Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Why Men Should Not Commit To Women Or Family

Kay Hymowitz speaks about the modern western independent woman crisis in America and the growing male solution being to Game the entitled, independent and empowered women down since their hypergamy is not satisfied with men "below" them or equal to them. Interesting.... I have to agree.

Yes, she is correct, men are very reluctant to marry under women's new Marriage 2.0 laws. Men have learned it is suicide for a man. It is a one way commitment. Fatherhood is not a right but a revocable privilege. So is the right to your own property, your body and the fruits of it's labor. It's ok for men to be angry about it as well.

Kay has to understand that women don't offer men anything. They don't offer children and they offer nothing in marriage because commitment in marriage is at the same time commitment to the liability of divorce. Women have no liability in marriage and thus divorce. What women have are "choices" financed by male responsibilities. There is literally not reason to marry. Legally all else is precluded from falling on their shoulders so the only thing left that women offer is sex unfortunately. Men can get that without marriage. Marriage has been on the decline for quite some time now

Outside of the personal realm women are our competitors and our adversaries for jobs, for resources, for education, for healthcare you name it. Within the justice system in all realms we face the increasing deference to them in all matters. They have managed to divert all these things to themselves through advocating for institutionalized chivalry even to the point of denying men equal opportunity for education with women first laws. They diverted the Stimulus Package to themselves as well. So on a political level we must fight against them and every law they have created.

Men increasingly know that a complimentary relationship with women within the sanctity of marriage is no longer possible. Your gender married the State instead. You are doomed to remain in definite preclusion, the grey twilight between what could have been a natural and fully consummate mutually symbiotic bond with him. Something once untouched now sullied and desecrated.

Inside...deep within your only wish is to really need him. You hope that he will believe you do and that this lie will suffice. You want to believe it too. It is to late for that...you have devoted everything you seek to need in men to yourselves by law.

Deep down You lament that this has been robbed from you but may not notice that it is you who advocated for it. Your goal after all is to be "independent" "liberated" and "empowered". We have seen what this really means. The personal consecrate and sovereign now political and public. Your nature and vulnerability laid naked and bare and surrendered to your State masters. You can't help but to cleave to the cold metallic arms of your government husband wailing to ever more be provided to more. You have sacrificed your men on the alter of your desires for the very things you seek to NEED in him and with this become the source your own undoing and sorrow.

Below is a complimentary interview with Kay Hymowitz on the same subject matter. Also available at the end of the article after following the link above entitled "I have to agree"

Of course as men know the decline will ALL be blamed upon men not "manning up" to something or other. This of course is not true. I elaborate on how the developing matriarchal social construct affects all of this here One thing that affects young men's expectations of themselves is of course the fact that many of these young men are products of the feminist divorce generation. These young men know what place fathers hold in the family and in the lives of children. This is not something men want to commit to becoming.


Don't Get Married said...

Women and the State can have each other.

Anonymous said...

women are much more into other women anyway.