Greg Swann challenges me, directly or indirectly, every time I go over to his blog. This time, he's taking Dr. Helen's challenge to name 5 reasons for a man to get married.
I crossed that bridge 10 years ago, so, I'm taking a slightly different approach. Personally, I have a different take on marriage the Greg. I believe that the purpose of a marriage is procreation. I understand why people might want to be married without the desire for kids, but, personally, I don't think marriage is necessary without the possibility of progeny.
Here are the five reasons why I'm glad that I am married.
1. Kids: This could be all I need, 1 to 5 right here. I truly think that having children is the highest expression of splendor available to humanity, sorry Greg. Every time I come home to see cheering faces expressing my own genes back to me, I thank the natural world from which I was spawned for this magical feeling. Having kids of one's own - just paused to get a massive, good-night hug from my younger of two, wow - is the greatest source of joy in my life. It really ties my heart to my neighbourhood. I have a connection to the future that wouldn't be possible.
Giving my children a stable family, based on a loving relationship between the two people with whom they share the greatest likeness in appearance and behaviour is, to use Mr. Swann's word again, absolute splendor.
2. Confidence: The non-denominational minister* who married us said something when I mentioned that my career wasn't exactly where I wanted it to be yet. He said, "Wait until you have your wife by your side supporting you. She'll give you the confidence you need to walk into an interview and land any job you want." There was some truth to that prediction. My wife is all the support group I'll ever need.
*I'm atheist, but when we met this man, who was recommended by the wedding venue management, we knew that he'd be just fine. He was funny, agreed not to say anything religious and it just saved our devout parents feelings somewhat. I'll never forget his booming voice proclaiming that we have forged a bond so mighty that "nothing on this earth can blow asunder!"
3. Devotion: Knowing someone will do what she can to help me achieve my own desires within this partnership. I am also bound to do what I can so that she can achieve her own desires. Luckily, we found each other and realized that our desires were aligned enough to agree to the contract. Marriage is a 1 for 1 deal. Each of us has given ourselves completely, 100% to the other. It's a big responsibility to accept another person completely and requires reciprocal, complete, devotion. We don't quibble over household chores. We each do what needs to be done to the best of our abilities and get on with our lives.
4. Challenge/Responsibility: The expectation to hold up your end of the deal keeps you focused on what matters. Sharing the responsibility of heading an organization devoted to supporting the health and happiness each other above all else is a feeling like none other.
5. Efficiency: Of course, I think about what would have happened if I hadn't gotten married and lived the bachelor life of some of my friends. The freedom I would have had in my career and finances might have been enjoyable and made things a lot easier. Would I be sitting here in front of my computer tonight or would I have been out seeing live music, on a fishing trip or visiting an exotic city. But the wealth I have attained now would be unattainable - no magical hugs, coaching youth sports or investment in the next generation. Considering the effort expended to obtain, grow and maintain this wealth, I need the efficiency that a marriage brings by sharing work load, doubling income and sharing of imaginations.
Knowing what I know now, I can't recommend marriage for every man. I believe that most men don't understand the risks and don't know enough about women and human nature to enter a marriage contract.
I lucked into a good marriage, because, I accurately assessed the quality of my wife's character when I decided to get married (and she must have seen something in me I didn't realize I had). Once I learned about female hypergamy, game and the other "red pill" truths, I realized what it took to be a strong husband in a good marriage and happiness flourished.
CDSH
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Friday, May 24, 2013
Sunday, April 15, 2012
The History and Future of Marriage
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?
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?
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Blogging is Hard
The Cul-De-Sac Hero has been applying his heroism to other pursuits, namely T-Ball coach. While the time demands are considerable, I feel that coaching a group of boys in the pursuit of a good swing, straight throws and consistent catching does far more good for the future of society than blogging ever could. I think that OneSTDV would agree.
However, I swear that I won't pull a ONE and burnout and quit. I will continue to be a Stalwart Moderate, sporadically posting meandering essays with varying levels of quality to my blog. I'm just going to have to find new places to troll. It shouldn't be difficult. As a moderate, I can disagree with just about anyone.
Another pursuit I've taken up, rather by accident, is educating the youth. A younger friend of mine was shopping for an engagement ring. Always interested when a younger man decides to join the ranks of married men, I decided to see how he was doing on instant message:
So, if anyone is reading this, do you think I was too harsh? Or was I way off because he appears smart enough not to spend $10,000 on a piece of gold with a shiny rock that someone says is the standard (aka minimum) purchase. Where did this standard come from? Why do groups of people accept such arbitrary requirements?
I only reacted because it reminded me so much of a friend of mine who's wife suddenly left (frivolous divorce) because she wasn't satisfied and they were always fighting over money they didn't have which she still to wanted to spend. At the time, I called it the consumer disease and told him that women feel the need (more than men) to obtain material things right away. They are the target of a larger portion of advertising because, I think, their feelings of entitlement are easier for advertisers to exploit than any of the weakness men have. Men have better resistance to marketing than women, but not perfect.
The theme of consumerism is one which I'd like to explore more deeply, but I doubt I will due to the usual constraints of time and energy. I do find our willingness to accept truths that are marketed to us and willful blindness to the affects of the forces of marketing on our psyche disturbing. I think it is the single worst threat to society and capitalism and the most important gap in our education system.
However, I swear that I won't pull a ONE and burnout and quit. I will continue to be a Stalwart Moderate, sporadically posting meandering essays with varying levels of quality to my blog. I'm just going to have to find new places to troll. It shouldn't be difficult. As a moderate, I can disagree with just about anyone.
Another pursuit I've taken up, rather by accident, is educating the youth. A younger friend of mine was shopping for an engagement ring. Always interested when a younger man decides to join the ranks of married men, I decided to see how he was doing on instant message:
Older Gent [9:13 AM]: Did you get engaged yet?
Young Buck [9:13 AM]: do i look stupid?
Older Gent [9:14 AM]: I thought you were shopping for a ring.
Older Gent [9:14 AM]: Hey, I was "stupid" enough to do it. [get married]
Young Buck [9:15 AM]: no, you crazy? no way i'm going to drop $10k
Older Gent [9:15 AM]: $10K for a ring???? F - that!
Young Buck [9:15 AM]: ya man, its the new standard
Older Gent [9:15 AM]: Don't believe it.
Older Gent [9:16 AM]: If your woman believes it, just think what you'll have to drop for a house.
Young Buck [9:20 AM]: told you, you're and old man, times are different
Young Buck [9:20 AM]: 1 cart is the min
Older Gent [9:22 AM]: I'd run away. I'm telling you, women have fallen for a sales pitch hook line and sinker.
Older Gent [9:22 AM]: There'll never be enough money to satisfy that desire
Older Gent [9:23 AM]: I don't mean to say anything bad about your girlfriend.
Young Buck [9:23 AM]: haha / you're not with the times
Older Gent [9:24 AM]: But I know guys who married really nice women who turned out to leave them because they "wanted more"
Older Gent [9:24 AM]: and more
Older Gent [9:24 AM]: and more
Older Gent [9:24 AM]: It's the consumer disease
Older Gent [9:25 AM]: women are the most aflicted.
Older Gent [9:26 AM]: house, trips, furniture, appliances, cars.... it adds up
Older Gent [9:26 AM]: and it starts with 10K rings
Older Gent [9:27 AM]: don't mean to scare you, kid. but think about it.
Young Buck [9:34 AM]: thanks for the advice
So, if anyone is reading this, do you think I was too harsh? Or was I way off because he appears smart enough not to spend $10,000 on a piece of gold with a shiny rock that someone says is the standard (aka minimum) purchase. Where did this standard come from? Why do groups of people accept such arbitrary requirements?
I only reacted because it reminded me so much of a friend of mine who's wife suddenly left (frivolous divorce) because she wasn't satisfied and they were always fighting over money they didn't have which she still to wanted to spend. At the time, I called it the consumer disease and told him that women feel the need (more than men) to obtain material things right away. They are the target of a larger portion of advertising because, I think, their feelings of entitlement are easier for advertisers to exploit than any of the weakness men have. Men have better resistance to marketing than women, but not perfect.
The theme of consumerism is one which I'd like to explore more deeply, but I doubt I will due to the usual constraints of time and energy. I do find our willingness to accept truths that are marketed to us and willful blindness to the affects of the forces of marketing on our psyche disturbing. I think it is the single worst threat to society and capitalism and the most important gap in our education system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)