Answering DeAnna Lorraine on Marriage Save for later Reblogpost

TimBucks
@TimBucks

Send Private MessageSubscribe50

Even 2nd Wave feminist Germaine Greer says that marriage is screwed up, needs large legal revamping. I disagree with her point of view, but both sides need listening to. She’s entirely thinking about women’s interests only, doesn’t give a damn for men, can’t think straight, but she’s worth a listen since there are two sides to every story. Her and I agree on making marriage more of a business proposition, emphasizing the legal obligations as an organizing focus in marriage, rather than being “in love”….which is a bit naive.

DeAnna Lorraine is interested in “Making Marriage Great Again.” Fair enough. She’s right: feminism is killing romance and relationships. But why? Why is feminism bad? Why is it killing relationships? And how do we fix this? Here are some answers to those questions. Here are some specific legal changes, would help Make Marriage Great Again:

Time to re-tool marriage.

Seven basic changes:

1-marriage should be a renewable contract that automatically expires in a given time period, not a lifetime contract. Like a driver’s license it should have to be renewed, or the marriage automatically legally ends, if both parties don’t renew it.

2-mandatory, legally binding pre-nups. It should take at least a day at the lawyer’s office, to draw up detailed legal agreements about how often a man can get sex, money, children, and anything else, before a marriage occurs.

3-every time the marriage has to be renewed, the couple should be required to visit a lawyer’s office, to renew the marriage contract, make the needed changes and updates.

4-automatic custody of the children for men, 50% of the time, and the house goes to the man, 50% of the time.

5-If there is a large difference in assets before the marriage, if the marriage ends, the person with the assets should be able to leave the marriage, with his/her assets intact.

6-Mandatory paternity tests at hospitals, when children are born. If it’s not his child, a man should have no legal or financial responsibility, for the child. And if a man gets married and she brings children from another relationship, the new marriage contract should specify that the new husband has no economic responsibility for that child, if the new marriage ends.

7-If there are no children or the marriage ends in the first five years, the marriage is treated legally as though there were no marriage in the first place in terms of division of assets. No alimony shall occur.

My reasoning, why these changes make sense:

Biology gives women different incentives than men. Women age differently than men. Women reach their peak attractiveness and Sexual Market Value in their 20s, then decline. Male Sexual Market Value is mostly based on how much money a man makes, his social status and that increases over time, from his 20s and peaks in his 50s. Men in their 50s can father children, but women can’t be mothers, much past 30. These are the basic rules of nature. We need to derive our views on marriage, from natural biology and evolution, and it’s implications for human affairs. And it is the interplay of the male and female prerogatives in nature, with different rules and strategies for both genders, which determine a realistic point of view, on love and mating. I point out the realities of declining female Sexual Market Value, not to be cruel to women. I point this out because understanding this biological dynamic, within the life cycle of women, is necessary to conceive of marriage in a proper way. Currently we live in a feminist fairy tale, cut off from any understanding of evolution. We live in a feminist fairy tale where feminists think biology is not real, feminists think biology and time has nothing to do with marriage, and this feminist illusion is destroying society. Enough of this feminist nonsense. Time to “get real”.

Understanding some harsh biological truths: In judging women, men don’t really care how much money she makes, they judge her by her beauty and youth. If changes are made so that the man can leave the marriage anytime, with his children and assets intact, and women know this, and women know that they are aging quickly and their market value is declining each year, while his is increasing, and the women can’t just grab his money and run, this builds into marriage law a natural incentive for women to treat men well…..or else she will end up a penniless old woman, feeding her cats.

…and that’s why being clear and realistic about declining female Sexual Market Value over time, must be understood: so we can set up marriage in such a way, that takes this reality into account. Recognizing declining female Sexual Market Value is not about being cruel to women. It’s about accepting nature as it is, so women are protected, by having a built-in natural reason for women to treat men well. When this happens, he will generally treat her well in return. Giving men more power in marriage creates a natural reason for women to treat men well because it sets up a situation where the woman wins, if she treats men well, and she loses, if she does not.

To point out the obvious: Declining female Sexual Market Value is not “sexist”, it is not “misogyny”. It is instead a recognition of evolution and time: The purpose of human life, is survival and procreation. That’s evolution 101. In humans as in all mammals, females breed when they are young. There are solid evolutionary reasons for this being so. And the rules for breeding in evolution are different for men, than women. Human female eggs are basically viable when a female is between ages 15 and 30. Then after that, egg quality and the quality and survivability of offspring starts to decline and then fall off the cliff after age 35. By age 40, if a woman can conceive, which is mathematically very unlikely, the probability of her conceiving a child with Down Syndrome and other medical issues, go through the roof. All these scientific facts are not “sexism”. They are instead, nature screaming at us, what are the rules for life. We must keep declining female Sexual Market Value in mind, when we construct social institutions such as marriage, which is largely about producing healthy offspring. We must keep declining female Sexual Market Value in mind when constructing principles of marriage, so that female happiness, power and negotiating power can be maximized. This occurs when a woman is young, basically. It’s not sexism, it’s nature that men of all ages are attracted to younger women. It’s how evolution works. Nature made women spectacularly beautiful when they are young for a reason: to facilitate sexual attraction, breeding and the continuation of the species. This is not a very nice thing that females have to face, but they either embrace the flower of their youth, negotiate the best deal they can when young, be aware of their declining sexual power….or they can buy a lot of cat food.

The choice remains theirs.

And to add a small rider to my comments on female eggs, male sperm is fresh made daily. Old men can conceive children. There are strong evolutionary reasons for this, but understanding the difference between men and women, how this plays out in mating, is essential to understand, to construct a realistic narrative about mating and marriage. The feminist fairy tale that men and women are exactly the same, is just scientific ignorance disguising itself as high moral principle.

Gad Saad, the internet King of Sarcasm, gives a pretty quick and amusing look into the totally screwed up current feminist “thinking” of feminist, regarding marriage:

All marriage law should start with both the assumption and now scientifically understood knowledge that the basic flaw in women, when it comes to relationships with men, is that women all evolved to be hyper-gamous. They are all looking for a better deal, a better man, hoping to “trade up”. In understanding this, we can understand the damage done to marriage, by embracing the feminist perspective: When we changed marriage law, to both heavily tilt marriage law in a woman’s favor, which we have long ago done…plus now due to the modern world arising, she has her own money now, since women now work as much as men, the combined effect of these two basic factors is to induce women to file for divorce 70% of the time…..which they do. She figures, she has her own money, she will be free to pursue a new man, so soon get more money from a new man, she will take money off the old man, take the old man’s house, his children…so it’s all win, win, win for her. This is known in the Men’s Rights Community as “Divorce Rape”. This pushes her natural hyper-gamous instincts along, and thus we have the modern shit show of women stabbing men in the back, and then the courts enforcing the abuse of men. Feminists call this traitorous abuse of men, “empowering women”.

By failing to understand hyper-gamy and women’s independence, we have inadvertently structured marriage law to promote divorce.

So, why won’t this same logic work for a man? Aren’t all men wanting to “trade up” get a better looking woman? A younger one? But of course. However, in a man there is in addition, an inclination to protect the smaller, more physically weaker female…that’s how men evolved…the male instinct for gynocentrism includes the male instinct to protect women. So this protective instinct can be induced in men to protect women. Men who want to abandon women, for little reason, just to “trade up” would be protected by the courts, for we are all gynocentric as a species….both men and  women are basically gynocentric. As a species, we correctly protect females, for they are the guardians of life. This must be taken into account of, in deciding who gets the power, and why. The important thing is to realize this: Men are gynocentric, but women are not phallocentric. No such protective instinct exists in women towards men. Women don’t protect men. They didn’t evolve that way, because being physically smaller, women did not protect men in evolution. It was the other way around…men protected women…..that’s where gynocentrism came from. It’s a natural and good thing, but it must be understood properly, as well as properly applied. And part of that understanding is the simple observation that it means men like to protect women, but women don’t like to protect men…and that has logical implications for relationships such as marriage. That’s why we can get men to protect women, but we can’t get women to protect men…in court. And that’s why tilting marriage in a man’s favor may give men the advantage, but this advantage can be easily socially overpowered and properly channeled  by inducing men to protect and care for women, since it’s his natural inclination to do so. Anyone who ever walked into a divorce court knows the judge, the law is all set up to protect women. So “equality” as the feminists describe it, is a biological fantasy. It’s not how life works.

In addition, the reason to tilt marriage law in a man’s favor, is that nature itself gives women a huge advantage over men: the birthing process, of carrying a child, and giving life to it, is a more intimate biological connection to young life than a man will or can ever acquire. So there is a very natural and strong biological bond between women and children, brought about by nature. No such equivalent biological bond occurs to a man:  As men, we don’t give birth, to children. The significance of this is that women are physically bonded to children, but the bond between men and his offspring is more fragile, less immediate. With men, there is a maternal instinct of sorts, but it is not as immediate, because the baby didn’t come out of his body. There are lots of exceptions to this pattern, I’ve known a few women with very limited maternal instincts, but as a group average this is true. So then, in all mammals, the bond is much closer between a female who is giving birth, and her offspring. This makes the male role within the mammal family more fragile, more dependent on social approval and power, less dependent on biology, and that is just another reason why giving men advantage in marriage makes sense: it induces in men a sense of responsibility, for caring for “what is his”.

Think of the basic male role in history and evolution: Men have superior upper body strength to women. And men don’t get pregnant. These simple facts of evolution are the main drivers of the shape of evolution: Men protect, create laws, men protect territory, create government, create things that are their own, men physically protect in armies, nationalism and patriotism is more common in men than women, for obvious biological reasons: men protect as a result of their biology and their tenuous relationship to new life. Men will work in women’s interest, build culture, build society, build everything, if they are induced to do so by a sense of pride and ownership over what they perceive to be their own. Women have less of this instinct, because they don’t need to have it. Men will protect them, build for them, so women are less inclined to feel the need to do so, for men. That difference between the genders, in perception of reality, and it’s one area where feminists made several of their perceptual mistakes about the nature of gender, the nature of the role of men and women. Feminists only see reality, social reality, from a female point of view, almost never from a male point of view, never from both. This intellectual inferiority led to the feminist impulses that re-arrange social roles, ignoring the things that augment the male role and keep biological reality in balance.

So the key to defeating this feminist nonsense, is changing the curriculum at university, to change the intellectual ignorance and laziness of so-called “Women’s Studies”, to include much much science.

https://linkyou.blog/science-social-stability-and-feminism/

Sadly, due to maliciousness and biological cluelessness of feminists, we now live in a culture where feminists have remarkably reduced the social consensus that men are vital parts of family units. Is that what most women want? Disinterested men? I doubt it. So if women want strong marriages that women are happy with, it means sticking up for men’s rights, men’s authority and responsibility and power, within the marriage. This is what gives men social validation, bonds them to their families and gives them a reason to stick around and work in women’s interests. And this must be done because of this basic underlying biological reality of who has babies, who decides if sex happens….is women of course. This makes women vulnerable. Feminists have exploited a woman’s sense of vulnerability, which itself is an evolved trait….and feminists manipulate this female vulnerability, then create a false narrative about sexual reality, to manipulate women into anti-male feminist hatred of men. That has to end. Time to call feminists out, on their hatred of men, their misandry…..as well as their intellectual blindness. So giving men more power than women in marriage, it evens out the advantage women have in biology, over men. That makes marriage more fair to both men and women.

That’s the biological logic and reality of the sexes and how it means that men must have the upper hand in marriage law, or marriage won’t work.

Until we can get marriage straightened out, marriage remains a toxic quicksand, for men.

How bad?

First of all, everything is about money. You know that. So is marriage.

Friends don’t let friends get married, unless they warn them about the financial hazards, for men. I could not improve on Turd Flinging Monkey’s quick presentation on costs, if you are a man, have a look. If you have a male friend planning on getting married, don’t let him, till he watches this TFM video….you have to look after your friend’s interests. If you want a quick look at the cost/benefit analysis of marriage for men, have a look at TFM’s presentation, in video below.

Currently, all the marriage laws give women a large advantage over men. It should be the reverse. Marriage laws should give men a large advantage over women. Currently, she gets the children almost every time. She gets the house, almost every time. Then she takes her ex’s money, goes find a new boyfriend, and spend her ex’s money, and sleep in the bed of another man, while maintaining her expenses using her ex’s money…that’s why marriage is a joke, for men. Every man who gets married, then divorce, gets to meet his wife in court, when she acquires a new public persona and should be called “Peggy”.

Placing time limits on marriage makes sense when we consider how long the lifespans of humans was, in the past. Lifetime marriage as a social and legal reality arose out of a religious context, in European based cultures. Religion was used to protect women, in the West. For virtually our entire history, humans have had technologically primitive societies, with females entirely relying on males for food and shelter and protection. So women had to be protected, especially as they bore young and they themselves died young. All that is changing. Human lifespan in the United States was 48 for men, 50 for women, the year my grandfather was born: 1900. Not long ago, in my memory. Not long ago, by the reckoning of long history. Modern life and technology and science changed all that. Humans no longer die young and modern economies have arisen, allowing women to make their own way in the world. This means changes in the norms underlying marriage: I have no reason to chain a woman to a man, for a lifetime. Let her be free, if she wants. Let him be free, if he wants. If they are together by choice, that’s wonderful….but coercion should not be part of marriage, as it was in the past. When humans died at 40, “lifetime” marriage made sense….we had to protect women in a low tech life cycle with short lives for most people. Now that  women die in advanced countries, in her mid-80s, for many women, “lifetime” is now too long. And divorce stats may in part be fueled by the simple human realization that we evolved to be bound, when children are being raised. But without children, humans didn’t evolve to be bound against their will, to one person for a lifetime. So setting up marriage as a temporary contract, based on the free will of men, the free will of women, makes more sense, in light of our increased longevity and technological advances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Marriage only works when men are given power over money and children. Men have a natural inclination to protect what he thinks is his: his money, his house, his children, his wife. Women have no such natural inclination, when it comes to protecting men. Women do not think in terms of protecting men. But men evolved to think of protecting women…and we do, when society is set up properly…. Of course: there is danger in this, in a male-centered approach, of women being disadvantaged, but consider: there is a natural corrective tendency in men, to protect women….gynocentrism is natural to men. This is a natural mechanism to balance out this male centered approach, so women are protected. But in women, there is no natural tendency in women, to protect men, so women feel free to abuse men, without remorse…if you want to see women torture men without remorse, go visit divorce court some time. That’s why it only works, when men are in charge…it’s how we evolved. By embracing foolish feminist nonsense, we have now taken away from men, any sense of ownership in his life, and have given all the power over his life, to his wife….”thank you feminism”…. This social experiment has failed miserably. As DeAnna Lorraine points out, marriage rates, fertility rates, are at an all-time historic low in America. We need to find out: what went wrong? What can we do, to make things better? Radical feminism is at war with our evolutionary biological programming. Our feminist gynocracy has run amuck and tilted power far too extreme, in a woman’s favor….IMO. Time to try something new…or perhaps, something very, very old and proven to work, over a vast extent of human society, in every race, every religion, every ethnicity, for all of human time: Patriarchy.

The evolutionary roots of Patriarchy:

https://linkyou.blog/evolution-and-patriarchy/

So marriage laws must be made, based on these obvious biological realities. So feminism is killing relationships because it is out of whack with the basic narrative of evolution and how it works. In a nutshell, feminism was not the dominant social organizing way of looking at human relations in the past, because it does not work. Patriarchy works. Matriarchy does not. Already, after a brief time with feminist dogma having too much social influence, feminism is already destroying romance and marriage, as DeAnna quite accurately noticed. She talks about old fashioned conservative values needing to return. Guess what those are? Patriarchy…..we need a return to Patriarchy.

Right now in Europe, we have a Matriarchy, not a Patriarchy. And the Matriarchy is quickly destroying Europe:

https://linkyou.blog/islam-europeans-and-evolution-and-patriarchy/

However, the past is the past. We can’t go back. What we really need is Patriarchy 2.0

We will design new social systems, new systems of relationships including marriage and family, in the future, because Germain Greer is right: what worked in the past, no longer works. We can find the principles underlying social patterns of the past and work out new forms of Patriarchy, but Patriarchy it must be. Feminism and Matriarchy are failures…..evolutionary roadkill.

The good news is, feminism will fail as it causes widespread social destruction. The bad news is, feminism will continue to cause widespread social destruction, till it fails. Hopefully it will not destroy us, before that happens. Men are starting to wake up.

Jordan Peterson, on the science of hyper-gamy: