The way it works is that I will propose you for membership in the private forum and if no one objects for a week then you are in. Ardia has asked that all prospects read and comment on Sexual Utopia in Power, so please do that.
First off I honestly do not understand why feminists are against marriage when it actually BENEFITS women in the west. See....marriage does not entail monogamy. Most women cheat now a days. As marriage stands in the western world...it actually gives women a bigger advantage than if the institution did not exist...which is ironic because women think without marriage women will have more power.
See...A woman that's a 4/10 can easily marry a 7/10 guy. Now she can get fat, treat him like shit, and of course cheat like crazy. She can do this all while dangling her ability to divorce him, aquire half of his assets, and hit him with alimony to boot. Even worse, if they have kids she will essentially use the kids as hostages to get what she wants. She will also try to manipulate her kids and turn them against the father...make him look like the "bad guy". Of course all of this is in addition to forcing the man to pay child support for his kids he rarely gets to see.
So when she treats him like shit and cheats on him he is quick to forgive her....because he knows what power she is given in the western world. In many cases the woman is able to turn things around and put the blame on the man and actually have the man beg for forgiveness for her own infidelity.
Even with women cheating more than men now a days....over 80 percent of divorces are filed by women...which brings me to another part of the article.
"Fully 22 percent of American bachelors aged 25–34
have resolved never to marry. 53 percent more say they are not interested in
marrying any time soon.11 That leaves just 25 percent looking for wives. This
may be a situation unprecedented in the history of the world."
It seems more and more young men are starting to wise up to what is going on in modern day marriage and are "fighting back" by not getting married. However perhaps this was the goal of feminists.
We all know that alimony, child support, the ability to take half a man's assets in divorce court, high divorce rates, etc. were all caused by feminism. But what feminists had in mind was not to give women more power in the system of marriage...but to scare men from wanting to get married in the first place, because they are hellbent on taking down the institution. Feminists also discourage other women from getting married by trying to liken marriage to slavery and when a woman does get married they encourage her to divorce him and take him to the cleaners.
So.....marriage at the core benefits men.....but due to the way it is set up in the west, it greatly benefits women. So us men are pretty much put in a situation where we are damned if we do, damned if we dont.
Thanks for reading Sexual Utopia in Power and commenting on it. I have just proposed you for membership. Below is my response to your post.
What is now called "marriage" isn't really marriage. Men's rights forums distinguish between marriage 1.0 and marriage 2.0, the latter being basically a license for women to steal and nothing more. Real marriage was about monogamy, which is why feminism opposes it. Devlin was talking about real marriage, marriage 1.0, not the sick joke that passes for marriage in modern culture.
The men who are fighting back with the marriage strike just don't get it, in my opinion. They are on the same side as feminists in opposing marriage. Who do you think irritates feminists more, the guy who refuses to marry, or the guy who finds a real wife outside of the femisphere? This should tell you which approach makes more sense.
I carry around copies of "Sexual Utopia in Power" in my book bag, and hand them out sometimes. Does that count towards commenting on it. I carry around other articles too, like "Shut the fuck up and shovel the gravel", and "The Psychology of Hate". I'm a street activist the best I can be. I could very easily right about it for you, but many of my college proffesors told me my papers were too long, so you've been warned.
Having deeply appreciated a few of the works of Devlin and some others writers, and with the idea of further discussing any means to a brotherhood of committed men, I'd like to apply for membership. I've already posted a little piece of writing about attraction and feelings among guys like me and the idea of partnership that I consider both socially useful and spiritually satisfying. I can only hope I could know of more people sharing a view of a healthy culture based on durable bonds that lead to family life and harmony.
I would also like to join. I have been corresponding with you on the NiceGuy forums, and (without realizing this was a requirement of joining - I did it because I felt compelled to) I've already commented on Sexual Utopia in Power on my blog.
I want to see too if I can join. Come over from NiceGuy's forum.
As regards Devlin's essay, my summary statement is that it's a thoughtful essay, full of rich info. I don't agree, I do agree with some of the premises and summaries.
Specifically, I do agree with "Shrewd women have long known how to manipulate the male protective
urge for their own ends." in the Modern Chivalry section of the essay. I think that modern chivalry means "women are more important, men are disposable/dispensable".
Glad to see your stuff here fschmidt.
I have proposed you for membership and you should get access in a week.
I'm curious to know more specifically what you disagree with Devlin about. I also disagree with Devlin on a few points. Of course CoAlpha members don't all have to agree, but it is nice to see how people think.
Well I will try here to say some things. Yes, we don't have to agree, and I think that my thinking is more similar than different, really. It's a thoughtful essay, and it's always nice to see men writing. I feel so often that I don't have sufficient emotional or intellectual perspective to write academically, and I honor the men who do. The essay strikes me initially as too what...trichotomous (?). There are great points that I agree with scattered within a cluttered premise that makes it hard to follow for me.
I do not think that men are 'simple', and do not think it's useful to base a discussion on that premise.
I have never been married and I am childfree. So far I am very happy about not being married, and I do not see that ever changing beCAUSE I have never met a woman I wanted to do that with and do not see women or the law changing in any way that would change my perspective. Finding a woman I feel safe with is the first problem for me. I like the description of marriage as "Marriage 1.0" and "Marriage 2.0", though I think I would not feel safe (legally or emotionally) in either. More or less as I understand it Marriage 1.0 is where "a man & woman get married and 'do what men & women do' with each other implicitly agreeing on the terms of being married based on cultural gender-role expectations" and Marriage 2.0 is "a contract based on a vague memory of cultural gender-role expectations along with men's explicit legal liability". To me marriage 1.0 is 'sentimental' and marriage 2.0 is 'legal'. It is hard for me to feel safe with both the cultural gender-role expectations AND the laws regarding marriage.
But what do I know...heheheh
And, like I said, it is excellent that Devlin is writing.
That is fair enough. Not everyone has to get married. But then I would like to understand what your goals are and how you think those goals could best be accomplished. Devlin is clearly pro- marriage 1.0 and pro-monogamy. What are you for?
It’s a good
question.Feels like quite a
personal question.I am for fun & learning, man. With respect to ‘making a
world together with a woman’ having a romance, I’m shooting for a
good partnership & match with a honorable normal woman.Learned long ago that it doesn’t
work for me to slut around.Heheheh, goal?Man…shortsighted goal would be to meet an anesthesiologist who
wants to support me so I can go to chef school…or work where/when/how I
cynicism/bitterness man <grin>
Happy New Year
From:fschmidt [via CoAlpha
Brotherhood] [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010
14:00 To:Samwise Subject: Re: Can i join?
That is fair enough.
Not everyone has to get married. But then I would like to
understand what your goals are and how you think those goals could best be
accomplished. Devlin is clearly pro- marriage 1.0 and pro-monogamy.
What are you for?
NOTE: IF YOU FOUND THIS FORUM GOOGLE PLEASE LOOK AT AROUND!
20 and never kissed a girl
21 and never kissed a girl
22 and never kissed a girl
23 and never kissed a girl
24 and never kissed a girl
25 and never kissed a girl
26 and never kissed a girl
27 and never kissed a girl
28 and never kissed a girl
29 and never kissed a girl
30 and never kissed a girl
cant get a girlfriend
how come girls dont like me
girls always reject me
rejection from girls
18 and a virgin
19 and a virgin
20 and a virgin
21 and a virgin
22 and a virgin
23 and a virgin
24 and a virgin
25 and a virgin
26 and a virgin
27 and a virgin
28 and a virgin
29 and a virgin
30 and a virgin
i cant get laid
girls wont have sex with me
girls wont go out with me
how come girls wont go out with me
i always get rejected
how come i always get rejected