1974 in Bucharest that ordered that all member nations ‘enure equal participation of women in the public work place’. Not equal opportunity, equal participation as in equal outcomes. I have posted these facts here many times over. What do you think? 2 Billion abortions later you think ‘a womans right to choose’ is about rights or population control?
Why are those who are heading population control commissions and conferences calling for ‘equal rights for women’? To get them out of the house to stop them having those pesky people. It amazes me a guy as smart as you still hasn’t figure out that the depopulation program is running full tilt.
What, exactly, do you think the vaccination program is about? It’s about killing people. Slowly. Try reading Eustice Mullins Book ‘Death By Injection’. I linked his video about it to my intro post yesterday. It’s real simple. As I said in my interview to which I posted a link here. Feminism is a key element to the depopulation program that is currently running and is being stepped up.
GlobalMan February 16, 2010 at 16:38:
aussie girl February 14, 2010 at 22:49:
“But if I say that I am not interested in persuing a high powered career and making loads of money lots of guys freak.”
Suck it up princess.
Example. I have just gotten to really know another ‘fav’ over christmas. She is fav#4 so far. (2 is gone and 3 is only so-so by comparison) She wants the whole marriage with babies thing. She’s a ‘blonde bombshell’. If she walked onto Bondi Beach all the other women would scratch their own eyes out so as not to have to know just how far they lag behind!!
It’s taken me about 6 months to move this ‘relaxionship’ forward to this point. I met her in about May last year when she was still ‘looking for a husband’. She is the sweetest woman I have ever met and ever talked to. I have nicknamed her my ’sweet angel’. She has regailed me with so many stories of her childhood and family. Our time together is one long session of laughing and joking and enjoying each others company. I have never felt so relaxed with a woman in my life. Not even my fav#1. Certainly not my ex. There us something about this woman that is just ‘magic’. This is a beautiful thing. I’ll be so sad to see her go.
One thing she is reporting is that when she tells guys she wants to stop work and concentrate on her family the men are now saying “you are not normal, women want careers and money now”. So a woman who wants a family is telling me she is being told she is not normal and the men her age are rejecting her. She’s 30. I heard exactly the same story from a 28 year old woman I met too. Almost word for word.
What has she done? She decided to give up looking for a husband for a while. She is really frustrated. She has had a string of boyfriends her age that get ‘cold feet’ and older men who say ‘no kids’. She has had a number (not sure how many, 2 or maybe even 3) older men offer to marry her if she will agree to not have children. She would never have to work again if she took those offers. But she really wants kids and I can understand that.
After she decided to give up on finding a husband for a while we bumped into each other again and we talked about just dating for fun because we hit it off so well. I agreed. I’ve already offered to take her to places like Stockholm, Paris, Vienna, London, Bergen(Norway) etc over the coming summer. She gets to travel around europe on her weekends as a ‘kept woman’ and I get wonderful company. My fav#1 is all jealous. When I alpha-ed her a bit by telling her she had some ‘real competition’ for my time she redoubled her efforts for a while. Now she’s gone a little luke-warm. I really like this situation. :-)
I LOVE the fact the younger guys have little money because the women took all their jobs and the men are refusing to marry!! LOL! That makes those young women available to men like me!! 30 years ago women who were 30 just dating a 46 year old for ‘fun’ and the lifestyle he provides on those dates would be called all sorts of names. Today she is called ‘normal’. You women made your bed. Now us older men are sleeping in it…with the young hotties.. ;-)
This is only going to get worse for the women and better for us middle aged men with a bit of money. When a woman this beautiful and this wonderful can’t close the deal on a marriage the ‘plain janes’ have no hope at all. When this woman was telling me about all the trouble she was having I simply could not believe her in the beginning. She had to repeat the whole thing a few times over for me to believe her. I talked to a lot of other women as well before I could believe they were having THAT much trouble landing a man.
grerp February 16, 2010 at 18:13:
Husbands were proud of wives who were good homemakers. Sure the work is repetitive. And a station on a factory assembly line ain’t?
A station on a factory assembly line is both productive and paid. Picking up toddler toys is neither. Would you go to work tomorrow and do the best job you possibly can if they stopped paying you? A housewife has to believe that what she is doing is valuable, more valuable than doing a job that 1) society says is valuable and 2) is paid. It’s not that much of a surprise that many women don’t sign up for this.
Arbitrary February 16, 2010 at 19:23:
A station on a factory assembly line is both productive and paid. Picking up toddler toys is neither. Would you go to work tomorrow and do the best job you possibly can if they stopped paying you? A housewife has to believe that what she is doing is valuable, more valuable than doing a job that 1) society says is valuable and 2) is paid. It’s not that much of a surprise that many women don’t sign up for this.
Two responses:
(1) Yet another reason to homeschool…everybody knows that education is valuable.
(2) Even without that, of course it is valuable, and paid–you’re getting half your husband’s income for doing these things. The problem arrives when society teaches you that you are simply entitled to the product of your husband’s labor, regardless of the execution of household duties–or, indeed, any contribution you make to the household at all. This sense of entitlement is the insidious lie of feminism; they turned the idea of marriage as a transaction of the man’s surplus labor ability for the woman’s fertility into claims of enslavement.
Keoni Galt February 16, 2010 at 21:15:
@ joeblow:
Anyway – thanks Dave ( and others ). You literally saved my marriage. I was ready to walk out mentally if not physically.
Does not the red pill taste oh so sweet when you realize the effects that kick in after you take it? :-)
@ TFH:
Do you regret the path you have taken? You have a kid, which many say is ‘the goal’. The alternative would be to still be a single guy, surely pulling 8s and 9s well into your 40s, with no burden of marriage, but also with no kid.
Do you regret your current path?
On one hand, I regret the path I took…I wish I had taken the red pill a lot sooner. I used to be the AMC, and I was miserable for several years…I used to think my wife had turned into a total, sexless bitch. Come to find out the real problem was myself and my own behavior dictated that reaction from her. It’s all good now. It could have been so much better had I known the truth from the get go.
As for now? Having a child is a life changing experience. The feeling of fulfillment is far more gratifying than having a notch count of 8-10’s.
I spent my late teens and early 20’s in the utter pursuit of hedonism. While I wasn’t exactly a PUA, I did have my share of college fun before settling down. ;-)
I don’t regret marriage to my wife…by some kind of fools luck, the woman I ended up marrying met all of the prerequisites I listed in this article — except the shopping, frugality part – but that’s fixed now.
@grerp:
"Women tell themselves they want guys who will worship them and shlep around the house for them and yet in movies and and books and IRL what is truly seen as “romantic” is really domination."
This is precisely what I was referring to when I wrote: “One thing you have to understand here is that many women have no understanding of their own basic nature. When a husband falls into a dynamic where his wife becomes the “mommy” authority figure, she will grow to resent and despise him for it…even if she consciously doesn’t realize it.”
Our feminist-driven mass media culture indoctrinates women to have the attitude where they are “equal” and that they don’t “need a man.” Many women will adopt these attitudes, and consciously look for ways in which their relationships are “inequal.” When the husband or boyfriend accommodates this, she eventually develops contempt for him. Most women who fall into this pattern don’t even realize that their quest for ‘equality’ is the very reason their men are emasculated and they “just don’t have any feelings for him anymore.”
"A station on a factory assembly line is both productive and paid. Picking up toddler toys is neither."
Oh dear…you’re falling for the feminist memes that make housewife’s domestic responsibilities the equivalent of a “comfortable concentration camp.” Not all “pay” is financial compensation. How about creating a clean house for your children and husband to enjoy? The creation of a sanctuary that your family looks forward to coming home to? There are some things in this life that money cannot buy. Having a clean, happy home to come home to is one of those.
Would you go to work tomorrow and do the best job you possibly can if they stopped paying you? Of course not. But try quit doing your housework, cooking and cleaning. You think your husband is going to stop paying the mortgage and buying groceries and paying the utility bills? Please…you ARE paid to be a housewife…it’s called your husbands labor is providing the means for your sustenance!
"A housewife has to believe that what she is doing is valuable, more valuable than doing a job that 1) society says is valuable and 2) is paid. It’s not that much of a surprise that many women don’t sign up for this."
That’s because too many women mindlessly buy the lies and propaganda that society dictates to them. Fuck society. You think that what you’re doing has no value?
By all means, put your kids into daycare, and get to work! Society’s approval is far more important the raising your own children, right?!?!??!
grerp February 16, 2010 at 22:07:
Oh dear…you’re falling for the feminist memes that make housewife’s domestic responsibilities the equivalent of a “comfortable concentration camp.”
I’m not falling for it, and I’m not saying there’s no value in it. I know there is value in it. We are all happier and less stressed out because I stay home.
