From the original article on June 10, 2008. Author: Chateau Heartiste.
As I’ve said before, marriage as it is currently constituted is the worst deal imaginable for men: You give up on all other women forevermore only to run a better than 50% risk that the aging pussy you’re stuck with will walk off with half your money and the house on nothing more than her personal whim.
My advice to men has always been simple — don’t get married. The blessing of marriage is no longer needed to score a steady supply of sex and love.
But since I am the very Moloko Plus of human kindness, and understanding that companionate marriage has served the West well, I give some steps society can take to get the institution back on firm footing.
When the law relieved husbands and wives of the obligation to give a damned good reason to leave their partners, it was a race to the exits, and beta males took the brunt of it under the new polygynous rules. Yes, some individual divorce parties will suffer without the easy out of no-fault. But the suffering of the few is to be weighed against the betterment of the whole.
Only a person — like, oh, myself — with an excellent grasp of human nature could say this. Economically empowered (which is basically the same as educationally empowered) women face a smaller pool of dateable men. This is because it is in the very core of a woman’s nature to date and marry up. Women are not happy unless they are surrendering their bodies to higher status men. By pricing themselves out of the sexual market, they have been forced, when they do get married, to marry at their level or below, increasing the likelihood she’ll turn off the pussy spigot and make him go to the bathroom in the woods as her lawyers sharpen their carving knives. This trend will get worse as the ratio of women to men in higher education grows more skewed. Only the beautiful women have the luxury of marrying up to their hearts’ content.
Now of course, many women will bitch and moan, somewhat justifiably under the current cultural regime, that they need the education and better paying jobs to survive because they can’t rely on men to support them adequately. But here’s what they’re missing: Weaker women *inspire* men to protect and provide for them. In a social climate where women aren’t doing as well occupationally you will see men MORE motivated to improve their own job outlooks because they are fired up to provide for, instead of compete with, the women around them.
Women would be better served concentrating on improving their looks through whatever means necessary. Only ugly women should seriously consider grad school.
Alpha husbands who can get their rocks off with younger pretty mistresses won’t be as liable to walk away from their marriages because their sexual satiation, coupled with the wives’ loyal acquiescence, would discourage them from seeking divorce to clear the way to hot sex. Double plus societal bonus: More alphas tied up in marriage means more women available to marry betas.
The reverse scenario does not apply because a cheating wife is much more dangerous to the stability of the marriage than a cheating husband. Double standard? Of course! Deal. Human nature cares not for your equalist shibboleths.
This is related to point #2 above. It’s no coincidence that the slide in manufacturing in the past 40 years has tracked the rise in divorce. Without a solid manufacturing base to shore up the pride in self and incomes of left-side-of-the-bell curve men the cruel and merciless shark infested waters of the modern cognitive economy have chewed them up, leaving them utterly defenseless against the onslaught of fickle masculinized women armed with the imprimatur of no fault divorce and burgeoning incomes.
I haven’t seen this written about anywhere else. I believe the loss of manufacturing in America has contributed a lot more to divorce than people think. Manufacturing jobs gave men ill-equipped or ill-tempered for the academic life a shot at decent money and respectable standing in society, without leaving them castrated as office drones or service workers. And manufacturing, appealing so directly to men’s interests, ran no risk of being overrun by a workforce of women eager to operate heavy machinery. In a word, globalization has been bad for the American institution of marriage.
Libertarians may shudder at this suggestion, but then libertarians have never had a firm grasp of male-female natures.
Egalitarian liberals will shudder at all my suggestions, but then egalitarian liberals are discredited.
You’ve gotta clean house of the parasites before any of these ideas can be put into action.
This goes against the trend of feminized doofus befuddled fathers acting like their presence is superfluous, but the return of the powerful patriarchal father would go a long way to curbing the excesses of both the interloper cads and the slutty daughters. Personally, I love sluts, and this suggestion would make my life harder, but what’s good for me is not necessarily, or even very often, good for society.
In the event of divorce, what beta ex-husband wants to pay a hefty sum to an ex-wife who has his kids 90% of the time and spends it on lingerie and beer for her bad boy lover? A lot of provider betas imagine this scenario and decide that learning game is a better option than walking down the aisle. I don’t blame them.
Besides the slippery slope argument (which I believe is a legitimate one in this case, opening the door to polygamous arrangements), gay marriage undermines the procreative justification for marriage. Western companionate marriage is as much about kids as it is about love. Scrap the one reason and it’s harder to justify getting married for the other reason. (After all, it’s easy to leave a spouse you no longer love if there are no kids involved, and it’s easy to stay childless and love a partner without the codification of marriage.)
Undermining the procreative reason for marriage with legally sanctioned innately nonprocreative pairings undermines the whole. (Spare me the counterargument that infertile hetero couples can get married. The important concept lies in the potential of the couple in a natural unadulterated state to procreate, not the actual capability.)
Now personally I couldn’t care less if gays get married; it doesn’t affect my life one way or the other, so I will never agitate for or against it. What I’ve written in this post is a primer for society, not for my own hedonistic pursuit. The thing to remember is that INCENTIVES MATTER in human affairs, and right now there is a huge structural disincentive for men to marry and a structural incentive for women to initiate divorce.
Actually, I hope none of these changes happen. It would really cramp my style.
Postscript: Another option is to get the state completely out of the business of marriage. They’ve gone ahead and fucked it up pretty well, so why not try the alternative?
Library of Chadnet | wiki.chadnet.org