Marriage really is finished: it’s over

It is a powerful, natural, joy-filled, very human desire for a man to want to marry. The pride he feels walking out of a church or registry office with his new wife on his arm gives him a sense of completeness, of hope – of new beginnings. He is striking out in life, starting his own new family unit, taking on responsibility for his wife and their future children – the fruit of their union.

However, all that is now finished.  It’s over. In the age of feminism, marriage is no longer the ‘honourable estate’ it once was.

Until only very recently, in a traditional wedding, the bride’s father would have ‘given her away’ in a touching echo of the past when a father passed his ‘covering’ – his protection and provision for his daughter – to her new husband. In signalling her acceptance of this arrangement, the bride promised to ‘love, honour and obey’ her new husband. However, after decades of destructive propaganda from feminists decrying and diminishing the role of a wife, and the man as head of the family, that once noble and sought-after status has become nothing to be proud of for women.

Modern women (generally – there are exceptions, of course) are no longer prepared to be wives. They no longer consider marriage a covenant promise ‘for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health – till death’ etc. Feminism has ‘liberated’ them from all of that. ‘After all,’  the feminist argument goes, ‘… why live in an imperfect arrangement? Why stick with a man you don’t love anymore, or who really wants to own you, to dominate you, and stop you being your own woman?’ Or, ‘He’s an abuser, and you are the victim’.

Even those who are married believe that if the relationship is not right it is acceptable to ditch the man and move on. The weasel-word rhetoric goes on: ‘You only have one life to live: go for it sister, take your kids, ditch the man, and get a life!’

Today, young women reportedly still dream of marriage, but what sort of marriage do they dream of? These days it is likely to be a preposterously expensive, stage-managed quasi-theatrical event (possibly acted out on a beach somewhere on a far-flung shore, in an environment more reminiscent of a film set) rather than the joyful, but solemn celebration of a lifelong covenant it needs to be.

The stark reality of marriage in Britain today is that it has only a broadly 50:50 chance of surviving at all, let alone any reasonable length of time. The Office for National Statistics reported in 20111Statistical Bulletin ONS: Divorces in England and Wales. 2011  – 2011 is the latest year for which we currently have data., that the median length of a marriage is now only 11.5 years2This is the median measure of central tendency, as used by the ONS, not the mean or average, which is likely to be higher due to the small number of marriages that last for life., and the ONS statistics on divorce show that women are the ones ending their marriages – up to three times3The ONS Statistical Bulletin. Divorces in England and Wales, 2011, issued on 20th December 2012 tells us that women have been (and still are) initiating divorces between 2 and 3 times more frequently than men. the rate men end them.

Today, it is clear that marriage is neither lifelong, nor a covenant – for women. We must face it, marriage as it has been known for centuries is finished: it is over, drowned in a swirling sea of ‘equality’ and lack of honour – in women.

On the other hand, for men, marriage still carries its original purpose of patriarchal provision and protection: of commitment and covering – by solemn vow – of ‘all my worldly goods’ etc.4Historically, women have never made such a commitment, but they continue to take advantage of this exclusively male responsibility in divorce., and in an age where women have thrown off their responsibilities in marriage it is an iniquity that men are still held to account for theirs under these ancient rules. Men and women are either equal, or they are not.

Divorce used to be very difficult, and it involved shame and blame. Under the old system of patriarchy that made men responsible for their wives’ care and protection, blame and responsibility were the key elements of ending a marriage. When it went wrong, one spouse or the other had to prove the other’s actions amounted to a repudiation of the contract, even just to get permission from the court for a divorce. Like any legal contract if one party was in breach, there were responsibilities to be met, and penalties to be paid. Now, there is no such thing as a guilty party.

Nowadays we have ‘no blame’ divorce, which makes it easy for a woman to get what amounts to a ‘quickie’ divorce – and possibly a meal ticket for life. Even after a short marriage.

This latter point is not new. The same thing was happening more than a hundred years ago in the first wave of feminism that raised its head on the back of the emergence of the Marxist/Socialist movement in the mid 19th century. Ernest Belfort Bax, in his many essays on the subject, said this in 1909:

‘A woman may, in the present day, do practically what she likes without fear of anything happening to her beyond a nominal punishment. The English marriage laws, with their right of the wife to maintenance, give her almost unlimited power to oppress her husband.'5Bax E. B. (1909) A Study in Socialist Heresy Hunting, Social Democrat, Vol.13, No.3, March, 1909, pp.114-120

A man who has married and who has been the sole provider, will still find that the divorce courts make the presumption that his wife’s contribution to the marriage has been equal, and any money he has acquired, even if he brought it into the marriage in the first place, will be disproportionately and unfairly apportioned to his wife. If there are children, she will get more – much more.

Even though women are ‘equal’ today, divorce will not be a half-way split. Feminism has torn down marriage but it still supports the iniquity of ‘taking the man for everything he’s got’ in divorce. There is no equality when it come to divorce, because the system remains rooted in the implicit understanding that a man is responsible for his wife even though she has abrogated her responsibility towards him.

Today, we have modern marriage and medieval divorce. The system will still lead a man by the nose and make him pay through the nose – because he is a man who is deemed responsible for his wife, even when she is irresponsible.

Modern, feminist-inspired women are only too happy to take advantage of a man’s covering that gave women security in marriage, whilst enjoying all the ability to abrogate their part in what should be a covenant relationship for life. Even the most modern woman still wants to be kept ‘in the style to which she has become accustomed’.

Even if they are not self-identified feminists, women remain happy to tear down patriarchy and overturn the status of the father, but they still want women to benefit from what patriarchy offers. This is a wicked double standard.

When a divorce happens, the entire legal/cultural system is only too willing to support a woman in getting more than she is ‘entitled’ to – even if she is the guilty party and has broken up the marriage. Nothing is sacred in divorce. Even after only a few years of marriage, a couple may have acquired property, cars, furniture, computers, cameras, items of personal emotional value etc. and all of them will get tipped into the pot in a divorce. Plus the man’s future pension pot, his savings, any inheritances from his parents, investments and anything else for which he as worked hard to provide. When the sums are worked out by the feminist-biased courts they use zero-sum calculations – and the man is the one who frequently gets the zero sums.

The power of the third-rate lawyers who are the district judges of the family courts is stupefying. They can impose sanctions on a man far beyond the power of even a more senior judge in a criminal court without any fear of being challenged. They can remove his house from him, and turn him out onto the street. They can take as much of his future pension as they deem fit at the time, and they can order the transfer to his ex-wife of any joint assets that may represent a lifetime’s work for him, or his father and mother if he has inherited.

Then they can force crippling maintenance payments on a man, until his wife gets another man to take her on – or she dies. In an age of equality, this is an abomination. Women are either independent, liberated, equal, or they are not.

The entire system exists in what can only be described as a star chamber culture. Appeals against district judges’ decisions in matrimonial matters are unheard of, and rarely are their decisions modified let alone overturned by a more senior judge. What is more, their decisions cannot even be challenged in the court of public opinion, because all proceedings in the family courts are held in secret, especially where children are involved.

The feminist culture that a wife comes under once she gets into the family courts system, perverts her sense of fair play – and it is all powerful. One man cannot fight the state.

An ex-wife will use the stacked pack delivered to her by the system to exact her dues, which amount to a penalty, from her former husband. In divorce, a woman has enormous power over her ex-spouse, and she will exercise this full in the belief that she is justified and entitled, because the system, and her friends and relatives, tell her she is so entitled, both explicitly and implicitly.

An entire divorce industry feeds off men, like a parasite. The entire system focusses on men and conspires against men in divorce. It has the power and the will to extract from a man every last penny he has because its culture, still steeped in the old fashion principles of marriage is being manipulated by feminists in the courts’ support services, the legal profession and in parliament where female-biased legislation is passed by feminist politicians.

A woman will get a divorce lawyer (probably also a woman, because family law practice is dominated by women, many of them fervent feminists) and if she claims there was violence in the marriage, the cost of this will be born at least in part by the state. Together with the courts’ support services (also predominantly staffed by radical feminists), they will use every bit of the vast body of gender-biased rules surrounding divorce, and the gender bias of the judges, to extract as much financial advantage for her from her former husband.

The husband’s lawyer (and he will have to get one to counteract the stream of unreasonable allegations coming from someone who was once his partner for life, but is now ‘the other party’) will charge more than an average man’s daily wage for every letter sent, and – more than a week’s wage for a conference or court appearance. The bills mount up surprisingly quickly – and there is no state support for this.

Even if he gets a ‘reasonable’ financial settlement, the man will still get at least a four-figure bill (and probably a five-figure one if there are a lot of assets to be distributed – or there is a child custody battle, which is more likely than not). Furthermore, that settlement is likely to include at least some element of his wife’s costs. Most probably he will be advised to pay her money just to get her and the entire system off his back – and all because he once signed on the dotted line in that registry office or church vestry, when he was in love and dreaming of a golden future.

If he has children, his ex-wife will secure probably better than half the joint family assets. She will be allowed to continue living in the marital home, and the man will have to provide a roof over his own your head – somehow. There will be no assistance for him to do this. he will be on his own in the country of which he is a citizen, isolated by the courts’ system of his own nation.

Such a crisis might be survivable if there is plenty of money in the joint kitty, but many divorces – far too many for a fair and just society – result in a man being wiped out financially with not enough money to get himself a decent roof over his head, let alone a new home (or even enough new furniture to start again, or the basic assets needed for modern life).

A divorce can easily set a man back to square-one financially (possibly further back if he started marriage with some assets of his own and the bulk of them are taken and given to his wife when she calls time on their marriage).

If a man has had to leave the marital home because his wife is beating him up or otherwise abusing him (and domestic violence/abuse is broadly reciprocal, with some forms of it being committed more by women than men – despite the feminist lies to the contrary) there will be no place in a refuge for him. Even if he has nowhere to sleep except in his car (or the streets), feminists who have cornered the market in government funding for refuge places, and have manipulated public opinion to believe the domestic violence and abuse is only ever committed by men, have seen to it that refuge places are only available for ‘battered’ women.

So, this is my advice: my ‘word to the wise’ to any man considering marriage. Get real, don’t do it. It is a rotten deal – a poisoned chalice – and the poison is feminism.

You might want to have children. That is natural. But consider these words and balance the risk. It doesn’t look good. The probability is that if you marry, it will end in divorce. You cannot avoid the statistics, or the social climate in which this is happening. To do so is to bury your head in the sand and play Russian Roulette with your future, placing yourself at risk of being cleaned out financially and having to start all over again – probably with the heavy financial and emotional burden of children from whose lives you will be ejected.

Protect yourself and what you’ve worked for. You’ll still get the heartache when a break up happens, but you can minimise the financial and emotional emasculation that only adds insult to injury. Don’t allow a woman to get her hands on that vital piece of paper called a marriage certificate. It is her passport to more than she is rightfully entitled when things go wrong, as they almost certainly will.

Even if you want children, consider very carefully whether you want the responsibility, let alone the very real possibility of never seeing your children again after divorce. Most marriages end whilst the children are still young and the very real likelihood is that you will be reduced to the status of a part-time father who has almost no say in his children’s upbringing, but remains in the role of cash-machine. Ask yourself, do you need that?

Do you also really want to be responsible for more damaged children? More innocent kids lying awake at nights, longing for their real daddy but unable to fulfil that longing because their mummy has decided that is the way it is going to be? Do you want the heartache of longing for them, or seeing another man become their day-to-day father?

The only real conclusion any man can arrive at today is that marriage ‘has been twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools’, as Kipling6‘If—’ is a poem by British Nobel laureate Rudyard Kipling, written in 1895and first published in Rewards and Fairies, 1910. It is a tribute to Leander Starr Jameson, and is written in the form of paternal advice to the poet’s son. As poetry, “If—” is a literary example of Victorian-era stoicism. SOURCE: Wikipedia. put it. Its very nature, its beauty, its normality has been corrupted by feminism, and it has no place in our society anymore.

This is hard advice, but these are hard times we live in. Avoid the commitment. Be a man in your own right. Develop your career. Get a good trade. Make money, get a nice car and a nice home, and enjoy the fruits of your labour. Women want their liberation? Let them have it.

Let them have babies by whomever, and live off the state (you’re paying for that anyway through your taxes), or struggle to bring up a child on their own. Maybe, one day, they will realise what feminism has done for them through what it is doing to men. Bachelordom was commonplace only a hundred years ago, and it is becoming commonplace again as men wake up to the horrible reality of what committing to a woman in marriage means in our ‘modern’ society.

Go your own way. Liberate yourself too. Live long and prosper!

   [ + ]

1. Statistical Bulletin ONS: Divorces in England and Wales. 2011  – 2011 is the latest year for which we currently have data.
2. This is the median measure of central tendency, as used by the ONS, not the mean or average, which is likely to be higher due to the small number of marriages that last for life.
3. The ONS Statistical Bulletin. Divorces in England and Wales, 2011, issued on 20th December 2012 tells us that women have been (and still are) initiating divorces between 2 and 3 times more frequently than men.
4. Historically, women have never made such a commitment, but they continue to take advantage of this exclusively male responsibility in divorce.
5. Bax E. B. (1909) A Study in Socialist Heresy Hunting, Social Democrat, Vol.13, No.3, March, 1909, pp.114-120
6. ‘If—’ is a poem by British Nobel laureate Rudyard Kipling, written in 1895and first published in Rewards and Fairies, 1910. It is a tribute to Leander Starr Jameson, and is written in the form of paternal advice to the poet’s son. As poetry, “If—” is a literary example of Victorian-era stoicism. SOURCE: Wikipedia.


Filed under Uncategorized

  • mrnotms

    Excellent article and here’s a thought.
    If you’re in your early twenties, male, heterosexual and reading this, be careful!

    This is the time when you are at your most vulnerable. If you’re ever going to be physically attractive to the ‘opposition’ (and they to you), it’s now. Your social life is likely to be spent under the influence of a heady brew of perfume, vibrant music, mind-altering substances (solid or liquid) and, not least, your peers. Add into the mix the media’s obsession with the love-lives and marriages of celebrities, plus the female proclivity to believe all this crap, and you could be there for the taking.


    You are likely to be in the early stages of employment, a full-time student, or unemployed. In other words, your attractiveness is likely to be sorely tested in terms of your bank balance. Of course you will no doubt have worked this out, so it’s all a bit depressing. However, if you can ride this storm – and learn to be happy in your own company, maybe finding a few sex-substitutes in your leisure pursuits, whilst refusing to be taken in by the (pro-female) marriage propaganda, then ‘you’ll be a man, my son’ (Kipling) – and not a married one at that.

    However, if you do, indeed find yourself getting married, despite all this, then, make sure you are well-heeled, or have a cast-iron plan to be so.

    She may have a career now, but do you really think she intends to keep this up for the next 45 years?
    She expects you to do so, you know!

    • flailer

      WRONG (on only one part) If you marry do NOT be well-heeled.
      Be poor. Be very very poor, and through-out the marriage contribute nothing in terms of financials.
      As Women hold all the cards in marriage & divorce, it is VITAL that they do all the heavy lifting, all the contribution, and make all the commitments.
      Even *before the legal & cultural system was completely & wholly stacked in favor of Women – there was a thing known as dowry. Dowry is REQUIRED now, more than ever before.
      But I really REALLY like everything else you are saying.

      • mrnotms

        Thanks, flailer, for the positive feedback. I was being ironic about the ‘well-heeled’ bit, on the assumption that marriage will cost the man, whether it ends in bliss, divorce or death. (Mind you, I have never been married, so what do I know?) However your point is well made.

      • Kronk

        Its a good idea but will never work. The corrupt courts will force a man to pay ‘heavy penalties’ anyway, money he does not even have. The judges will say “there is no excuse EVEN AFTER DEATH because they will seize his estate! The judge will force the innocent father to get 2,3 jobs so he can pay ‘what he owes’! If he can’t pay, it’s off to jail. Gotta keep the jailhouse full too you know. It too, is part of the entire system and is a big money wheel turning and empting the pockets of millions of men.
        No my friend, the only way is to never get married. Even prenuptials are reutinly ignored. The entire system is set up specifically against males! Why enter a rigged game that you have no chance of winning; for sex? It is the most expense sex you will ever ‘buy’-

  • Kronk

    Yet another excellent piece Mr. Purdy! I would like to add however that you mention several times the reason the courts are ‘stacked against fathers’ is steeped in tradition and, for lack of a better phrase; ‘just the way things are for men’ however, you should put just a little more emphasis on the ‘money end’ of the equation. Women make their divorce decisions largely based on monetary gain. They absolutely know they will get everything in the divorce INCLUDING lifetime alimony in some cases! (That’s equality!) Certainly 18 years of ‘mommy-support’ if there are children. The corrupt system is only too happy to enforce and encourage this theft because lots of that stolen money will come their way. Billions and billions every year are available to be spread out within the corrupt system and all the players are clamoring to get their cut! Money seems to get peoples attention, start emphasizing more on the aspect of the abominable theft that the corrupt courts perpetrate on innocent fathers post divorce and maybe they will heed your most excellent advice NEVER TO MARRY! It’s too late for others like me that have already been “Taken into Custody” -Stephan Baskerville.

    • Herbert Purdy

      Well said Stephen. Your point is well made – and well taken. I did say an entire divorce industry feeds off men, like a parasite, but I accept your angle, which is spot on. Thanks for taking the time and care to comment. It is very encouraging to know what I am saying is resonating with people.

  • Luke

    Why does love never enter into this debate? Marriage should be about the love between two people. With love comes responsibility. However, feminism seems to want women to love the sisterhood above all else, including their own sons. That is the despicable part. Love is wanting to cook for your partner or do whatever else might make them happy. When feminism tells women to love themselves more than anyone else, they become lazy and narcissistic. Most of the women I’ve dated only cared about themselves, talking about their own issues. They don’t have any special skills. Some of them can’t cook. The days of women spending their free time making things like quilts is long dead. That’s something constructive to do with your time. Sitting around, waiting for or thinking up new ways to hate yourself or a specific group of people like men is… so sick by comparison. But that’s all some women do these days. No one can see the good in the patriarchy which is like saying men are never right. The patriarchy – if it actually existed was actually more about protecting women than oppressing them. Yes, men were able to work and go to war, but those “privileges” come with an equal share of responsibility that women didn’t have to deal with. They had to deal with bills and watch all the money they make go to other people – people who attack them and accuse them for not doing enough. Women didn’t have to watch their best friends’ heads explode on battlefields and see no mother or father band together to stop such atrocities. However, everyone rallies together to stop any atrocity committed against women. Hell, it was a capital crime to rape women until certain groups of women thought such punishments were too much. Feminism is about giving women the opportunity to weasel out of responsibility while putting more responsibility on men’s shoulders.

  • Jo read

    Hello Herbert. Why do you assume that it is always the man who brings all the finances into the marriage. I grew up on a council estate with a mentally ill cruel domineering father and a terrified impressed mother. My father drove my brother and me to drug addiction and almost suicide. I left home at 17 with no state help. I worked in a shoe shop to pay my rent on a bedsit. At 18 I became a postwoman doing a mans days work at which I was more than physically capable. At 22 I got a mortgage on a studio flat and finally I was free . All this despite a dreadful early start in life. When I met my husband he had no financial assets. He was a postman too . He moved in we me and we had 2 children. I sold my flat for a good profit and used the money to buy us all a house. Rather than being grateful to me, he has expected me to continue working even while the children were little whilst I still do all the chores around the house. He has taken advantage of me and when my children grow up I will leave him. Why do you generalise so much about women all being gold diggers etc. Do you not realise that sometimes it is th other way around. By the way, I don’t hate men,in fact I adore them. I prefer working with men any day. So what is your answer too me? Kind regards, Jo

    • Herbert Purdy

      Hi Jo. My answer is that had I made the assumption that it is always the man who brings all the finances into the marriage, I would have answered you, but as I didn’t, I am not engaging in straw-man arguments. As to your personal experience, well that is your personal experience. None of it is relevant to the point I am making, which is that men get a raw deal in divorce and women prosper from it. No doubt you will see that when, as you say you will, you divorce your husband. Might I respectfully draw your attention to the third paragraph of my article, where you make my point very well? Obviously, for you, marriage is not a covenant promise ‘for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health – till death’ etc. I rest my case.

    • Scott Williams

      You had a very bad situation in your life. However, what you went through is the exception and not the rule. Your situation probably represent less than 10-15 percent of the female population. The overwhelming majority of modern women do match a lot of the characteristics described in this article though. That’s what he’s referring to.

  • Jo read

    Just to add to my previous post, my husband has benefited far more financially from meeting me than I have him. If and when we split, I will gladly give him half of my assets and would never prevent him from seeing his children. You seem to have a very blinkered view of life. My male colleagues and friends respect me very much as I do them. Life is not as black and white as you seem to think. Jo

  • Jo read

    One more thing. Every man in my family has let me down in my life. I do not hate all men though. As I previously stated, I adore men, their sense of humour, the way they feel protective towards me, their awkwardness around me etc. I am a strong woman physically as I weight train and do martial arts yet if you saw a picture of me you will see I am very much a female. I loved nothing more than cooking for my husband and taking care of my children even after a hard days work. Not all women are evil and neither are all men. We can be equal and live in harmony. I really look forward to your response.

    • DollarPound

      I suppose that while every man in you family has let you down, the women were all perfect, long suffering, hardworking saints? If not, why don’t you tell us? If so, why are you saying life isn’t so black and white?

      You came to a men’s rights website to tell us all that every man in your family has let you down, that you enjoy it when men feel awkward around you, you tell us all about how you’ve repeatedly given men so much more than you’ve received and then you tell us you don’t hate men?

      You give repeated specific examples of how men have treated you badly and vague assertions about their good points, but you tell us you don’t believe in “black and white” perspectives?

      I think there is a stronger streak of misandry in you than you would like to acknowledge.

    • Martin

      Relationship problems are 50/50, obviously not all women are evil, I think we know that.
      What is unequal is the law and media, how men are treated.
      BTW we also know it is a common feminist story to claim to work in a man’s job and have tough life, then trying to be a concern troll.

  • ThePatriarchy

    Been unmarried most of my life. Was married briefly for four years however. Took her out to dinner every weekend. Was really too sensitive towards her feelings. Helped her family and friends, sometimes to the tune of many thousands. After telling me daily that I was loved, best friend and family, she left for a far wealthier guy – and I make close to 200K per year. She tried to take all she could get on the way out from a financial perspective and became as cold as ice to me now that someone ‘better’ had stolen her away. She even falsely claimed abuse.

    What did I learn? That I was a fool. That self-interest rules supreme in all things. But in the fire of breakdowns, depression, daily nightmares, substance abuse and struggling to let go that followed for a time thereafter – I was reborn. Since that time, I have tirelessly dedicated a significant portion of my days and nights to helping men wake up to the travesty we term ‘modern marriage’. Why? I hope to spare other men the misery of what I experienced and what I’ve seen experienced in so many other men’s lives.

    Marriage is an anti-male trap. Over the past several decades, it has been used as a tool to transfer trillions in wealth from men to women through ‘no-fault’ divorce, alimony, asset division, child support (alimony++) and, combined with VAWA, through false accusations. No fault divorce was actually written by NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) to help guarantee women their X husbands current and future assets and income. NAWL even brags about this to this day.

    I’ve only scratched the surface of all there is for men to learn regarding the exploitative illusions and enchantments used by women and society to trap men into the wretched prison of marriage. For some great reading, just Google ‘cultural misandry’, ‘male disposability’ and ‘gynocentrism’. I highly recommend a video called ‘The Disposable Male’ by a YouTuber named Spetsnaz as well. Through this reading – you too will be – as the feminists say – liberated.