To repeat what Camille Paglia said, they'd end up living in grass huts. Or, to quote P.J. O'Rourke, "Without men civilization would last until the next oil change."
This raises the question: why should an unmarried man without children support women in any way? And: marriage for a long time has been she gives children to the relationship and he gives material support. But not anymore.
This article is from the No Ma'am blog
[Do you believe women have the right] to divorce?
Ah… I suspect this question is based on the tired old feminist refrain, “Women were owned as chattel!”
I think in order for this question to be properly answered, one must first examine the concept that marriage is an economic contract based on property rights.
You see, all throughout the animal kingdom, motherhood is a pretty common theme. It is positively everywhere! What is not common in the animal kingdom however, is fatherhood. Nope, not too many baby deer know who their fathers are. Fatherhood is a foreign concept in most of the animal kingdom.
Female mammals often find themselves living in a herd filled with many other females, all being bred by one dominant alpha male. The females congregate in herds because it is the only way they and their offspring can safely survive. Yes, herd living is true Communism where all is shared and they all get fat or starve together. Ever wonder why women tend to all think the same way and why they desire big, Socialist government over individualism and freedom? Ever wonder why women will stick up for another woman even when they know that woman is obviously in the wrong? It’s because of their allegiance to the herd. The herd comes first. Now you know.
But, one must wonder, what happens to the males that don’t become the alpha male who breeds the whole lot of women?
Well, when a male reaches sexual maturity, he must challenge for breeding rights within the herd. Those males who fail to successfully challenge the alpha males become beta males, and get forced to leave the herd by the alpha. The beta males generally end up living on the fringes of the herd/society where they fend for themselves individually.
Now, interestingly, the beta males living outside the herd seem to manage to survive individually just fine without the need to be part of a herd like the females do. This is because the male is not saddled with children and, also, he is stronger than a female. The male has a surplus of labour which enables him to live individually apart from the herd. In fact, a male has so much surplus labour, that if he lives individually he needs only to expend about 20-30% of it to ensure his survival.
When one stands back and observes the whole lot, we see that both males and females have a surplus and a shortage:
Males have a surplus of labour but a shortage of reproductive ability.
Females have a surplus of reproductive ability but a shortage of labour.
Now, perhaps, you can see why marriage is an economic contract.
The male “sells” his surplus labour to the female in exchange for her reproductive ability.
The female “sells” her reproductive ability to the male in exchange for his surplus labour.
In order to “sell” something, you first must “own it” yourself, and upon “selling it,” you are agreeing to transfer ownership of it to the buyer. This is the basis of economics, and as you can see, it is based on property rights.
In the economic contract of marriage, the female agrees to transfer the ownership of her sexual reproductive ability to the male, and she takes ownership of his surplus labour as payment for it.
So, yes, while the feminists harp on and on that women were once “owned” as chattel, there is truth to this because in a very real sense, a woman’s sexuality became the property of the husband. He very much was considered to “own” her sexuality and the products of her sexuality (children). The children of a marriage became his property, because he paid for them.
(Note that while the children of a marriage are supposed to belong to the husband, children born out of wedlock are the property of the woman. A woman who is not married owns her own sexuality and the products/children of that sexuality are also her property).
This is also why, in the past, women were so much more harshly condemned for adultery than men. The wife's sexuality was no longer hers to give away.
This is why, in the past, when a woman was raped it was considered an act of theft against the husband. Someone “stole” the sexuality which was his property.
This is why, in the past, it was considered impossible for a husband to be found guilty of spousal rape. How can you possibly steal your own property?
So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were “owned” as chattel. A wife’s sexuality (NOT her person), was very much “owned” by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husband’s own children.
But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths.
The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.”
For eons, mothers have told their daughters, “Why buy the cow when the milk is free?”
You see, the feminists always leave out that the woman sold her sexuality and took something in exchange for it: The man's surplus labour.
And benefit from a man’s surplus labour the wives of the past most surely did!
She benefited by no longer having to rely on the Communist lifestyle of the herd for her survival. When in need of protection she pushed the man out the door first to deal with the danger, rather than rely on the size of the herd, hoping it would hide her from harm when the weak stragglers get taken down by the wolves.
She benefited enormously by increasing the amount of labour available to her, giving her the ability to live in a wooden house with a real roof, rather than sharing a grass hut with a bunch of other women.
Women took something very real in exchange for selling their sexuality. They took a man’s labour as their own, and they benefited from this in almost every way imaginable.
So did the children she mothered benefit a great deal, and so did society in general.
Remember all those beta males who were existing outside of the herd, living on the fringes of society? They were only exerting 20-30% of their potential labour to survive.
Once married and attached to their own children, these beta males were suddenly yoked like an ox and working at 100% capacity. This utilization of the full capacity of male labour is what pulled mankind into a civilization. It is what built our houses and planted our corn. It built our roads and our bridges. It created our literature and our art. It created, well, pretty much everything that we have. Men, women and children all obviously benefited from this.
Have a look around the room you are in.
Everything within it involving more than two moving parts was invented by a man.
Welcome to the Patriarchy! (Sometimes it is simply known as civilization, but also, occasionally, as fatherhood).
Thus, when you hear that “marriage is the foundational building block of society,” you are hearing the exact truth. And society, or rather, advanced society, is based on the economic contract of marriage. The economic contract of marriage is based on property rights. Property rights are the basis for Capitalism, and Capitalism is the basis for an advanced society which upholds the ideals of individualism, personal responsibility and Liberty.
Now, whether you wish to agree or disagree with the way society has existed for millennia, as outlined above, is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the above description is what the contract of marriage was based on throughout history. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to history.
So, back to the original question: "Do you believe women have the right to divorce?"
My answer is a resounding NO!
Why, you might ask?
Because modern marriage has become a FRAUDULENT contract, and therefore women shouldn’t be allowed to marry in the first place!
It is simple. No right to marry equals no right to divorce.
You see, in the 1860’s, the wonderful women’s rights movement combined with the heavy hand of the courts, ruled that custody of the children of a marriage should belong to the mother, not the father. In effect, they strengthened the strongest family bond, that of mother and child which exists everywhere in nature, and vastly diminished the weakest family bond, fatherhood, which exists almost nowhere in nature – but is the bond that creates civilization.
Before the 1860’s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had “paid” for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not “own” her person, but in marriage he did “own” her reproductive ability and the products thereof.
The transferring of these “property rights” back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward.
Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. No-one ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could.
But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to “own” what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860’s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to “own” what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children.
Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.
If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breached your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.
If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?
Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”
That seems fair to me. All contracts are set forth in this manner. That is why they are contracts. A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and don’t deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed.
But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)
So what have we got left here?
WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE!
What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!
If you go to a car dealership and buy a shiny new car, you might sign on the dotted line and agree to make payments for the next five years, but it is implied in the contract that you own the car.
The dealership cannot decide 6 months later that they want the car back, show up at your house, and just take it. And certainly they cannot force you to make the next 54 payments on it if they take it away from you with no breach of contract on your part. It is your property and they have no right to it. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest you signed a fraudulent contract. To suggest that you would still have to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance after they sell it to someone else because “it is in the best interests of the car” is to suggest an insanely fraudulent contract.
But this is what we are left with in the marriage contract.
The man gets none of the property or rights which the contract was originally based upon, but the “vendor” still has the right to make you into this:
MARRIAGE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!
MARRIAGE IS FRAUD!
DO NOT ENTER INTO FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS!
Have nothing to do with them.
Do not oppress them with marriage.
Do not oppress them by allowing them to live in your nice home.
Do not have sex with them. All sex is rape, dontcha know?
Do not donate sperm. That now makes you liable to be a slave too.
Again, make sure you do not oppress one single one of them with marriage. Do you hate women or something? Why would you want to oppress one of them with marriage, you misogynist! Put down that Bride magazine, mister. We know what you are thinking... now move on and think more wholesome thoughts.
Do not burden a single one of them with a child. Women can’t stand kids and would like to have nothing to do with them.
And, most certainly, DO NOT pay anyone for a product they have no intention of actually “selling” to you.
Do not feel you are obligated to work like a fool to pay taxes which support “the herd” of single and divorced mothers along with their feral children. You are not responsible to pay for someone else's property.
You don’t owe the herd anything. They don’t even want you to be part of the herd.
You are not responsible to be an economic performer who props up herd living with your labour while receiving nothing in return except a pat on the head along with a “good boy.” There are plenty of manginas who will prop up the herd until it can’t be propped up anymore. Let them work like dolts in an unsustainable system for someone else’s benefit then.
Give them as few tax dollars as possible.
Men should go back to only expending 20-30% of their labour ability.
Why in the hell would you want to oppress one of those tricksters with Patriarchy?
Why even bother with a cow that doesn't give milk? Let alone pay for one.
It lowers divorce rates and cuts back on fraud.
Discussing the dream crushing routine, work and sacrifice of a married man"
A Contract that isn't respected and that can't be enforced is worthless.
"A Contract that isn't respected and that can't be enforced is worthless."
The marriage contract is worth a lot to the woman, and with the backing of the State on her side.
Marriage 2.0 suits women very well. My perspective was as a man.
It is amazing to me that young men still marry today. And I have attended two weddings in the last year involving aging-out carousel riders. These poor schmucks won't know what hit them one day.
As an aside, marriage is the only legal contract with no termination or satisfaction clause. Meaning, every other contract has consideration (money, property, labor, etc) so that both parties know the contract has been satisfied. Marriage has no such clauses.
you only buy a milkless cow if you're thinking about beef, and want to fatten it up before slaughter
You might do a Google or YouTube search for "Stephen Baskerville". It's him:
http://www.amazon.com/Taken-Into-Custody-Against-Marriage/dp/1581825943 - I haven't read it and it's unlikely that I will, because I don't have place for any more hardcover tomes in my house (and I don't want to keep them in the attic).
Now this is truly insidious and sinister:
"... we know most women aren't evil. But they are human, and therefore prone to take advantage of situations and persons to the extent that they can operate outside the standard rules of conduct. And as Dr. Stanley Milgram showed in the 1970's, completely normal persons will inflict pain on others as long as someone in authority tells them to or assures them that it's all right. This is just human nature."
This quote is from page 10 of the book:
"How Women Manipulate: Essays Toward Gynology" by David C . Morrow.
When women in divorce are backed by the State in a heavily lopsided legal advantage compared to men, they feel entitled and even justified to do, and get anything they can, from the man, as long as the State enables them. Women are already highly susceptible to envy, greed and vindictiveness - and the State encourages and incentivizes their worst inclinations.
To modify a well often cited quote:
"Hell hath no fury like a women scorned [and the woman has the full force of the State backing her up, and encouraging her every whim]."
(By the way, isn't this thinking how Nazi concentration camp guards justified and excused themselves in their jobs? - they were "just following orders and doing their jobs"?).
Most everything a man needs to know about women can be found in "The Manipulated Man", "Stand by Your Manhood" and "The Myth of Male Power".
What amazes me is that both men and women STILL promote men getting married. That's pretty darn selfish and heartless. No wonder the draft was male-only. No one gives a crap if men live or die - so long as women get what they want.
Stephen Baskerville has an interesting blog:
This blog will tell you about the growing family crisis throughout the Western world. It will concentrate on the increasingly dangerous divorce machinery being operated by Western governments, as described in my recent book, Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (Cumberland House, 2007).
I will continue publicizing these abuses in established, mainstream publications (see more than 80 published articles and studies on my internet site). But I also want to highlight here the increasingly totalitarian trajectory of the divorce regime, which I don't think is being emphasized adequately by others. What Frederick Douglass once observed of the slave power’s menacing expansion throughout the political system can now be seen in the cancerous spread of the divorce machinery: It is “advancing, poisoning, corrupting, and perverting the institutions of the country, growing more and more haughty, imperious, and exacting.”
Only 4 percent of custody cases go to trial. Out of 4 percent, only 1.5 percent completed custody litigation. Fathers won about half of those litigated cases. Approximately 91 percent of child custody cases are decided outside of court.
Corrected for accuracy--When people in divorce are backed by the State in a heavily lopsided legal advantage compared to men, they feel entitled and even justified to do, and get anything they can, from their significant, as long as the State enables them. People are already highly susceptible to envy, greed and vindictiveness - and the State encourages and incentivizes their worst inclinations.
"It is amazing to me that young men still marry today."
Why? They can make their own decisions. Just because you despise marriage and children doesn't mean you have to ruin their lives.
"you only buy a milkless cow if you're thinking about beef, and want to fatten it up before slaughter"
I don't understand this quote.
Is the milkless cow the woman or man?
I think the husband is led to slaughter (divorce)?
I find it odd that most of the people who discuss why not to get married focus primarily on what might happen in the case of a divorce. It seems that there are very few people who discuss the things that you are nearly guaranteed to lose in a marriage: your strength, your money, your freedom, your time and your dreams. Because of this, I think it's quite easy for people to dismiss the numerous consequences of marriage and go for it anyway, because they don't know any better. I know I didn't. Hardly anybody mentions the things they'll probably lose, and the one thing they do mention, divorce, is easily explained away as impossible:
"Oh, my husband would never do that!"
"I love her, and that'll never change!"
"We'll be together forever!"
"It's sad, because people brush aside the things they should know that they'll never have again, and focus on potential divorce as an impossible circumstance. But what is marriage, really? I hear the canard "the joining of two souls" or some such pithy statements a lot, but that's not what marriage is. Mutual support, friendship, love and the like are what make up a long term relationship, not marriage; marriage is the legal contract that's signed when two people decide to stay with one another for the rest of their lives."
In case you're looking, Latest U.S. Custody and Child Support Data:
The comments section is pretty enlightening as well.
More child support and custody data:
The source cited only provides general data regarding custody and care, not HOW and WHY that custody and care was arranged. Only 4% of all cases in divorce with children end up in court. 96% are agreed upon willingly between mother and father as to who will receive primary custody, with mothers dominating for a host of factors.
MGTOW'd Out said...
FUCK YOU...YOU DELUSIONAL BITCH! I DIDN'T COME HERE TO NEGOTIATE!
GO AWAY! NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOU OR WHAT YOU THINK!
GO BACK TO YOUR FEMINAZI WEB SITE! YOU'RE THE PARIAH HERE!
LETS MEET UP LATER SO I CAN MURDER YOU, RAPE YOU POST MORTUM AND THEN THROW YOU IN A DITCH, BEATEN AND BLODDY, BITCH!
HOW BOUTS IT?
Anony, only an angry black man or a mentally unstable white man would make the statement you made. Which one is it?
"only an angry black man or a mentally unstable white man"
Astonishing you think you can read minds.
It has nothing to do with reading minds, it has everything to do with expected behavior from said groups. It is reasonable to assume that this statement was made by a darkie--since we all know they are super aggressive--or by an unbalanced person. Given the all caps and ferocity of the language--women are incapable compared to men of making overt death threats--we can assume that the anony is indeed a man. Certainly not a Christian man! And so close to Mother's Day, she must be proud!
You make a lot of assumptions about people.
Huh? I have no power over anyone else's life. I don't hate marriage - I hate what modern marriage has become. I'm guessing that (a) You've never been married, or (b) you are happily married. If the latter, I salute you.
"I don't hate marriage - I hate what modern marriage has become.”
There is no observable thing as “modern marriage”. It’s simply marriage.
"You make a lot of assumptions about people."
Not assumptions, observations, Bobby.
Post a Comment