Hawaiian Libertarian linked to
this article at No Ma'am which outlines the history of marriage as spelled out almost everywhere in the manosphere. I've heard it from
Girl Writes What most effectively (I linked to her profile rather than her specific video posting - you'll have to start at the beginning, just like I did.)
Whenever I read the basic premise, I think, "Wow, that really makes sense." Then I get this feeling of dread knowing that I am in a Marriage 2.0 contract. I know that if something goes wrong at any time, I'm going to be dividing my possessions and assets and looking for a new place to live. I'm brazen writing this, since, Mrs. Culdesachero has "threathened" to read my blog. She knows about it, and knows that it's not complementary to feminism, but, doesn't read it except when I say, "Look, some one's talking about me!"
So, the sense of dread starts to grow as I read, and then, I think about my wife. I remember what a sound, sensible person she is and how much she loves me. I also feel how much I love her and remember the feelings I have when I stand beside her. I like being married - if feels like I have a partner to help weather the storms of the world. Together, we're stronger, happier and we need each other to do what's best for our children. My marriage looks nothing like Dalrock's (we're atheists), but, I value his perspective as a traditionalist who questions modern morality. I rarely read Athol Kay and haven't read his book, but, the concepts of his that I've absorbed seem to have helped me become a better husband and I feel closer to my wife now than I ever have. There is no doubt that the truths I've discovered in the manosphere has helped me become a better man and strengthen my marriage - even though many voices within it would rather see men give up on marriage altogether.
Can this truth, about the history of marriage as an economic agreement, whereby the sexuality and reproductive power of the woman became the property of the man and the labour of the man became the property of the woman, be accepted by the general population? If so, can it help society come to terms with what has become of male-female relations? I think it is rather too much to digest, although, I will bring up the male half of the equation whenever the feminist trope of "women were once owned by their husbands" is brought up.
My wife is reasonable person. She once sent me an article about the book
Spousonomics. She mentioned that we basically followed the ideas already and that she didn't mind doing more of the housework if it meant sitting down to watch Dexter together sooner. If she can accept the word of economists when dealing with the sticky issues of matrimonial bliss, can the world understand the economic definition of marriage as outlined by a site called No Ma'am?
Personally, I think that the term "ownership" is too strong to accept by society at large when applied to any part of a person (including general terms such as labour or sexuality). The general populace still thinks of another atrocious part of history when the words "ownership" and "person" are used together.
Another problem, is that not only is marriage by the old definition dead, the world in which it thrived is dead. No longer is traditional male labour all that valuable. Male and female earning power is very close and society is set up to allow working mothers to thrive. People no longer live in places where bears need to be chased away from the front door (except in Thompson, Alberta and Newfoundland) Marriage had to change - not to say the current arrangement is acceptable.
I think the evolution of marriage will continue to stall until we admit what the original purpose of marriage was - to raise children. However, right now, it is important for the left to suppress this fact until gay marriage is pushed through. This is why I wish that the gay marriage non-issue would resolve itself. Right now, it is just another issue that sticks under the conservative movement's craw making it very useful to the left as a wedge which many people are willing to hammer into the foundation of traditional society. This is why I wish that the Republican party would listen to
How The World Work's point of view. If the left thinks it is a big issue, the right should make it a NON-ISSUE. Allow gay marriage (who cares if two men or women want to call themselves spouses) and move on.
There, I've figured out marriage and how to get back on track toward fixing it. Anyone want to start drawing up proposals for conditions for the next version of the contract?
