Ahhhhhh, marriage! That bond in Holy matrimony where two young birds, in the air of spring fall for each other and participate in that glorious tradition like their parents, and theirs before them. So on, and so forth, until the 1970’s or so it goes. It really no longer seems “until death do us part” until either she kills you directly, or indirectly by driving one to suicide. Am I being morbid, or just seeing things as they are? Hence the title of this post, marriage 3.0, so what does it entail? Well, to answer that, we need to take a little journey through history.
Marriage 0.1, ground zero if you will, what was it and when? I am not an anthropologist, but I will take a stab at it. Marriage most likely started out as an exercise that societies used to curtail their own societal breakdown, and produce productive members out of society. Highly probable, is the theory that as people grew more into something that resembled something closer to cities, their became a need for a valid social contract between groups, bound with two people. One from each family, to produce the next generation of productive members of society to help hunt, maintain family farms, and carry to the next generation. Most everything I have read on it comes to that effect. Oh you have the alpha/beta argument, but I think it was more complex than that. We did not always have play stations, the Internet, and Elvis as your witness in Las Vegas; but we did have a concept of a person’s word being their “bond.” When this started, I am not sure if anyone person can really say. So for lack of a better term, an educated guess will have to suffice here in place of a solid, knowledgeable explanation. I really doubt anyone has one on when it actually started. Throughout history, the concept of marriage has endured many stages. I am not going to give the complete play by play, but I will take us to what is most likely marriage 1.0 for discussion.
This most likely developed in the classical era, and stayed with us for almost two and a half millennia. Men and women would be pushed into some sort of courting behavior, usually at a young age. Their parents would set their “engagement,” and the marriage date would be finalized. Gifts exchanged, and where the young couple would live would be worked out. This was not for love, but for practical, financial strength. Let’s not get into semantics, times were tough back then, and family was paramount. If you could not handle your family, your family would get wiped out; there were no bailouts or welfare! If another tribe came in and wiped you out, they took your women for themselves, and used your children as slaves. Everything depended on roles; from societal defense, to business, trade skills, child rearing, farming, and protection from within not just without (read policing). All these things had a strong correlation with a man providing a mate with his family’s last name. The responsibility was one that your family “ensured” you would follow through pledges. It was a serious affair some breaking of these pledges could spell your death. Meandering around, screwing everyone was heavily frowned on, and slavery was considered an acceptable form of punishment in some cultures. Playing the field was not easy, even for kings. Sex did not come without responsibility. This was not a bad thing! It was not uncommon for the two to actually start to love one another, at the very least come to a mutual understanding; if not outright respect. Of course, bad things happened, but the families came together to work it out. They had significant amounts of material resources at stake. Pledging a dowry to the groom’s family, or the bride price to her family, could equal an enormous sum. Having to give it back would bring great shame from the community, and financial hardship. These communities were very small; the loss of respect could translate to a loss of work, or business. Over the long term, this could cause great financial duress. Not to mention other family members may have a hard time getting their children married just by association with your failure. It was a serious matter indeed.
There have been numerous instances in history where feminism would have you believe did not exist. In the 1800’s, and before the turn of last century, a woman could verbally abuse a man in public, and no one would say or do anything. Much like today, it was viewed with rye humor. Pictures of women beating male cops were passed out by suffragettes early last century, the precursor to modern feminism was rife with hypocrisy. Although men were not always little angels themselves, they were not even remotely all demons, not in any time of our species history. If we were, we would never have fought wars! Why not just trade our wives, sons, and daughters then die for them? Nor why would we care for their upbringing? Or toil away under the lash, and hot sun, cultivating the hard ground to produce crops for our families’ survival? Slave or free, men have worked hard, fought, and died for their families, as it is to this day! Lately, it would seem all that was not built to last. An infestation of moral termite infested the structure of society, the family, and seems very resistant to any form of pest control. Enter Radical Feminism.
The 1960’s to 70’s were considered a time of sexual experimentation by most “scholars” at modern universities. Although many of us are starting to realize it was more of an era of sexual “exploitation,” exploitation by government, and each other. “Free love” and “make love, not war” were common slogans. Not that I am for war, or accusing anyone who said it as a draft dodger, or fool; but those two decades may have done more harm to our country than any other! It was not lead by just anyone, but the sons and daughters of the Greatest Generation. This generation known as the baby boomers, are quite possibly the most selfish and self serving generation to have ever existed. After inheriting a victorious reputation as the leading nation of the world, their parents having vanquished quite possibly the greatest evil the world had ever witnessed, their seemed to be a strong vacuum of leadership. Basically, mom and dad took care of everything for us, now what do we do? What they chose may have been portrayed as harmless enough, but that ideology, 52 years later is anything but harmless. So what, do you ask, does this have to do with marriage 3.0? It doesn’t, it has everything to do with the current model beating our nation’s children over the head since before they are born. The way government and social leaders of the day (minus maybe Dr. King, Evangelist Billy Graham, and a few others), handled everything from “the Great Society,” to inventing the new social model of ensuring the legality of loose sexual mores; the children of the Baby Boomers have an enormous burden, one of which we are running out of other’s money. We certainly do not have enough of our own.
In 1969, there are two great examples I am going to cover side by side. One is the advancement of space exploration, and its associated technology. Followed second, by the no fault divorce law signed by then Governor of California Ronald Reagan. In 1969, we landed on the moon! Man made an achievement unrivaled by any other in history! We started to place our print in the cosmos. It was expensive, but we had drive, we had ambition, and the baby boomers had something to brag about! Mom and Dad could be proud. However, this brought some terrible consequences, the threat of nuclear war. It is hard to imagine what the threat of that is looming over the horizon. Sure, you see videos of the detonations, but you don’t really comprehend, besides the survivors of Japan’s nuclear holocaust; no one can! The threat of total annihilation so complete, that we will literally destroy ourselves. I have no doubt that this could drive people to want to make a perfect world for their children. Mom and dad took Hitler out and Stalin down a peg, now we are free to complete the world in any image we see fit. But I am going to argue how utopia’s can never be reached. If they can, sweeping social programs built solely for one’s own comfort, replete with no sexual moorings, certainly will not be the way to do it! If the space programs where for bragging rights, the failure to maintain them properly, coupled with the pursuit of sweeping social reform led by quite possibly fascist left over named Radical Feminists; experiments with society in theory is one thing, to actually do them as fast as you can is the pursuit of mad men. In this case, it was largely mad women.
Like I said, in 1969, we had another experiment, it may not have led us to outer space, but its leaders sure did prove themselves hall of famers in the space cadets. I am referring to No Fault divorce. In theory it sounds great, coupled with the birth control pill, certain members of our society saw an opportunity to not only take a leadership role, but lead society as a whole itself. Women like Steinem, in my opinion Hitler’s female alter-ego, and Susan Brownmiller, Betty Friedan, and their ilk paved the way for a revolution that on its face sounds good; but the more one really reads it, the more one should understand that they are at the crossroads of reason. The largest path is the most destructive; you can take a respectable path, and preach how woman should be valued equally, and with dignity. No rational man, or woman, would say otherwise. Your voice will just have been drowned out by these culprits, funded under the table by government tax dollars. However, women like these are anything but rational, or reasonable! Their writings read like Mein Kampf. For all their haranguing, it is absurd to label them American Icons. Better a trial at Nuremburg, then the gallows, then accept any of them as a true heroine. Their attack on marriage and the family will very likely go down in history as the greatest atrocity perpetuated against mankind ever. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini could only dream of a more subtle approach. Where these men committed direct violence through others, these sociopaths had others committed indirectly to do it for them. From abortion, to family court and its unconstitutional laws; they have left indelibly horrific print on the American landscape of morality.
No Fault divorce is marriage 2.0, and it may have changed the face of relationships forever, never to resort to anything resembling the former. The pill was not enough, abortion had to be enforced, and if women could not be encouraged to leave their husbands and family on their own, then no fault divorce, coupled later with enormous alimony and child support payments; these incentives have hastened the fall of the marriage contract. I can encourage no man to sign this document of his own free will, without at least doing a quadruple take to think it over. In so doing, especially after the first child, a woman’s hold on him is so complete, she but needs speak to any person falsely, and he is sucker punched straight to hell. He will by no means recover until he has paid every single “court professional” in twenty states potentially, before he even has a shot at getting his kids. The worse criminals have more legal protection in the civil courts. The outrageous line of reasoning one need to justify this can only spring from hatred and greed. Modern feminism is in ample supply of both. If only we could translate that into our economy, we would not have a national deficit. Unfortunately, they don’t pay for it themselves, we the taxpayer have been duped into that.
In the 1980’s-90’s feminism passed numerous anti-family laws, that on the surface sounded like a great boon for the American economy by rounding up all these “deadbeat dads” finances, so we the tax payer could be taken off the hook. Also, they promised to save women everywhere, and usher in a new era of gender equality. Yeah sure, and I they had a bridge in Brooklyn to sell us. It is as if a whole slew of Nazis created a human rights organization so no one would suspect what they were really up to. That is by chance, exactly what it is. I sometimes wonder if those fascists never died, but got surgeries of transsexuals. These bills related to child support, and fall under the Social Security act title IV, section D. Most notable of these landmark legislations is the Bradley bill. This lovely little wonder guarantees many fathers jail time, heaping doses of our nations veterans fall under this homeless, and long after the child has emancipated, the father is left on the street paying the state. Not the mother of his children, or his children themselves. In the 90’s, we passed the lovely sounding VAWA act, better known as the Violence Against Women Act. This little rogue costs billions per year in tax payer dollars, most of which we have no idea where it is going. I could go on and on this one, but will cover it more in a later post. What all this has to do with marriage 2.0 is that it guarantees that men will not marry. Reducing taxes, productive children in two parent households, increases street violence, and produces more drains on society in heroic single moms (read welfare moms), and their wayward offspring.
So what you ask is my point, and how is it better? Well, it is marriage 3.0, and the trial and error of 2.1 through 2.9 will probably make matters worse rather than better. So what do I mean? Marriage 3.0 will have to be a revolutionary “new” marriage contract that is enforceable by all parties involved! I am working out the details on what I imagine it to be, but I have to reprogram myself from marriage 1.0 upbringing, and my survival instincts I have amassed in the 2.0 era. Also, like the space program, crashing and burning is always an option, because we have to “imagine” our obstacles before we get there! This is not easy, and if I could do it alone, I might get a Nobel Prize, but I doubt it. With all the entities with a vested interest in keeping the status quo, I am not sure that it will ever come, or if it does it will be in gradual steps. Hence the 2.1-2.9 versions I suggested. To make this omelet we will have to crack a lot of eggs! It is likely to be painful; we have to earn our nation’s men’s trust back. Women are going to have to lose some of their gains, and both will have to be dragged by their families, and sadly, quite possibly the state kicking and screaming to it. Most of us in the men’s rights movement will not tolerate this. Period. We will fight it all the way because we have learned to distrust family, women, and the state especially. It has a vested interest to put all three of us, family, man and wife against the middle. Taking our children hostage from one or both parents; thus producing a dynamic and unnecessary court drama. Creating a state made conflict where we are fighting each other, over our kids, and splitting up our mutual property to more tax, and enmity creating a vicious cycle that does not end. Also, at our children’s expense, and to the state’s profit, and the profit of its racketeers the lawyers, feminists and lobbyists who keep things the way they are. So they receive tax money not just from one half, or men, but both halves of the country; men and women. This has to end, whether it is a new marriage contract, preferably coupled with a male birth control option; or we resort back to something closer to marriage 1.0 or both!
I will update this over time, thanks for sticking with me!