How marriage has failed mankind

Mother-EFFIN long weekend.
I was off on Friday and the prospect of Tuesday pains me because each ticking second on that remorseless clock signifies that I’m one step closer to boarding that stinking bus tomorrow morning and heading back to my paradisiacal corporate monkey sector job.

I love time off work for all the obvious reasons; but also because it allows me time to think and think and fucking think. Too much thinking can be detrimental to my sense of ignorant well-being yet I crave it.

And I can read and read and mortify my humble ass into submission.

The End of Men, an apocalyptic tale of the doomed path of modern Man. And this morning, Safe times are tough times for heroes over on agnostic’s blog.

The concepts distilled individually from both readings coalesced, were “married,” in my holiday-relaxed mind.

Isn’t it the natural inclination for a thinking person, when confronted with specific phenomena driven by the rapidly accelerating nature of human society, to wonder as to the Why and the How?
We seek to reverse engineer the phenomena. Perhaps take a step, or two, back. Take in the whole picture, which is difficult, for this means we must defang the qualities of modern history, most of which occurred in our pre-maternal absence. We must reassemble factual tidbits based on our knowledge of eras past and this involves a lot of [filling in the blanks].

For instance, Why and How have we reached a point in human history where females have claimed the historic male ability to triumph over the current landscape of humanity? Theories abound in this blogosector and most participants are not shy about pitching in their two cents. Personally I don’t think the How is vitally important, yet that seems to be an equally discussed bone of contention. The Why is what matters. The Why is the only tool available to Man which will allow him to take control of his balls once again and perhaps his natural dominance over society. Maybe. The Why speaks to inherent flaws in our mentality which can be addressed, in theory, and perhaps overcome, whereas the How only speaks to how these flaws have manifested themselves in the gender dystopia of the modern age.

Do you hear it? The chorus of women’s voices cheering in joyful, delusional unison? They do not seek to sort out the ramifications of such a society…for it is true that many women of our modern age are content to merely revel in the attention and glory of their ascendance without giving a second thought to the dystopic vision they marvel at.
“Why do we care? It’s time for women to finally rule!”

Little do they realize or care that the same male dominance they denigrate is the one which built the society and infrastructure which affords women the time and resources to paint their nails and hair, to buy large houses which they can decorate in fits of extravagance, to drive expensive cars to nice restaurants where they can chatter glibly over plates of food. Male dominance built this world which womanhood enjoys the spoils of so selfishly. Women have hijacked the freedom and liberties man has created while distorting them in order to create a world that has neutered men. They have usurped man’s arsenal and aimed it back at him and man can only watch the unfolding cultural shift from a position of utter powerlessness and humiliated weakness. I’m reminded of an X-Files episode in which the “villain” has the ability to manipulate his victim’s thoughts and coerce them into taking their own lives; I feel that is the same dynamic womanhood has mimicked in order for man to essentially sublimate his superiority and trade it in for a sense of inferiority. Man has been tremendously weakened. I don’t believe women have necessarily excelled to such stratospheric levels of academic and career achievement solely by virtue of intelligence or personal ethics. I think they have been helped and aided by the complicit help of man, en masse, as he has dropped out of relevant society and become a buffoon and co-conspiratorial wuss. I should not say “men” – I really mean “Man.” For it’s a group effort, with many, many outliers and glaring examples of men who have not fallen into the trap, but societal trends are written by groups, not individuals. And Man, the group, has fallen pitifully short in modern society. He has relinquished control to Woman, to his female counterpart, to his…wife.

Yes, his wife.

It’s very obvious to me.

The most important consideration when explaining the fledgling supremacy of the human female is that this is a dynamic which has engraved itself into the soul of civilization over thousands of “civilized” years. It did not happen overnight, or even in the span of one generation. We’d like to think this, we’d like to blame Hollywood or feminism or the liberal nanny state, but these are merely symptoms of a deeper underlying cultural transformation that has been occurring for spans of time longer than we can comprehend in our limited, human lifetime world view. We give ourselves too much credit while we bitterly write this all off as a conscious effort on the part of assorted demographic groups who gather in complicit armies set to overturn civilization as we know it. Human social evolution is exponential; each evolutionary leap, each step, is fueled by a previous leap which in turn was also fueled by a previous leap…and thus a paradigm shift occurring now is really fed by countless layers of historic shifts which rested on the shoulders of a previous paradigm shift. In other words, change now is compounded, and would probably be nearly unrecognizable from the perspective of someone witnessing present events from a time machine in an era just 50 or 85 years ago.

The “officialized” state of marriage is the underlying cultural component which has laid the groundwork leading to our current gender dystopia. As I’ve said before, I feel uncomfortable criticizing marriage. I know enough happily married couples that I feel I must add that my opinion on marriage’s responsibility for the state of our world is essentially a value-free assessment. The point is, I am speaking of a dynamic which spans thousands of years, not just a blip on the radar of time which a generation or two denotes. The occasional presence of a healthy marriage suffused with the natural gender roles on the part of husband and wife does not disprove the overriding ages-old effect that this institution has left on the current skewed gender roles in society.

Marriage is to blame.
The recognized union of man and woman in a mutual cohabitation which presumes that each part is relatively equal in the eyes of society. This is not natural, not in the primal, evolutionary sense.

Man and woman are evolutionary rivals.
This is key.
We are not enemies, contrary to the general impression you get from many in in the MRM. I dislike feeding into the MRA mindset…I find MRA types bitter and helpless and their subtle (and not so subtle) misogyny is not very amusing. I love women and I don’t believe they are consciously banding together in order to defeat man. The forces of social nature are larger and embedded so deeply in our cultural being that they are untouchable to those looking to make individual marks.

Man and woman are rivals, therefore they function optimally when allowed to remain separated as much as possible save for moments nature sees fit to bring them together (ie, mating). That which enables and allows men and women to come together in order to “cooperate” under the mutual auspices of social arrangements which are constructed by societal laws and mores in order to create a dynamic of equality can only result in a skewed interrelationship resulting in the male losing his naturally endowed strength and woman’s leeching off this strength in order to meet her own ends. This dynamic has had thousands of years of wedded generations to embed itself and distort primitive gender relationship. A rivalry implies separation of parallel goals while both parties nevertheless remain bonded by a common interest within the larger context. For man and woman, the larger context here is propagation of the species; yet, their immediate goals due to their conflicting natures are best left separate. Thus clarified, a dynamic in which the male rules absolutely is most natural and conducive to seamless breeding. In such a natural state of separation, the disparate goals will be allowed to exist and the species to flourish. However, brought together in an artificially induced union (god love religion!) nature is defeated and its aims foiled. Over thousands of years and countless generations of successive social embellishment carried forth on the shoulders of previous unnatural unions of male/female equality, women rise while men sink. Equilibrium naturally surfaces in the grand zero sum game. As I’ve noted, the evolution is exponential. We are in the midst of a flurry of rapid and visible changes in our time. At our stage, it doesn’t take many generations to effect nearly instantaneous changes; for the change occurring in one generation today is representative of a long-standing systemic change which has been cemented in place for thousands of years. On the surface, even though it appears women have taken “control” overnight, the groundwork was laid ages ago when marriage became the standard by which gender expression was allowed to express iteself over ensuing generations.

As the purported equality of marriage has overwritten the original societal program, it has imprinted its template upon our culture. Women, liberated within the confined boundaries of marriage, found this liberation slowly seeped into mainstream society as the marriage mentality slowly guided man’s relinquishment of power and masculinity, a paradigm which also shifted culture’s mores and social structure. As men brought their married sensibilities to the world at large, and to groups which they occupied exclusively, as I outlined in a previous post, they became unwitting accomplices working to change the structure of society with the aid of their historically latent power, and failed at this crucial juncture to demand that societal structure adapt to their masculine vision. This masculine vision was stillborn within the egalitarian container of marriage. Marriage’s greatest power was its insular nature which allowed man and woman to escape the tendrils of society’s moral compass.

Man, tamed by marriage, was unable to bring his potent sense of masculinity to bear on the outside world. Over thousands of years he weakly participated in weakening his own evolutionary influence on society because at home he was forced to relinquish his masculine hold in the interest of mutual cooperation with a woman. This was compounded by the fact that his father learned similar coping skills and his father before him, and the father before and before, generations of gradual surrender of masculinity. A dew point of equilibrium was attained in recent memory and the scales of gender finally tipped irrevocably in the wife’s favor, both at home and at large.

As with all grand societal paradigm shifts, the few outliers who eschew new roles live a solitary life of alienation for their lack of enthusiasm and willingness to join the common march exposes them to harsh and subtle ostracization.

The modern man who dares to maintain a tenacious grip on his bachelorhood is roundly purged from the playground of modern life (unless he is homosexual in which case he is excused, and in fact, revered by the feminized hordes). It is not easy to share cultural real estate with legions of those who have happily succumbed to the modern gender paradigm. To remain unmarried and actively free of any outward enthusiasm to join or humor the feminized social world will easily find you cast from its Club. You are a rogue state. You cannot be considered a vibrant or legitimate player and you will find yourself marginalized in the eyes of the sheep who have gathered to breathe life into the Hive and expand its insidious reach. In order to join the ranks of respectable society and be allowed to indulge in its empty plasticity, you must,

1) Be married
2) Humor the frivolity of a feminized culture
3) Check in any traces of odious masculinity at the door

Those men who dare to remain single past 35 while resisting female induced self-degradation willfully surrender their membership in pleasant society. Marginalization seeps downwards in the barest of daily minutiae.

As women’s strength and influence grows, men’s sense of their masculinity must flow and ebb in sync with capricious female demands or they must eject from the matrix.

Women have always dictated the definitions and concept of masculinity; from the primal and natural position of submissiveness, their definition of the masculine male was the traditional one we knew for nearly the entirety of human history.

Now, women, from a strength of power, define the masculine role as submissive and powerless, much like their own previous role in history.

And men have no choice but to follow their lead.
If they wish to partake in pleasant society.

Category(s): i d'own need no stinkeeng categorees