Outside of the West the notion of romantic love was something foreign. Before the adoption and/or exportation of romantic, chivalric love into other societies -- arranged marriages, or marriages selected by one or both partners based on mutual utility and benefit to the community were the norm. Love and marriage were not seen as synonymous things, they were most often separate.
Marriage, sex and love most often did not go together. No more than they go together now, or have ever.
Sex within unions was for the purpose of procreation, and sex for enjoyment as well as love commonly existed outside unions. Marriage was a working, familial or tribal relationship; a business-like social contract. It was not seen as something to emotionally or sexually fulfill the individuals involved, but as an obligation and duty to secure and/or progress society - also in the case of men, a way to secure a legacy by the only legitimate way to create linage.
This idea of marriage and love being intertwined had been foreign to the West as well prior to Medieval times during which the 'ideal' of chivalry began to be promoted -enforced, even- intitally by the Church as a means of social control directed at Knights. It later extended its sphere of social conditioning to the masses as the common man grew in power, all culminating in the Romance period and coinciding with industrialization.
The fact that the Romance period of Europe and rise of industrialization coincide is not simple coincidence. The lies of marital bliss and emotional, personal as well as interpersonal completion inherent in matrimony, women being mans 'natural partner' as well as the 'angelic nature' of femininity fed to men helped fuel the economic engine needed to power and spread industrialization in its early days. In truth, unions between man and women were and always had been a job, of which, men were once keenly aware as they were advised such.
The powers needed people consuming and reproducing: Men spending massive amounts of wealth on women and their families, women spending massive amounts of mens wealth (most often on themselves), and last but not least they needed more humans than ever before as laborers, which would in turn also further expand human consumption.
Thus we had a population explosion, a new middle (worker/consumer) class, the exploration, colonization and exploitation of the world to feed this hungry machine designed to exploit the nature of both men and women, as well as their natural, yet divergent desires which they sought from one another.
It was a system which appealed to the worst in both men and women, our basest, most narcasstic and primitive biological imparitives. Its fairy-tale promises appealed to our infantile, base desires which we were once expected to be discarded, and in many cases needed to dispensed -or at least reigned in- for the safety and security of society, since when life was a great deal harsher neither people nor their societies could afford people well past childhood running around with childhood fantasies and delusions. Man or woman, you either got -entirely- real or you died.
In this new order, those once dangerous --and childish-- aspects of man and woman once held in check were feeding right into the system tailored to them. It was quite productive; however, a system reliant on an unhealthy form of production appealing to base human desires will create a society based, rooted and principled in those very same malignant ideals.
Today's modern societies are a reflection of those tools which were used to create it. In short, in these early days they needed capital, human capital being the most essential. In our post-industrial age this lead to its inevitable conclusion. We have this old model designed for expanding industrialization to thank for our current human existence: Work, provide, consume, reproduce, die. For men, there's the occasional 'fight, die' thrown in.
It has lead to our current situation, and this was the basic intent all along, it worked brilliantly and did exactly what it was intended to do. Now, in the post-industrial landscape society is consuming itself. With women being both deliberately angled as well as naturally inclined towards primary consumption (gatherers), society is being consumed by this aspect of female nature run rampant, a nature which men were conditioned to encourage as well as support long ago. Now, with the surplus having dried up - society is consuming itself.
Allow me to use Japan as a model with which to further illustrate the destructive nature of this system, as it was the first and most successful non-western country to adopt this system:
In Japan, the Meiji reformation (1868-1912) urged industrialization in order to protect Japan from being colonized by Western nations. Throughout most of Japans industrialization, unlike in the west, the divorce rate actually decreased even despite an increasing number of working women.
The reason for this was due to the changing ideas and ideals of Japanese society. Divorce was initiated by the old idea of "mutual consent" which the wife seldom refused; attitudes toward divorce among the people, especially women, contributed to a decline in divorce rates throughout the industrialization period.
Japan was spared the typical pattern of rising divorce during industrialization due to deliberate political decisions and legal acts, based on the ideology of the Meiji reformers. New legal codes imposed the family patterns of the samurai on all Japanese. Japanese leaders were well aware of the threat of industrialization as they went abroad to assimilate the entrepreneurial culture and technology which the Western nations possessed.
Prior to the reformation of marriage and divorce in rural regions --like any pre-modern society-- the situation looked precisely as it did in the West before the state began to control marriage unions during the industralization process. Japan, as in Western nations, had rural-agrarian customs that predominated and divorce was uncommon. In rural farm villages, polygamy and sexual liaisons were the norm and monogamy or a marriage system itself was seldom practiced.
Essentially, prior to the start of modernity male-female 'unions' in the West as surely as in Japan looked practically indentical to what many in the MRM (especially MGTOW) propose as the ideal.
The Japanese government did not intend to accept the Western ideology of industrialization as they knew the dangers it would pose to their society. They simply wanted only to learn and apply what was necessary to be on-par insofar as industrailization without the modernity that followed in the western model. This is called “Wakon-Yosai”, which means Japanese spirit combined with Western learning.
In short, Japan saw how Western society had been consumed and did not want theirs to suffer the same fate, so with great, stubborn intent they remainied a medieval society but with industrial infrastructure. Their society remained frozen at the stage prior to undergoing the catalyst that sowed the seeds of what would become the fruit we all now enjoy as modernity.
Fast forward...
In and around 1970-1980, with Japans industrial power reaching levels which rivaled the 1900s (their industrial revolution), the Japanese economic explosion soon occurred.
At such an advanced stage of industrial power and this time without a great war to cause women to seek shelter behind men (by way of the state since the rest were busy dying), the sustainability of “Wakon-Yosai”' or 'Japanese spirit' with 'Western learning' began to diminish in many ways. But the ways I am referring to are those which checked womens hypergamous instinct. The spirit of the samurai wife and mother with its sense of loyalty to family and communal duty began to give way to the spirit of modernity.
In the subsequent economic collapse of the 1990s the divorce rate sharply increased to record highs. This is not at all surprising: during the economic boom Japan became more individualistic than it had ever been, one of the results was freeing women from most of their social mores and expectations whereas mens in comparison remained firmly in-place.
When the collapse occurred and Japan suddenly had what women would have seen as broke men, and with their new found individuality and absence of "Wakon-Yosai" these women, naturally, were not interested in such men. These very men who went broke for the very benefit of said women, their children, and the society which nutured and protected them were now derided and discarded.
Many wives left their now struggling husbands and took their children with them as well as avoiding struggling men which was perfectly acceptable as the ideals and expectations of men, unlike theirs, remained. Indeed, a far cry from the honor and dedication possessed by the wives of samurai, no?
Additionally, women in Japan as in nearly every industrialized nation of time were cushioned from hard economic times and joblessness as they were disproportionately represented in the drone-model jobs which paid well enough but produced little. Why would these women want a man dragging them and/or their children down, after all?
Also, why chance spending money on men when they could spend it on themselves? Is it not convieniant how well this works for the system? It ensured that it remains fed. If women put too much money into their families or communities during such times, the system would starve. Horray for industrail-styled individualism?
Getting back on track:
These drone-model jobs reserved as the role for women did, however, keep the engine running as was the intention. They were unimportant insofar as production, yet in a way were more valuable to the system than mens jobs -on a base level- as they prevented the total collapse of the system.
Men not only naturally prefered to avoid these jobs due to favoring grander ambitions, but also this was also exactly what was expected of them under duress of overbearing social pressure. Womens new place in their industrial society had become that of maintaining the most basic functioning of industry, while men empowered and fed the industry. Sounds familiar, yes?
The above video is part of a series called "stepping up". It's contents amount to a bunch of modern Churchians of the Christian variety ruminating on the crisis that is young men refusing to "accept responsibility" and marry self serving divorce prone women.
Us MGTOW are an independent bunch, and as such I will say here that I do not care what God one does or doesn't worship, but messages like these, from sanctimonious "real man" religious zealots are classified as exactly what they are here, that is, an attempt to get men back on the plantation where they (the expendable workhorses that they are) belong. The following is a contribution by blood rabbit offering his analysis of this shame fest headed up by Whiteknight televangelist Mark Driscoll:
Adolescence is being extended as a natural result of modernity as well as the rise of life-expectancy. Adolescence itself is new on the scene of humanity. The concept literally did not exist until recently in human history. Not so long ago, a boy went immediately to the plow the same day he was strong enough to use one and on that day, he went from child to man. There was no concept of adolescence before industrialization and the rise of modernity. It's only natural that this artificial intermediary stage is being expanded, as the key word here is artificial.
Men can no longer safely rely on being told by some socital standard, "now you are a man", those times have past, and the days of the lingering facade numbered. The post-feminist man is a man when he himself is able to tell himself he is a man and believe it. He decides for himself. Before Medieval times, Barbarians, Greeks, Romans, it was chiefly elder men who dictated the rites of passage into manhood. During and after the Romance period women began dictating when a male became a man. This lead to a vision of manhood almost exclusively tailored to suit the needs to women. Men now have no other choice than to become self-deterministic in regards to their identity.
With the social changes in the most advanced developing nations, we can see our past unfolding at an accelerated rate. Take China, which up until recently was very conservative. There we find a popular song among women belonging to the new super-wealthy class, in which women sing about how their mothers told them to never marry a man without a car, a house, and money in the bank. They go on to say that they own a car, a house, and have money in the bank, and alert men to not attempt to be with them if you don't have the same -or preferably more- as they "aren't going to be your mother."
They don't see the problem with their logic. "I have everything I need, so I expect you to bring me more than I need." They deride men who they see as using them as their mothers, yet find it perfectly acceptable to have a daddy -- even though practically speaking they do not need one.
---
Reference:
---
So what do these women want? They don't know as they're torn between their biology and modern reality. They want to be given provision by man, yet they already have all the provision they need without a man. They want a man who they see as superior to themselves, yet they see themselves so highly that no man can compete -in a provider sense- with themselves.
Why should men continue to provide to women who no longer need providers, especially since this is the main reason they have always been interested in us. However, in these women, their instinct to be provided for still exists despite having more provision than they need - with or without men. This instinct in women to be provided for once worked before the onset of modernity. The female was given provision, and in exchange she bore him children and cared for them and helped care for things while he was away when he needed to leave the cave to hunt, to fight, to build.
We are not going back, even if we wanted to (which I certainly do not) we couldn't. We can only move forward from here. To where? Where it will lead is not yet known, exactly.
But I digress...
These men speaking in this video are in denial. These men have no actual use in the way which they believe they do. It's an illusion propped up by their churches -in their case- and encouraged by women who enjoy the arrangement. For whatever reasons this seems most beneficial to them, as opposed to the more 'modern' woman mindset. These men are not needed. These men are 'playing man', and the women are 'playing pre-modern woman.'
The women in these mens lives do not need them, it is these men who need the women to shore up their false sense of utility, identity and purpose. We all know these women could leave them at any time and take half or more of everything the own and earn up until these men retire, and take their children along with them. These men live in fairly-tale castles. I think we all can agree the women in their lives are all too aware of this reality, these women know that their mens role is hollow.
So who is worse? The men opting out and doing so-called 'childish' things to give some semblance of happiness and fulfillment to their lives, or these self-deluded men who believe they are important as paper-husbands, paper-providers and paper-fathers? Further, why are the enjoyable hobbies of men attacked as childish? It is meant to shame men as those hobbies in no way benefit women. Women do a multitude of things to entertain themselves which men have seen as silly for ages yet they are not attacked for it.
Mark Driscoll begins early on attacking modern men for being "porn-heads." Why do we not ask why men are more and more preferring images over flesh and blood? That's pretty extreme, wouldn't you say, Mark? So what warrants it on the part of women? Said men prefer pornography as they either find women thoroughly unfulfilling, or comically overpriced. I think it's more than safe to say that most men would prefer to have flesh and blood women, so the fact that men are abstaining for porn truly says something.
But let us talk about the other aspect of which Driscoll speaks: "Men who just want good times." It's the same deal as the men trading women for porn, only these men are trying to cling to some semblance of what they'd naturally prefer. They do however still risk the damage of possibly having a child with the wrong woman, who constitute the majority of these women, they risk emotional damage, manipulation, as well as an inevitable sacrifice of dignity (you don't play the game, the game plays you).
Also, you these Driscoll types speak nothing of women shamelessly and unapologetically trolling for penis on craigslist and okcupid. Personally, I find that much more base than pornograhpy, and a great deal more disgusting. At least with porn you aren't debasing yourself on a personal and social level. I find this rather common passtime of women more degenerate than a man seeking prostitution, for that matter.
Speaking on that: I lived in Australia for a great many years of my adult life and had the opportunity of seeking out completely legal, and very affordable prostitution yet I did not. That was my personal decision, and I do not condemn prostitution; further I don't believe it should be illegal anywhere. It ought to be available to men who want it as it's natural, and the women involved in legal, regulated prostitution are far from victims. They live quite well in their chosen occupation (yes, I do see it as a valid and even valuable occupation). The point is, Mark, these men are no bigger perverts in general than women are in general. Often times men have higher moral standards, in my experiance.
We all understand --be we religious or non-religiouis- that porn is not an ideal thing, Mark. But we all have basic humans needs, and ours as men are not being satisfied by women.
Mark speaks of women supposedly rising to, and usurping the male role. Women are going to college and working more than men but tend to get junk degrees, or chase after degrees that only benefit themselves rather than help society as a whole. The overwhelming majority use their jobs and education to make money (for themselves) and then after they spend their own, go on to spend the money of the men in their lives, as well as the governments.
We often hear of the "Real Men ™", but seldom to never do we hear any notion of the "Real Women ™", reason being that there have always been fewer constructs in the west on what constitutes a woman. However, what few constructs existed have fallen away with modernity and we are seeing real women. The only way to see 'real men' is to, as man, remove our constructs as well. Any man who removes his traditional societal constructions and notions of manhood and thinks and behaves freely will truly find himself as a man. It might be so utterly different from his previous notions of who he is that he might run back to the Matrix. He might even be terrified finding himself thinking, feeling, and enjoying things which he himself once ridiculed.
Feminist 'intellectuals' believed that all gender differences were artificial constructs, and if you took the constructs away men and women would be the same.
With this little experiment, the opposite was proven. Remove traditionalist gender constructs, and we all become base men and women. That is, real men and women. What is 'real' in the essence of sex and/or gender is what exists when you strip away the constructs designed to keep natural instincts in check as well as reengineer them to create a certain societal order which varies slightly accross cultures.
Traditional constructs which once helped usher in civilization, sustains and advances it by checking men and women in different ways. Since men and women no longer need each other in any truly meaningful capacity, these constructs have become hollow and defunct. So in this, the "Real Man" ideal these men would have us "step up" to would be more aptly referred to as "Artificial Man", Traditional man, pre-modern man and pre-feminist man all work as well, but I find "Artificial Man" to be much more apt.
I am a man without constructs other than the personalized constructs I decidedly create and build for myself; therefore, in that sense I am truly a real man. A free man. A man who can determine who he is, himself, ever furthering the distance between myself and the burning, sinking ship of traditionalism.
The man who speaks of these men who are "Just not happy" and feel shame, and are not proud for 'having mastered Modern Warfare 3', I know these men well. They have internalized what women and western society feels about them. They've been lied to and ensured that something 'greater' exists, which is presently outside of their reach. They've been fed the false-truths that they should be married, and meet certain criteria, or else they wouldn't ever be complete or happy. What they don't realize is that is the true reason they aren't happy are not the reasons they offer up. They aren't happy as they've been told they aren't, or shouldn't be, So some get married, embarking on some mythical journey of becoming an “adult”. They endeavored to become the definition of a man which was more like the one defined for them rather than the one they'd have defined for themselves.
Speaking for myself, one can 'mock' and 'attack' me all they wish, and it will not 'shame' me. I enjoy whatever I wish and this isn't any of Driscoll's, societies, or womens business. It will not 'send me further' anywhere other than where I wish to be. It might however, fuel my fire to destroy your false-order. I no longer hold myself back or limit myself due to imposed and suffocating stigmas, and I needn't do anything for you as it's not me you care about but desperately using me as a tool to keep your world order from crumbling (which it is, and it shall). I do not care what inconsequential people want or think; like you, like women. I can breath. I am free.
These men in this video, like myself once, wish they could do what we can. That is, not only enjoy whatever we wish, even things society would mock, and not have an ounce of shame about it. The truth is, deep down, you men want to be us.
Every bit as much as what motivates women to attack men for doing things they do not want us to, things which do not fit what is beneficial for them -- part of what motivates males to attack those same men is jealously and fear. They are jealous that we are free to do anything we wish with pride and without shame, and they are fearful as it threatens their fragile and limited worldview. It forces them to see that perhaps they aren't so happy following the dictates of women and western society. So keep repeating to yourselves, Mark Driscoll and Co, "We are happy, fulfilled and proud."
Personally, I need only say it once, Sirs.
Anyway...
On to 'the bar' dilemma.
This concerned wife and mother: what is her real motivation here?
In this fictional --but all too true to life-- scenario, she doesn't seem concerned for her sons welfare but simply concerned about her son losing his job. She threatens to move out if he loses his job again. It seems to be that she is concerned with the loss of her sons income. The fact that this is portrayed in this fictional scenario without much thought shows that the creators of that scene were well accustomed to this scenario in their own, real lives, and find this attitude as well as her behavior perfectly acceptable. Why doesn't she go get a job. Further, why doesn't she go try to 'fetch' her son. She sends her older mule to fetch her younger mule.
In the scene upon arriving at the bar, his son exhibits terrifying, untamed masculinity. He is 'free' and doing as he wishes and this is portrayed as negative. He is not under the control of the mother by proxy of the father. The father falls under the evil influence of his son and regains the ability to live life as he once did before finding the wise guidance of women and goes back to his old self prior to having his balls cut off. Two adult men acting freely, the father free from his wife (who is essentially his mother), and adult son free from his mother, this is for some reason portrayed as an ominous thing.
"Just don't tell your mother" says the father, which may as well be "Just don't tell OUR mother."
This ends with a man telling us that we are now left with "confusion, complexity and uncertainty", that's called life, bud. It's life when you're not deluded with a false sense of security, and yes, I suppose it is not for everyone.
What we are seeing there, with the artificial constructs and ideas falling away is reality. Things are indeed confusing, complex, and uncertain; they always have been and will be for millenia to come. That causes fear in many people. That's why religion evolved in the first place, and that's what lead to philosophy and then modern science. You have a traditional belief system that artificially gives you a sense of certainty about how things are, and are supposed to be. There's another route though, and that is self-determinism, yet that doesn't offer the fluffy warm blanket of delusion that these gentlemen wrap themselves up in.
The truth will set you free, but no one said being set free is easy. Before you can enjoy the freedom you must come to terms with the cold stinging pain of reality. Yes, I can see why that would turn you away from it. You are frightened. We, Sirs, are not. Not anymore.
Thanks to subscriber Blood Rabbit for sending me this. It seems that the Japanese are implementing more and more complexity into the development of a potential sex bot. The video below shows us that with a little less rubbery texture to the skin, less reverb in the voice, and more fluidity in the mannerisms and body language, this machine could come very close to accurately emulating a human being. At this rate of development, it could be mere decades before a viable realistic sex bot is produced, quite frankly, as much as I enjoy non committal sex with the few women I fuck regularly, I would drop them in a second if a realistic alternative were to become available...
Blood rabbit writes:
You may have heard about them, but these robot women are really coming along in Japan. The Japanese say that by 2050 there will be robot prostitution, completely circumventing the (western imposed) ban on prostitution. Of course no one but the most backward countries -- theocracies being one example-- would make robot prostitution illegal. Who knows though, perhaps many theocratic nations will no longer be theocratic by that time.
The history behind how these ultra real sex dolls (the non-interactive variety such as real dolls) got started is interesting. It was a Japanese charity that made them for disabled men (incels). Rather compassionate, hey? They appreciated how cruel it was for men to go without sex involuntarily and indefinitely.
Not after too long, they realized it had a lucrative market (duh). I hope they're still giving them out as charity too.
I'm not certain where the ultra life-like ones such as Real Dolls began, many think of them as an American creation but I bet the original creators were Japanese.
Anyway...
The way I see it, with things such as this, artificial wombs will have to be created. Sure there will still be men and women having sex, and giving birth in the natural way. But with things like this, I don't think there will be enough men and women having sex to keep the worlds population up, and that is certainly true of Japan where things are already in the red.
But also, I am certain women will jump on the artificial womb thing as well. They'll have a way to reproduce without it effecting their career or life too much (and without wrecking their bodies, so they can continue having their sex appeal and ability).
Many women in Japan aren't wanting to have children either as they prefer their career and hobbies. I think what is happening in Japan not only shows the future of western men, but western women in many ways.
I think part of that is you've got non-western society which is as developed, industrialized and modern as the west, but a very small country, an island, and has a life that was never sustainable in the long run .. at least not by conventional means. They realized that in WW2, however that didn't turn out well for them. They've built it though and they want to keep it (I hope they do), so they are going to have to do some radical things. Technology is their only hope, I believe.
The point I'm trying to make is, due to all of these factors we are seeing an accelerated model of the west, I believe. In what is happening in Japan, we see the west unfolding at a faster rate, in a sense. Many things that we are seeing in Japan isn't uniquely Japanese issues, but inevitable issues that come with the evolution of modernity.
Interesting times ahead gentlemen.
This is one of the responses to the video I asked my subscribers to analyse of a mother manipulating her son after he refused to return to her home after a visit with his dad (her ex husband). Here is the video in question
This reads more like a synopsis then anything else, but i will be updating this with more entries soon.
In a recent youtube video a 14 year old wanted to stay with his father, but had to speak his decision to his manipulative mother and essentially subvert her addiction to authority. This mother asks her son to come out of her ex's car and into house, pushing him to stay for visitation. By his desire to stay in the car, his mother's house sounds like a negative environment for him, and this is furthered by military school threats. Ultimately his mother is more preoccupied with her feelings than his, and uses over an hour of emotional outbursts to try to get her point across. She feels its "underhanded and disrespectful" for her son to have emotions.
She uses youth pastors and religion as a way to keep her son under the grip of her incessant neediness. She threatens to call the cops, essentially to validate her own controlling nature and inability to understand her son. Her white knight husband stands beside her and barely says anything, probably already a slave to her habit of cutting people down to make herself feel better.
She attacks the biological father's masculinity repeatedly in an attempt to get her way. The teen says he wouldn't screw over his biological father, and then his mom tries to guilt trip him saying he has screwed him over, and has probably forgotten, attacking her son's masculinity and his own personal decision to leave her in order to get her way. She asks if her ex is high or drunk, another attack on his masculinity, making him out to be a stereotypical male dunce because he holds more social authority than her in the situation. Then she says that the father is a bad influence, but is unable to label any habits she finds disagreeable.
She says she thinks her ex will shoot her if she uses force, vilifying him, and trying to make it seem as though the negative environment is the positive one with the stepfather. She asks him if its right that he's abandoning his siblings, suggesting he won't be able to see his baby sister. Then she threatens anger management class for her son when she's angrier than he is, a class thoroughly refuted in an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit.
She says "its hard to handle emotions", but she seems to have little control over hers. After going back and forth between insulting her son and ex, she starts touching him and invading his personal space to get him more upset to get him to give in. She says its not his decision who he spends his time with, showing her own selfish need to control the people around her.
The mother then starts crying like a child because she can't get her way, and acts like the entire manipulative conversation she just spent a half hour on didn't happen. She tries to open the car door to force him out. And starts giving him a scolding after a crying fit failed. She tries to call this the biggest day of her son's life, saying that she got him a car, trying to bribe him after every threat failed.
She says he's a child and he needs to come with her, but the second cop that comes says he is free to stay in the car and that its his right. She cries in front of the cop trying to get her son back out, then holds his hand and won't let go. She tries to make her ex-husband look like he is anti-police in an underhanded attempt to get the police to protect her own selfishness, regardless of what her son wants. The son has to push his mom to get to his room and get his things, because she slams and blocks the door.
After over an hour of dealing with his mother's controlling, manipulative outbursts, he finally escapes her house for good. The rest of the people in the house aren't so lucky..
The following is a submission from a subscriber of mine who wishes to remain anonymous:
In a fast paced urbanized America, hearing of a 50% divorce rate triggers about as much excitement, for many, as hearing the weather forecast on the radio.
To the masses of technology absorbed consumers it’s nothing more than a number they vaguely remember being spouted in the verbal diarrhea of a sociology class or on an episode of “Two and a Half Men”. Furthermore, hearing that 70% of women initiate these divorces (a less revealed statistic) does little more than lift the occasional eyebrow. However, for many men it’s a number that cannot and will never be forgotten; especially for those who have suffered its soul sucking and many times life ending fate as they are left with no financial security, no home, no access to children, no sympathy, and very little left to give hope of a dignified future.
A rising number of people in the real world or “red pill” world who have woken from one nightmare and into another have started to ask questions and seek solutions. Sadly many are starting to realize that the rabbit hole has reached a fork in the road despite agreeing on many of the same contributory biological, sociological, and socioeconomic factors. So what’s the word of the day?
Hypergamy!!! (the biologically driven instinct of females to marry men of higher status) is the keyword that seems to cause much of the controversy amongst the world of truth seekers. However, the more hypergamy gets rigorous scrutiny the more irrefutably valid it becomes as a result. While its validity has allowed it to push through some “politically correct only” arenas, many traditionalists don’t much care for the word.
They like to argue amongst themselves and others in the red pill world about its relativeness to divorce in America; usually downplaying its contribution. Commonly perceived traditionalist’s remedies to the increasing divorce trend are -That we just need to end feminism, readopt patriarchal chivalry (that still exists), shrink government, that we need to “man up” and lead women, and that we need to take back our American sovereignty- a sovereignty that in reality is nothing more than an egocentric repression of biological programming.
However, for those who recognize feminism as a factor, yet see hypergamy as the catalyst, we turn to cross cultural studies and find that indeed other countries are following the same path. If 50 years of American feminism is the main contributor to the demise of the “happy days” then what explains the current skyrocketing divorce numbers in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries (GCC) countries such as Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait (Kuwait being the highest at 37.13% in 2007 according to an article by booz&co)
I’ll tell you how. Oil>economic growth> modernization> consumerism/ materialism> A Michael Jordan style free throw line slam dunk of traditionalism right into the garbage; and this time it’s not the Christians feeling the slip of Holy Matrimony, It’s the nations of Islam losing its grip on Nikah (marriage). For decades now men in America have had to do little more than step out of their front door to be bombarded by the plethora of shaming tactics used by American traditionalists in attempts to convince them to maintain or regain their fortitudinous rescue of marriages; a rescue that clearly their abandoning spouses have not wanted.
And, apparently this trend is becoming popular in GCC countries. According to the article, “Individual GCC countries have taken various legal and social steps to halt this rise such as considering the implementation of new laws that would prevent husbands from recklessly pronouncing talaq, the words of divorce, and organizing programs to promote awareness of divorce’s disruptive impacts.” Furthermore, we see this….
“GCC countries have also started taking some steps to ensure more protection for women in divorces. The recent appointment of female judges and lawyers makes it more likely that the interpretation of family law will give more consideration to women.”…
So essentially “husbands” are increasingly the party legally responsible for maintaining marriage tradition by law while women are being given the green light to proceed with divorce. Ok- incentivized, allowed, rewarded, coddled; whichever choice words you desire to use. Regardless, it is no secret that divorce rates have reached a number high enough to spawn gender biased government intervention while clearly revealing that traditional values, no matter how sacred, will be tossed to the compost pile once the possibility of more lucrative seeds are whispered. Let me break this down a little more.
Women are being influenced to make whichever decision best benefits them while husbands are being coerced and, if necessary, legislated by law into maintaining traditional marriage values.
To further see evidence of this we turn to an article titled “Divorce and its impact on UAE society” written by Najla Al Awadhi. Now to make things more clear, here we have a woman of the culture and in the midst of the divorce explosion in UAE society. Let it be known that nowhere in this article is there any mention of men being the ones to initiate divorce nor is there mention of such related problems caused by men. Rather the article seems to address concern solely on the potential misfortunes that women may suffer; either through divorce, or on the flip side, through matrimonial loyalty. She states:
“Amongst the changes has been the rapid rise of female education, and an educated woman is no longer solely dependent on her husband, she has access to work opportunities, and most importantly she has a strong mind, which allows her to rationally decide as to what type of life she wants to live.”
Now gentlemen, while its humanistic and completely understandable that women be allowed any independence they desire, what you first must realize is that independence should be just that…..INDEPENDENCE….not government avocation that gives extra rights for women while shaming men through legislation. That’s hypocrisy! And if her hypocritically braggadocios, yet fear loaded statement doesn’t reveal women as leading the divorce initiatives in UAE societies, then you should seriously think about wearing some very large heavily tinted sunglasses the next time you play a game of poker, because your ass is getting robbed while your head is buried in the sand.
Still not convinced?
Let’s go further. She goes on to say,
“In my grandmother's generation, this was not the case, most women were illiterate, they had no understanding of the rights Islam had granted them, let alone any grasp of how to practice these rights, or how to survive independently.”
Now is it any wonder that she will be advocating for whatever benefits women most; especially as she admits women have had no understanding of how to live independently while simultaneously admitting to pre-existing laws that have ALLOWED women to divorce? So she is basically saying, (Hey ladies…..lets slow down a second here….We don’t want to play our cards too quickly….lets be more careful and make sure we make the right move.) What seems to be more apparent here, is that women did know the laws, as she clearly acknowledges that they didn’t waste any time jumping ship as soon as they perceived more lucrative options (as you will see further down). Furthermore, what seems to be bothering Najla Al Awadhi is that many women may have jumped ship a little too impulsively.
Still not convinced?
Further into her article she states:
“Rapid economic growth has also meant that as society we have become more materialistic, hence our material wants have increased, and this has often become a burdening factor in marriages, and today we are seeing a rise in dowry expectations, and wedding costs. This added to the demands for a luxurious lifestyle topped with daily living expenses, all have put a lot of pressure on marriages, as any inability to finance all the above can lead to marital discord.”
Hmmmm. There’s little to argue about that statement. However, what is unlikely is that Ms Awadhi intended to admit the ever increasing materialistic nature of women so bluntly. Nevertheless, this is exactly what she has done; unless confusion lays in an improper cultural association and all those “dowry” Bailey and Jacob & Co diamonds that we see on the fingers of American women are somehow marketed to and worn by men in the UAE. No need to expand on that. Ok! OK! Some of you are still not convinced. Well. Let’s just drive the point home shall we? Ms Awadhi states here,
“Let me say here that divorce is a complex issue, I am not writing here to say that we should discourage divorce nor am I saying we should encourage it, what I do believe is that we should understand the underlying reasons for the spike in the divorce rate to be able to approach it in a way that protects the rights of all involved and most importantly that leads to greater social harmony.”
Yes Ms Awadhi, let’s do understand the reasons; many of which you have already clearly documented and/or accidentally revealed. As you conclude,
“The UAE government has set up many social programmes to provide this type of education for young nationals today, to prepare them for the life journey of marriage, to instill in them the responsibility that this role entails; as the family unit is the foundation of the social fabric of our society, and therefore it is sacred and amongst our national priorities.”
It is clear she doesn’t advocate that women decide one way or the other. It also reveals that not all women in the culture have decided to jump ship. Many are still weighing options; seeking whatever option brings them the most hypergamously rewarding outcome. So be it. Women clearly will do what is best for them. And that being said, it’s past time men start doing the same for themselves, especially by safe-guarding themselves from gender biased government legislation and cultural shaming tactics that seek to hold them to marital loyalty while advocating that women do as they please. It’s also time men start listening to what women say, because the truths they often deny in a moment of need, they will brag about in a moment of pride.
I'ts truly an amazing thing to behold... The level to which men can pathetically scrape the bottom of the barrel to remain in servility to women. These three men, the quintessential trad-con workmules that they are, insist on faulting men for exhibiting and acting upon the strongest biological imperative there is (the will to survive).
They are cognizant of, and very pissed off at the changes that feminism has wrought within society, but unable to lay any responsibility on the feet of the opposite sex, because you see, it can never be women at fault for spitting on all the sacrifices that men make for them. It can never be women who feel so entitled to male disposability and utility that they view it almost as an automatic entitlement they are owed, no, you see MEN are at fault here. Their crimes? No longer being willing to risk life and limb for a bunch of female ingrates that think it a "real man's" onus to die for them.
In these men we observe a remarkable binary of thought, a doublethink of sorts. They hate feminism for destroying traditional gender customs, from wich they derive thier entire masculine identity. And yet they can't bring themselves even, to reject protecting the same feminists from some hypothetical attacker in a "dark alley" because, why? Because they're still women, and the traditional masculine role is to protect women, all women, from harm at all costs... Even the very feminists they claim to despise. Pay attention folks, this is pure unadulterated gynocentrism on display here.
Can't say I'm surprised, but Paul Elam at AVFM has called out Chapin and his perpetual attempts to inject a trad-con right wing agenda into the MRM. I myself have grown tired of addressing these people but I'm glad that the dust is finally settling on a consensus...that being, that the mrm has rejected political partisanship (without denying a need for political action) and that the values of traditionalism are endemically gynocentric and anti male (without forcing anyone to adopt any alternative lifestyle for themselves). I really don't get all the controversy over AVFM using the term MHRM. I Prefer the original term of men's right's activist (MRA) and I will continue to use it, but I'm perfectly fine with AVFM using their own syntax for the mens movement.
Posted with Blogsy