The men’s marriage strike bites deeper………
I swear I could have been reading about NZ……….
Law, Culture, and the Marriage Strike
A huge concern for those advocating the marriage strike (myself included), is the inequity facing men in Family Courts. Many of the sites say something like, “Until the law changes, men are increasingly refusing to get married.”
I would say that it should take a lot more than a few changes in the law to end the marriage strike.
I have been convinced for some time now that cultural norms shape everything that happens in society. That’s why liberalism is called “social engineering”.
Many men say that no man should marry an American women at all. Ever. There’s a reason for that, usually unspoken.
One of the best pieces of wisdom I ever received was from a friend who said, “We all breathe the same air.” It is one of the most useful rules of thumb I have ever used.
American women, no matter their station in life, background, family upbringing, or religious background, have been exposed nonstop to the feminist poison for 30+ years. It’s in the air (literally, if you consider the ubiquity of television).
What is happening in the law courts is a function of this. Law is, in large part, a product of culture. A new, cancerous counterculture has entered into a section of the previous culture that is incompatible with it, because it runs counter to the previous cultures fundamentals. Therefore, a system of law posited on old values - and old culture - has become dysfunctional.
Before the law and the courts can be fixed, the culture needs to be fixed. Barring that, we must either withdraw from the feminist culture, or establish our own strong subculture. The increasing number of men’s right blogs and websites is an attempt to build a patriarchal subculture.
So, for you reading this that think, “MY American woman is different,” I have a thought for you. I will assume for the sake of this argument that you are 100% correct, and grant that, yes, your woman does NOT suffer from feminist infection.
That is…she does not suffer from it…today.
You see, it is like saying, “I’m healthy.” There is always the chance for you to become unhealthy, and much depends upon your lifestyle and environment. The fact is, we do not in the United States have a culture that is healthy and conducive to the preservation of traditional families.
The fact is, every women lets up a bit after she gets her man. Moreover, if she is traditionally-minded, she will then stay home while you go to work. She may begin by keeping a spotless house.
But you can bet that television is going to get turned on. And she’ll start talking to the other women in the neighborhood. And she’ll meet other American women while doing her shopping.
And of course, YOU as her husband will be a topic of conversation. They’ll tell her that you’re not making enough money. They’ll tell her that you don’t spend enough time with the kids. They’ll tell her you aren’t home enough. They’ll tell her you’re a monster. They’ll tell her she deserves better. NO MATTER WHAT!
You will be helpless to protect yourself and your wife from this onslaught, because you will be busy working.
And they’ll start getting inside her head, poisoning it with feminism - because THAT, unfortunately, has become the dominant culture here.
After she’s accepted the feminist world-view, the death trap for men awaits - Family Court. It is the tool the feminists have forged to bludgeon men into submission and extract material resources from them. Divorce is the engine for women to have children (satisfying “baby rabies”) and at the same time be independent of men’s influence and rightful claims. It does this by confiscation of the man’s wealth and disposing of the man. Yes, American women say we can’t handle an independent woman. That’s because the independent American woman is independent at the financial and emotional expense of the American man. They are independent because they take and give nothing in return. Few can handle that.
That’s why the marriage strike is happening and is important. It is our best chance to save ourselves from this fate and at the same time redefine the culture. How? By refusing to participate in the dominant, feminized culture, and either withdrawing (expatriating) and/or forming a strong, well-defined subculture with strong taboos and social ostracism for violating those taboos. The best of both worlds is to expatriate with a critical mass of men who share the same vision, marrying foreign women and establishing a strong subculture there.
Is there any hope in America to prevent the feminazification of your wife, American or foreign, from happening? Only slightly.
Your and your wife have to agree to belong to a particularly strong subculture. Immigrants (especially ethnic churches) where the members live close to each other are good. I can’t think of any others.
Posts RSS 2.0
I’m sympathetic to your views as I believe that the physical differences (here presumptive to include the emotional) between men and women drive your observations in subjectivity. I also agree with your observation that any cultural identity is subject to attacks of alienation and where these are most extreme the legal processes will first be challenged and thereafter for the strength of the intruder corrupted. Feminism has achieved this, its extremes overpowering its principles, advancing to corrupt the legal practice so to take advantage of its authority.
Yet I believe first and most importantly that this condition is the first stage for any recognising the general plight to both acknowldege and as importantly from which to create a a manageable distance. This is to say that if men gain ground again in authority, if the gender issue is so considered to be of authority, then for the betterment, principle and honour of that cause, as misuse is likely again in the pendulum swing of power, the initiative should be knowldege based. Which is to say to learn from our mistakes.
So here I separate from the commentary where the necessity of a marriage strike or any other similar response is dedicated to overthrowing the perceived oppression and thereby redefining the realm of power, its eventual control and the subsequent demands; as horrible as they may have been from a nearly forgotten past.
The single issue that overrides every other denominator above is that we are living tissue. In order to exist we procreate. In order to survive we need to do this with some degree of order and in some condition of commonality by community. There are no larger communities than those of men and women. So a battle in these communities of relative power by/and demand is primary. The denominator between the two is children. They are the produce of our living tissue.
This means where children are our existence, that if we are to battle it is foolish to do this where the casualty is our children. The damage from such a battle not only as obviously damages our sons and daughters but it damages the functionality of our living tissue and its survival. In a region where families break down as a disproportionatly high rate the health of the country is likely to be poor. Happiness is an empoverished commdity and exploitation will be high. So to rationalise the problem from an external position the best instrument a community has available to mitigate the problem is to recognise the necessity to place the primary value on the protection of our human young.
Clearly in this modern and now as gaining in its extremes, our feminised society; this has not happened. Not for a long time. We are exploiting our children to demand in this exploitable right of “freedom”.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 19th June 2007 @ 12:06 pm
My primary motive for going on “marriage strike” was to protect myself. Simple self-defence. I’ve had some close shaves with the tremendous power the law gives to abusive women, and I’ve seen the casualties amongst the guys who haven’t been so fortunate.
If a marriage strike en masse brings about a cultural change that addresses the gross inequalities between men and women before the law, then well and good. But that’s a secondary issue.
If I were to venture into the philosophical, I would consider the marriage strike as another symptom of the same cause that has seen the massive drop in fertility in men, and the drop in birth-rates amongst Western women so that in many countries it is now below the rate of replacement (ie deaths exceed births).
All species exhibit reproductive decline when subjected to critical stressors.
Comment by Rob Case — Tue 19th June 2007 @ 12:52 pm
İn every cigarette pack the warning says”Caution cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health”.Before a marriage is performed it should be made compulsory to say: ” Caution marriage my be dangerous to your finances and to your health”
Comment by Harry Stanton — Tue 19th June 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Hey Ben
Children the casualty.. agreed however does the current feminist propaganda recognise this…philosophically speaking all we see is that they are quick to pick up on it when things do not go their way in order to blackmail emotively. Whenever us men have recognised this it is only to our own downfall.
Comment by starr — Wed 20th June 2007 @ 3:43 pm
I agree Rob, totally in the philosophy written here yet do not recognise the marriage strike as the instrument to deliver (or reflect) the adversity back to its cause. It is a direct challenge on a different problem that separates children away from the nerve centre where most obviously the damage to a child is more likely over time to disaffect a father than any broken relationship. I may be off a truth in this but from my experience of love, duty and commitment, as if necessary, I would still go to early to my grave to protect my sopn and daughter yet should my former wife seek any such the commitment I’d reply - “sorry girl look to your new bloke to get what you need”. You had your shot but you blew it up. This is to say that in my circumstances the state interventions were used as they were discriminatory and gender biased to her favour and she took every advantage of what was presented in front of her as it was rational for her so to do: This says, I don’t care so much about her but it has very little to do with women. So for me a marriage strike is misplaced. I am on a parenting strike and have so been now since January 31st 2001. Just over 30 hours contact in over 6 years.
To me this is much more effective and establishes the precedential condition from which the State (any) has no reply. It is exactly the same as woith any essential service, if you look at it from a government and economic perspective. Fathers are an essential service. If we stop work for a period, as long as is necessary then we immediately expose the problem. It wouldn’t take to many fathers to be active for the media to recognise what was going on. Remembering that the suffragettes sacrifice wasn’t just individual but directly damaged the protester’s families as well. Do I love my children?
Of course.
Its good to see Harry’s comment on smoking here as well when I am encouraging protest action. There’s a reaqlly simple activity that anyone can do and completely anonimously as well. In NZ we have free post to our parliament buildings. On one side of a an envelope address the PM’s by name and Parliament Buildings Wellington.
ON the back write something like GOVERNMENT WARNING: ALIENATING PARENTS FROM CHILDREN IS HAZARDOUS TO HEALTH.
Starr: They have no choice. When MW introduced the legislation called the Care of Children bill in NZ in 2003 she did it as directly inconsistent with the law, both the UNCROC for its directive purpose on discrimination and the NZBORA for its demand (by s.6 as directly relevant to s.7) to due process. Both of these can be argued to be subject under s.25 (as I remember the section number) even if the UNCROC is the longer bow, of the Crimes Act as along with any other act not affected.
She let in a single woman or lesbian couple an entitlement to have a child by removing from the child’s inheritable association with their biological male parent. So it doesn’t matter what the feminists “think” any more. The issue to be rationalised is how best to reconstruct (I argue from constitution) the legislation and its practice to accomodate the problem against its maintenance and primarily its cause.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 20th June 2007 @ 5:14 pm
I have met some adorable women in the United States, but even they have generally been indoctrinated in a lot of feminist thought. I find again and again that they hate their bodies and resent being perceived as ’sex objects.’ They bitterly resent the very fact that men admire physical beauty and harbor deep and vindictive jealousy for anyone that is deemed beautiful. They are scared that men will rape and abuse them if they so much as go outside.(Even those girls who are physically active will run only on the treadmill rather than in the great outdoors, ride only on the stationary bike, while wearing headphones to prevent the annoyance of having to interact with men at all) Their views have been so distorted that many otherwise nice girls are completely unsuitable for marriage. I have trouble being attracted to someone who is afraid of me, who is more inclined to see me as a potential rapist before a boyfriend, husband, or father. In time they have gotten what they wanted. I have more and more trouble seeing them as ’sex objects’ at all. They are asexual for all practical purposes.
It’s true what is said about foreign countries. Traveling quickly redefined my definition of women and revealed to me once and for all how the ladies back at home are ridden with a host of irrational fears and neuroses. I’ve been to countries where there are not a slough of laws in place to protect women from every conceivable threat a male could possibly pose. The women were unanimously healthier, happier, and friendlier. They would happily walk out in the streets even at night without fear, they understood that provocative dress draws male attention and they understood in general that it is natural and good for males to express interest in the opposite sex, they intuitively understood and accepted the fact that men have different ways and tendencies than women, they were open and affectionate in a way that the fearful women of the West with all their piled up protections can never be.
My definition of women was changed and sadly, very few Western women fit it.
Comment by Gluon the Ferengi — Tue 22nd July 2008 @ 9:56 am
Westen woman are only good for f*cking.
Comment by Fuck daddy — Sat 26th July 2008 @ 11:42 pm
#7 What a ridiculus comment. I hope you have had a vasectomy as your genes should be removed from the gene pool. Do as you choose but certainly you are no example to children.
Comment by Allan — Sat 26th July 2008 @ 11:58 pm
Hello,
My name is Amir Nitzan, Iwm an Israeli and also join the marriage strike. But the more accurate word we must use is a “birth strike” for which it doesnwt matter, juridicly or moral, whether your child was born for a married or unmarried couple. Jewuish men in Israel must face with a very discriminative system against men (police, courts and so on…). Me, in my language and country, try sometimes in the internet to write about a “birth strike”. Unfortunately, the idea hasn’t permated to a large part of young men, yet, but i hasn’tdespaired, yet. Eventually everything in Israel comes some years later than in Britian/New Zealand/United States. My mail:amir_nitzan@walla.com
Comment by Amir Nitzan — Sat 20th September 2008 @ 7:18 am
There are many “Nice” women out there, all the mad psycho ones are usually attractive and manipulative, they want something from the man, and if they do not get it, eventually they will be VERY VERY DESTRUCTIVE Indeed.
Men could spot them really but there is a strong attraction to such women and we are the more romantic naive ones in general. It is roughly the same as how many women are attracted to bad men, “fatal attraction”. The nice women are a little less sexy, but they are the ones to seek out as long term partners. Of course when you are in a stable but boring long term relation , such bad women seem VERY attractive and they will use their considerable charms , but these are the women who will give men such grief in their lives. That was my story anyway
Comment by Perseus — Sat 20th September 2008 @ 10:14 am
That’s not true Perseus.
Many of the most attractive women are also the nicest.
The ‘key’ to finding the right woman is to look at your future mother in law.
If you don’t like what you see…run a mile.
Comment by rosie — Sat 20th September 2008 @ 8:48 pm
#10 Rosie is dead right! I broke the rule and it has taken years to be able to laugh about it.
#2 I agree with Rob Case, that there is some self protective instinct in the marriage strike concept.
Although after separating I really wanted to have more children, the economic realities forced me to face that I couldn’t do it and bring up more children in anything like the manner I believe children should be brought up.
I certainly have felt fear of familycaught and manipulation, garnished with escape through suicide, when too close to a fertile woman (along with all the other feelings).
Though to be straightforward, I didn’t have enough time to stop and make a rational decision, I was just up and gone. I couldn’t believe it myself. It was as though I was picked up and thrown across the room.
Introductory psychology books call it “fight or flight”. I had experienced the flight.
To me it looks more like cowardice!
Would it be better to call it familycaught/marriage cowardice?
Cheers,
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 20th September 2008 @ 9:50 pm
Tis good and timely that this very well written original post has come back to the front of MENZ
I stand in awe of the wisdom in the original post and find my only criticism and its really only a tease is to suspect the problem be an American one is far from true as Stephen obviously realises.
The problem is global
With the original post in mind - Where to from here in NZ?
I accept that the Law is behind - I do not accept that it will catch up without one hell of a fight - The Law is maintained by those that make money from it, those that think they can use it to sort out their troubles, and those that add to it in parliament.
In NZ we also contend with powerful government deliberately manipulating Law and Social Policy to destroy Family – Lational - The destruction of Family will give more power to the Government of the day to manipulate the economy and its subjects – It seems Judith Collins will continue in the (MSD)way should she get the power, John-K the economy.
In NZ its NOT Law that we need to change so much as the Social Policy that allows a Ministry of Social Developement MSD to rule over the Law.
So here in NZ we do have the troubles Stephen has so rightly seen similar in NZ in his original post
We also have Govt of the day easily able to override the Law (MSD)
Yet Men and some Women touch and thus expand the Empire of Injustice beyond the need to rescue their Families thinking their efforts will advance the Law toward change – I don’t think so.
Ben Easton and Paul Cattons superb efforts come to mind as perfect examples - I am in no way suggesting they slow down the attach on that front - But please let us see that it is only a small part of the real war.
Thus they waste their resources fighting another front that is far from the real war and draining good, Men, Women and resources.
In NZ our real WAR is with MSD, Womens Ministry, and over the top Feminists in local Government (Womens Refuge advocates)
Those MEN and Women geting into bed with MSD, Womens Ministry, Womens Rufuge are deluded
Some of them in our ranks
Some of them naïve
Some of them purpose driven
Onward - Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sun 21st September 2008 @ 5:39 am
Hi Guys,
My Name is David Cohen, From Israel. Like my Frind Amir Nitzan has mentioned above, we have the same problems in our country. Israeli men face some serious trouble and discrimination, it’s pretty much the sme shit everywhere.
False Domstic Violence accusations, Very high child support payments, and automatic custoday for women over chldren. (Shared parenting is currently not
a reognized option in my country).
Feminism is destroying western societies, family by family. We, young men, do not want to find ourselves alienated from our children, getting into poverty, and losign everything we have worked hard for.
Our marriage rates are on decline, however the marriage strike is currently on a very initial level.
Please feel free to read an english article I wrote about the marriage strike
that can be found here:
Comment by David Cohen — Sun 30th November 2008 @ 1:25 pm
A marriage strike would not have much impact because many governments now impose most or all provisions of marriage on relationships defined as de facto marriage. Even a one night stand, if it leads to pregnancy in any way (including sperm theft), will make the man responsible for financially supporting the woman for around two decades. A sexual relationship strike would have the kind of impact people here are suggesting. Unfortunately, our instinctual needs and desires will make such a strike unrealistic. Heterosexual men simply will not resist women’s attractiveness.
I would suggest we find some other way of protesting. In the end, only political and law changes will improve things.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 1st December 2008 @ 10:06 am