Pete Patriarch’s Musings

March 15, 2008

Ownership of the marriage strike

Filed under: Uncategorized — Pete @ 4:16 pm

What is the marriage strike? In your eyes, what do you picture when you hear the words “Marriage Strike”?

You picture masses of men walking off the battlefield that relationships in the Western world have become, you see the men who have been taken time and again and you see the men who have learned from others’ mistakes. You imagine 30+ year old women running around, clucking that “men are afraid of commitment” and more generally “men are pigs who are only after one thing.”

You picture men saying, “Enough is enough. Slut around in your youth and you won’t get a ring from me.” Or, “Why would I choose to buy you a gun and bullets and show you how to pull the trigger when you’re only going to shoot me?”

 

One thing you don’t picture is women saying that they are choosing not to marry. Talk about a reframing of the debate!

Yup, its true. Check out the article: Women choosing single life as marriage rate hits record low.

Modern women are turning their backs on marriage in droves, with single women now outnumbering their wedded sisters for the first time in 85 years.

However, the article is not the point of my post. Such articles have been printed before. The point is something Irlandes and Rob Case said on the DGM board, and which struck me as absolutely spot on.

Irlandes:

We must admire feminists for chutzpah, if nothing else. The marriage strike starts creating havoc; simply announce that it is women who are avoiding marriage to worthless, scummy men.
Will it work? Probably. They have succeeded at their propaganda for over 40 years. In a year or two, all the women who can’t find husbands will be proudly announcing they are on strike against marriage, and will even believe it.

Rob Case:

And the government, alarmed at the plummeting drop in marriage rates (and the attendant effect on all the industries that feed off it), will feel compelled to do something about it.

In countries with declining birth rates, such as Australia and Singapore, governments pay women to have children. It’s no stretch to imagine that they will eventually pay women to marry – seeing as how it’s such a sacrifice for them, and against their better judgement and all.

Have we forgotten – again – how the women’s lobby works?

They manufacture a grievance, take it to the state, then get money for its redress. They do it over and over and over again.

Whoever ‘owns’ the marriage strike stands to benefit substantially by it. As of now, we do. But we also used to own our houses, own our labour and own the right to defend ourselves.

Currently, our ownership of the marriage strike could be used as leverage for reform of marriage, child support and matrimonial property law. Lose that ownership, and it’s all for nothing. More gravy for the Feminist train.

Perhaps this is why not a word of a male-initiated marriage strike gets past the mainstream media. It’s too valuable an asset to let men keep. As usual, men are doing the work, but someone else will get paid.

Unless we shout out our ownership while we still can.

This is very real. While giving incentives to women won’t do a damn thing for the marriage strike, since when was the government concerned with the ultimate outcome when it comes to feminist issues? The bigwigs are not concerned about the ultimate outcome when they can buy women’s votes and pump up the economy artificially by transferring wealth to women, who spend it at a dizzying rate.

Advertisements

11 Comments »

  1. Good comment on the paper’s website. I love it:

    If some Australian women do not place a high value on family then that is quite OK, nothing to rag them about. Better to be up-front about it so men can look elsewhere and there is nothing worse than couples who are ill-matched in their expectations. By coincidence we were talking about this a few weeks ago at a reunion of our uni AFL team when one of the wives observed that almost all of us had GFs and wives who were overseas born and raised. I think it is because we traveled extensively and were more comfortable with European women who really appreciate home and family life. They are happy and independent (there are different sorts of ‘independent’) and dare I say it, don’t assert themselves in any negative way. In many ways, Australian women are indistinguishable from their American sisters. That isn’t a problem for some, but it certainly is not my preference for a lifelong companion and mate..

    Comment by Pete — March 15, 2008 @ 4:33 pm

  2. Rather scary statistics. As Devlin and others have argued, many women now have unrealistic expectations about the kind of men they can get.

    This is partly caused by the mass media such as women’s magazines and the like, and also because of a lack of self-awareness. For example, a woman might be able to get very desirable men to humour her, maybe even sleep with her (men will have sex with anything) but not even dream of committing to her on a long term basis.

    Things will of course come back into balance, as the fashion of marrying foreign women turns into a tidal wave forces English-speaking women to up-their-game.

    Comment by He — March 15, 2008 @ 6:19 pm

  3. English speaking white females can up their game all they want. I would NEVER marry one ever.

    Comment by No Games — March 17, 2008 @ 1:32 pm

  4. Doesn’t matter. We will get screwed by the feminist gov’t either way. If women own it they will get payed to get married. If men own it we will get arrested for not getting married. It happened in Rome before it fell.

    Comment by viking — March 24, 2008 @ 2:11 pm

  5. English speaking white females can up their game all they want. I would NEVER marry one ever.

    Comment by No Games — March 17, 2008 @ 1:32 pm

    Yes use them for sex that is it.

    Comment by Tom Leykis — August 10, 2008 @ 12:50 am

  6. Marrying foreign women used to be a good option for American men, but unfortunately, word has gotten out about easy it is to screw a man in the courts here and the scammers are flooding in like gangbusters.

    The only option here is now to continue the marriage strike. Time is on our side, as men age like wine and women age like milk. We will eventually win, if society doesn’t collapse first from the intense dysgenic pressures being put upon it by these very same anti-male policies.

    Comment by Some Guy — October 28, 2008 @ 12:10 pm

  7. […] who does own the marriage strike, now that one half of the population of the western world is finally admitting that it exists – […]

    Pingback by The marriage strike - it’s because you have a small penis « Exposing Feminism — November 24, 2008 @ 5:52 am

  8. The Marriage Strike has partly arisen because men across the Anglosphere now have a variety of lifestyle options which previously never existed. The Internet has opened up foreign Marriage markets, casual sex agendas and contact with more libertarian lifestyles that are existentially more satisfying than Marriage. My whole point is that men hold all the cards in a Marriage Strike situation, because we are inherently more sexually profligate than women, for sociobiological reasons. So we can sleep with foreign women, use escorts and experiment with homosexuality in a way women – inhibited by innate sexual conservatism – never can. Women have much more to gain by Marriage than men do, as it inheres to a monogamous agenda. Proof: the ‘Anglobitch’ constituency composed of Entitlement Princesses across the Anglosphere is clearly wilting under the Marriage Strike. This is compounded by the fact that the most desirable men are typically the most intelligent – and intelligent men are most averse to Marriage, because they have most to lose.

    Comment by Muzalon — November 24, 2008 @ 2:38 pm

  9. If the smartest men are on strike and only morons marry up, that spells a Darwinian doom. Feminism is the first step out of the fighter jet on down the dirt road back to the trees. Something to lok forward to though: Once we re-evolve into an ape lookalike, we won’t be bothered about buying women fur coats! (both genders will end up with nonremovable fur coats)

    Comment by Anonymous — February 18, 2009 @ 9:21 pm

  10. Many good points have been brought up here. I believe it is true that the less intelligent men are the ones who are getting married; the smart men understand the associated risks and won’t do it – yes, come genetic consequences do apply.

    Personally, I’ve felt the voltage in the electric fence via my divorce and legal system. I suppose you could classify me as a slow learner as I was naive enough to get shocked in the first place.

    Marrying an American Woman… not now, not ever. Marrying any woman… not now, not ever. I’ve been shocked once and am smarter now.

    Comment by NeverAgain — November 19, 2009 @ 10:05 am

  11. Thanks to the marriage strike all feminists have to look forward to is a future with no husband ,no children and only their pets for company and it serves them right. and just to rub salt into the wound , those men who would have married them had it not been for the fact that they are ball breaking feminazi bitches with a PhD in hypocrisy and an over weaning sense of entitlement , are now marrying foreign women treating w them with respect and being good husbands and fathers. I should know that’s what I did.

    Comment by mark — July 9, 2010 @ 3:07 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: