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 1895, and 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 1895, and 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.|