The problem with TradCons is that it [sic] proposes men behave according to traditional behaviours while the underlying rules that supported that behavior doesn’t [sic] exist.
– A commenter at Oz Conservative
…traditionalism is a collectivist ideology.
The problem is tradcon thinking and language has been completely taken over by feminism.
-An individual calling himself “Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech,” at his blog
It is said by many (not just the individuals quoted above) that since the traditional rules of traditional society have been overthrown, a person cannot live traditionally without incurring a severe penalty.
In response, we traditionalists say that indeed, man must always make some accommodations to his environment. But to be properly virtuous, a man or woman must not live just for himself. He must also live a life that contributes to his family, his people, his religion, and his nation. And this can only be done by living, to a greater or lesser extent, traditionally.
The topic is large, and this post will only respond directly to one of its manifestations: It is said by some in the Manosphere that we traditionalist conservatives are betraying men by urging them to act according to traditional rules of chivalry towards women, with the result that women have the advantage over men. In brief, they say we traditionalists urge men to submit to women.
The accusation is at first sight puzzling because traditional society makes men the leaders, and we traditionalists hold patriarchy as one of our ideals. In such a society “chivalry” cannot mean male submission. Instead, it means men not abusing their power over women, but instead treating them with respect. In traditional society men and women submit to those who have legitimate authority over them, and they in turn exercise authority over others, all for the end of glorifying God and contributing to the well-being of family, tribe (i.e, ethnic group), church and nation.
But times have changed for the worse. The traditional ordering of society has largely been overthrown, and not just in the sense that men and women no longer feel obligated to follow the traditional ways. We also have the authorities actively undermining society by upholding liberal rules and standards.
In today’s disordered society, then, what do we traditionalists say should be the behavior of the male toward the female? And, most importantly, why do we advocate it?
.
The behavior of the male toward the female should be based on his knowledge of the purpose of male and female. The purpose, stated in Scripture and confirmed by common sense and the record of history, is marriage leading to family leading to the well-being of tribe, church, and nation.
So the purpose of man and woman is not just the mutual satisfaction of two individuals. Its highest purpose is to connect the individual to the order of being that terminates in God. At the lower levels of this order, sex and marriage allow the man and the woman to participate constructively in things greater than themselves, such as family, religion, tribe, and nation.
In today’s disordered society this ideal has been the object of a largely-successful leftist campaign of vilification and obfuscation. The proper, traditionalist, ordering of society is officially held in contempt, and the modern man or woman is expected to think primarily of his own well-being, only looking to family, tribe and nation if they fit with his personal agenda of self-satisfaction.
In place of a proper social order based on respect for God and the traditions of our people, the current Western social orders are based on a revolutionary ethos that demands tolerance and freedom at the personal level and multiculturalism and nondiscrimination at the national level. Traditional authorities and institutions are to be suppressed or overthrown, but everywhere else there is to be freedom, tolerance and diversity.
But this is a blueprint for the death of the nation. A group of individuals whose highest loyalty is either to themselves or, if the individual is not purely selfish, to ideologies of liberation and social revolution cannot form a cohesive and self-perpetuating nation. Selfishness, even when dressed up in the self-righteous language of praising the gods of liberalism, cannot be the basis of an enduring social order.
.
The properly masculine man, therefore, seeks to understand the times and what is to be done. (Cf. I Chronicles 12:32). He understands that selfishness—including his own selfishness—cannot sustain the social order upon which we—and our descendents—all depend.
Therefore a properly masculine man does not seek just to protect himself from the very real dangers of our liberalized, feminized, age. The properly masculine man understands that marriage, like any other noble undertaking, involves risks but is ultimately honorable and rewarding if done well, or even adequately.
We may liken the traditionalist man facing courtship and marriage to a soldier going into battle. The enemy is not the woman, but the institutionalized forces of liberalism that are seeking (sometimes unconsciously) to destroy his marriage and his society. In real warfare, some soldiers achieve glory and others die in battle. Some are wounded physically or mentally, and others survive unscathed. Some endure great hardships, and others find the time relatively uneventful. But despite these uncertainties and dangers, we recognize that the soldier is doing something noble. We do not allow him to opt out when the going gets tough, for the future of the nation is at stake.
The same is true about courtship and marriage, for the leaders of our Western societies are doing their utmost to destroy marriage and the family, and therefore our nations. They have placed great dangers and obstacles in the path of any man or woman who wants to marry honorably, some of which are:
- No-fault divorce, which allows selfish spouses (these days, mostly women) to destroy a marriage through divorce for no valid reasons.
- Family law that generally favors the woman at the expense of the man and the children, even if she is divorcing for selfish reasons. We say “at the expense of the children” because divorce for any reason harms the children.
- Unlimited abortion, which makes it easier for selfish adults to shirk their duty to raise the next generation.
- Abolition of male authority over wives and children, which opens the path for the soft tyranny of female rule.
- A sex-saturated culture which dissipates sexual energy in sterile activities and makes people unsatisfied with real marriage.
In other words, our society is in many ways like an enemy which we must defeat—or at least defend against—if we are to have a good, or even satisfactory, marriage. In such an atmosphere, the Manosphere’s complaint—that the rules have changed and therefore traditionalist behavior gives the advantage to the woman—seems to make sense. If a man acts with “chivalry” by sacrificing himself for wife and family, he may well be rewarded by his wife leaving him on a whim, taking his children with her, and no authority will try to stop or even to chastise her. Or he may never get married in the first place, as sex is easily available and women are encouraged to look on men as either playthings or rivals, so that the advantage passes to the one (generally, these days, the woman) who wants to avoid the commitment of real marriage.
So the man who aims for marriage is, in a very real sense, going into combat. Not with the woman, but with the evil forces and institutions which influence us for the worse.
.
Yet we cannot say that it is acceptable for men to avoid marriage. For men are the natural instigators and leaders of marriage and without marriage, a nation cannot survive. And it is not enough to make marriage just a valid option, for when doing what is right is nothing but one option among many, then what is right will rarely be done, because it is difficult.
And “survival of the nation” is not just an abstraction. The nation is what surrounds you when you walk down the street. It is the world in which you live. If your nation is perishing, every aspect of your life will be disrupted and corrupted. Conversely, if the nation is being upheld by her men, then your life will be upheld by your nation. Some people are content to be “free riders,” enjoying the goods of a society without contributing to their upkeep. But too many free riders destroy the nation, and the goods which everyone needs. So the soldier must fight, not run away.
.
Yes, the soldier must fight. But we do not expect him to expose himself to unnecessary danger. We expect the soldier to be properly trained and equipped. We expect him to know, whenever possible, the ways of the enemy and the terrain of the battlefield. And we do not want him to fight in a manner that makes him more vulnerable than necessary. It is here where the insights of the Manosphere could perhaps be useful tactically.
.
The denizens of the Manosphere accuse those whom they call “traditionalists” of sending men into battle unarmed, by telling them, in effect, “Just man up and do your duty: Marry the woman and support her. Never mind the fact that most divorces are unilaterally initiated by women for essentially selfish reasons, never mind the fact that family law overwhelmingly favors the woman at the expense of the man and his children, never mind the feminism-saturated culture that teaches women to be dissatisfied with real men. Just do your duty.”
Few traditionalists, if any, give this advice, but apparently there are some conservative authorities who do. These authorities focus on exhorting the man rather than the woman, and they often ignore the complaints of the manosphereans, complaints that do have much validity.
[Perhaps the Manosphere uses the word “traditionalist” to mean anyone giving traditional-sounding advice. But for us, traditionalism is far more than telling men “do your duty.” It is a worldview and a way of life based on the enduring principles and an understanding of the order of being. For a discussion of “the order of being,” see here.]
So how do real traditionalists say a young man should conduct himself toward women? No blog post can possibly give an adequate answer to this question but we can at least give the general outlines of an answer. We do so, not to teach the young man all he needs to know about his relationship with the woman, but rather to answer the accusation that we traditionalists are giving bad advice.
Our basic advice is that you must find the best woman you can find, and you may have to settle for a far-less-than-ideal marriage. But even a poor marriage has some great benefits, and a good man usually can influence his wife for the better. Knowing you will be engaged in a form of “holy war,” you can prepare for battle, avoid the easily-avoidable failures, and contribute to the life of your nation, that is, your people. In this way, you will honor the struggles of your ancestors who fought analogous fights, and you will leave a legacy for your descendants.
Know that you are a warrior participating in a noble cause. We all desire peace, but ours is not a peaceful time. Every man faces only two choices: contributing to the leftist destruction of our nation by going along with the status quo, or emulating your ancestors in building up our nation and fighting leftist barbarians in whatever way you can.
.
In courtship, the traditionalist advises the man to seek a woman who has womanly virtue rather than superficial sex appeal. This, of course, requires great self-discipline. Keep in mind that the greatest of the womanly virtues is the willingness to be led by a good man, and that a wife who lacks this virtue will make your life very difficult. Marry in haste, repent at leisure.
Women possessing womanly virtue do exist, but they tend not to be the first woman who catches your eye. So start training your eye.
Once you have the correct frame of mind about the nature of the marriage enterprise, you can sometimes profit from tactical advice given by the Manosphere. As long as your goal is to honor your God and your people by being a good husband and father, there is no dishonor in using even some of the tactics of “Game” to manipulate your wife into doing the right thing. There is an ancient tradition of stories of wives manipulating their husbands into doing the right thing; turnabout is only fair.
The most fundamental tactic of the husband and father is both to be strong and to appear strong, while at the same time being sensitive to the needs of wife and children. Their greatest need, of course, is to be led toward the development of virtue, but if your wife, being an adult and therefore being less malleable, resists your attempts to increase her virtue, you can at least stand unambiguously for virtue yourself. Even if your wife does not appear to respond to your virtue, you can at least maintain your personal honor and keep up your spirits by knowing that you are doing the right thing.
.
When the threat of divorce looms, how should the traditional man respond?
Ideally, we would take action and overthrow the unjust laws permitting frivolous divorce and allowing the woman to loot her ex-husband. When a properly-ordered American society is restored, these evils will be a thing of the past. But these changes will not happen in the foreseeable future so for now, we have no choice but to go into battle.
Know first that if you choose a better woman to marry in the first place, you will lessen the chance of divorce. There are women who have the supreme feminine virtue of being willing to be led by a good man, and who are of a personality and background that will go well with yours. Ignore the sirens who are luring you to your destruction, and seek the good woman. If you marry one such as her, your desire for her will increase as your marriage proceeds.
If you are facing the possibility of divorce, understand that the system favors the enemy. Divorce, even for manifestly selfish and invalid reasons, is always permitted by the authorities. Therefore you must either convince or manipulate your wife into not divorcing you. Do not panic, and retain at least the appearance of strength and calm. If your wife respects your strength, there will be less chance of divorce.
Is there a chance of divorce? Yes. This is war, and some men die in battle. But they fight for a noble cause.
If you cannot appeal to your wife’s better side by showing her the great advantages of remaining married and the great evils of divorce, you may have to resort to something like manipulation or even dissimulation. There is no dishonor in the greater scheme of things in granting (or appearing to grant) your wife what she wants but you don’t want, in order to prevent divorce, as long as you maintain your dignity. Keep your dignity at all costs for without it, no woman will respect you, nor will you respect yourself.
What do we mean by “appearing to grant your wife what she wants, but you don’t want”? Find out what you wife wants, as a condition of remaining married to you and then, as long as it is not illegal, immoral, or grossly undignified, grant it to the best of your abilities. There is much more at stake than just your personal comfort. Presuming that it is something you find distasteful (why else would she have to obtain it by pressuring you?), go along with it without complaining. But do not act like a defeated warrior trying to curry favor with his captors. Instead, act like a warrior who does what he must to win and remains cheerful in the face of adversity. By doing so you will look strong, which all women find appealing
And what if your wife demands that you do something illegal, immoral, or grossly undignified? Try to find a way that gives the appearance of satisfying her requirements without transgressing the boundaries of what a virtuous man would do. In war, a man must sometimes do what would ordinarily be considered wrong in order to obtain a greater good. Can we give some specific guidelines here? No we can’t, for none exist.
We must also point out an uncomfortable truth: You may bear some of legitimate responsibility for your wife’s unhappiness. Not all female complaints are frivolous. Although it is wrong for the woman to allow these complaints to drive her to divorce, the man should not goad her into doing evil. If you can change those of your behaviors that ought to be changed, to prevent the great evil of divorce, more the better. Do whatever it takes, short of sin or dishonor, to prevent divorce. Women have a tendency to blame their man, whether the man deserve it or not, for their marital unhappiness. This is the evil flip side of the virtuous woman’s willingness to be led by the man, and it is part of female nature. But as a man, you understand that you cannot get away with just blaming the woman. As a man, you are accustomed to either taking action to fix a problem, or shutting up and bearing with a situation if it cannot be fixed.
Not being divorced himself, your author cannot offer much practical advice for the one who is divorced, except this: You are still in the fight. You still have influence, albeit reduced, over your children, who are your own flesh and blood. Do not abandon them, or give less to them, out of spite for your ex. You are still their father, and there is still much that they need and only you can give. Out of love for your descendants you will have to bear the unbearable. As a soldier does.
.
In summary: To marry well, a man must be a leader, not just an individual who learns to manipulate female whims. To be a leader, you have to understand the times what you must do. So learn from the wise, wherever you find them.
.
Eventually we will have to repeal the laws that permit easy divorce and that favor the woman at the expense of the man and the children. And we will have to form a better society that is not saturated with disrespect for men and fathers and proper marriage and family life and proper sexual morality. That is an obvious given. But until that happy day dawns, men of good will shall have to fight against an enemy determined to destroy their chances of a good marriage.
.
Finally, are we collectivists, as was alleged? If the word means that we are concerned not just for the well-being of the individual, but also the group—the family, the church, the nation—then yes, we are collectivists. As were our ancestors, without whom we would not exist.
The Orthosphere 
Reblogged this on Delightful and commented:
Favoring women in divorce laws hurts society, marriage, and children.
I would argue that no fault divorce is the real culprit. Treating marriage as the least of all contracts weakens it such that divorce is not frivolous, the status of marriage within the law is.
Bring back a legal requirement that actual abuse, adultery, or abandonment be proven in court for divorce to occur and the issues of custody, etc., recede.
The irony of it all is that even if women seem to be greatly favored by current laws and rules, it’s at the detriment of the average women, who was the most enthusiastic about feminism.
Most women want a home and a family. The ones who want to be lawyers and make big money are the exceptions. But the average women can’t find a husband anymore because men are either destroyed and reduced to wimps, or those who aren’t are busy getting the most beautiful girls. Feminism allowed the average women to get a job, but most of them end up being alone when they are 30 years old and up. Even beautiful girls get abandoned when they’re older, because they’re in competition with the younger versions of themselves.
The result is most women don’t get what they want and need in the end. Good men are taking their wives from other countries, because that’s the only place where you can find good ones now. Average women keep spreading the ideology that got them in this situation in the first place. They need a big wake up call.
The ones who want to be lawyers and make big money are the exceptions.
I think this misses the point. Most women nowadays actually want to shop, travel and have sex with hot guys more than they want a family. So, they work until their 30s because that helps them get those things.
I disagree with that, they just follow this trend because the alternative option of staying home and raising a family has been shamed into being inferior. Additionally, it does’nt work anymore, with all the failed marriages and broken homes.
I know a lot of women who took big careers like doctors but they wanted to be mothers. Their parents and society told them to get a degree and make money instead, because that’s what a free modern woman should do. The vast majority of women are wired to follow social norms and rules. But these girls were made to be housewives and are now unhappy, not finding a husband who want to put up with their shit.
This is an interesting post. I intend to respond, but don’t have the time now to do so. The one thing that I do have time to say is that it seems to lack empathy for the potential suffering of other men. A comfortably married man sending other men off to die… I mean, get married and then divorced? I am reminded of European leaders in WWI sending “the boys” out to die in the trenches for the noble cause, while they themselves lived in comfort behind the front lines.
I am not sitting in a comfortable office sending men to die. I am in the fight too.
Besides, my logic is inescapable. Men are the leaders of marriage, and the nation dies without marriage. Therefore we must fight.
I really don’t see sense in this argument. Just choose a girl that goes regularly to a conservative church. I’ve never seen a divorce in the churches I attended, so this problem seems imaginary to me. Doing this will very likely require that you too be or become religious. If you want traditional marriage without religion, I guess you are indeed out of luck, but it is a self-inflicted pain. So summing up my advice: Go to a conservative church with enough members to allow for finding a mate and problem solved.
Many apparently-conservative churches have divorce problems, so finding a conservative-church girl is not a guarantee. Of course, some churches are more conservative than others, and your chances are good with a girl from a culturally-conservative church.
Also, those who are already married need some advice too.
Do you have any evidence, even if merely anedoctal from your experience, for the existence of the claimed problem of “wifes divorcing for little reason” in a conservative church? Divorcing because the guy was cheating for years and years does not count. Even mahomet, the suposedly ultra-misogenist, didn’t excuse that. Of course there might be cases, but I doubt they are over 1%. If they are, then people in the USA are really different than the ones in Brazil.
> so finding a conservative-church girl is not a guarantee.
There are no guarantees of anything in life, and there are virtually no limits to the amount of things that could go wrong even if we do everything as good as possible.
But my point is that the claimed problem, statistically speaking, does not exist in conservative churches. Actually in Brazil I don’t even see it in the secular general population. Again and again what I see was man that left the home for a younger wife. People that are completely liberal often don’t even get married anymore since there is little social pressure.
I could be wrong, but I ask for evidence here.
Felipe
Actually it does count. The bible, and traditional English society, states that female adultery is grounds for divorce, but male adultery is not. Males do not bring their bastards home.
All traditionalists are doing is creating cannon fodder for this war against marriage and men. It’s right here in your article,
“But despite these uncertainties and dangers, we recognize that the soldier is doing something noble. We do not allow him to opt out when the going gets tough, for the future of the nation is at stake.”
You say this without arming the man. What you traditionalists see as merely ‘entering the trenches’ of modern day marriage are really the weapons used against us. Men have no weapons other than the mere appearance of having weapons. Our only current weapon as men is the appearance of leadership and power within a family; because as soon as the woman wants to leave, we can do nothing. We cannot lead her back to marriage, because there is no real power to lead besides through offering increasingly large and outrageous carrots – we have no options of a stick – and there are always larger, more delicious carrots out there once a woman starts looking for them.
So yes, we shake our heads and call you irrational, illogical fools that work against our own interests. Because you continually spout off that we should take one for the team, fight the good fight, and line up for trench warfare on a battle field that increasingly shows that it will reward guerrilla tactics.
My premises were that men are the leaders and instigators of marriage, and that without marriage, the nation that makes our life possible ceases to exist. Therefore men must make the effort.
You said nothing against my premises, therefore my conclusion stands, even if you don’t like it.
I can respect you if you say you do not wish to marry. But do not urge other men not to marry. Help them fight.
We traditionalists do help arm the man. Men are not defenseless. But in war, death is a possibility.
Prove then that men are made leaders.
I contest that a man is not made a leader, but made into a leader. He requires teaching and learning from those that come before him. He requires the tools of leadership to then enforce the decisions and stances he makes as the leader.
Thus, men are not leaders, though they are meant to be. They are born with that potential should they strive for it.
However, most men are never taught how to be leaders. They’re not given mentors that will show them how to lead a family, let alone lead other men. . They never were given apprenticeship, and thus flounder when they’re suddenly put in a position of leadership at the head of a family.
I will admit that there are individuals who are taught leadership. Some churches still do, though they’re by far in the minority. Some fathers still do, though again, they’re in the minority. I did not challenge your original assertion because I find faulty logic not with the fact that men should be leaders, but rather that they don’t have the tools to be so.
Then my original points above still stand. You tell men to be leaders when all they are able to bring to bear are the illusions of power. That they have the power to enforce their decisions when they don’t. All they can do is tempt their followers, they have no power to discipline bad behavior. And temptations and rewards can always be outdone by others – the government is wonderful at offering shiny temptations of a fulfilling life which turn out to be empty, short term happiness. Such is the evil of sin and temptation – short term happiness. Yet our current society gives men absolutely no tools to battle the sinful and fallen nature of those we’re supposed to lead.
You are asking men to climb a mountain with their hands tied behind their back and no ability to choose a new path should their current one fail. A few lucky ones will make it with a combination of luck and smart choice. But should the path they choose be a bad choice or have a hidden pitfall disguised by the mountain, they have no hammer, pick, nor rope to avoid it. They can only walk forward, hands still tied, and hope the ground doesn’t give way beneath them.
As you, I still esteem marriage and consider it the bedrock of civilization. I simply refuse to advise men that they should all find a wife, no matter what they find available, saying that they’re soldiers to die in a holy war. Nor do I lie to them about their prospects and that they must be prepared to pretend as if their tools are real, when in fact they’re plastic prop toys until the laws are changed. Any man thinking that he can take this on is both the most brave as well as the most prepared for the trials he’ll face. But these trials are not meant for all of us. God gives individual men different trials to overcome, so one must realistically appraise himself and the tools he’s been given, listen to see if this is a trial he’s meant to undertake, and act from there.
As I said originally, I believe that most men are equipped better to fight guerrilla warfare style in this particular battle, though not all of us.
Leap of Beta, I understand. Reading through Alan’s post I kept thinking: “where is the church?” Why didn’t he mention the church? That is what built my marriage. Specificlaly it was sound doctrine, small “home groups” meeting during the week for fellowship, lots of other young families with multiple kids, lots of other homeschoolers, and regular ACCOUNTABILITY meetings with our small groups. The accountability meetings were key to discipling me and reforming my family. Full disclosure, the military also formed the warrior mentality that I needed to take on marriage and take up social deviance with homeschooling and traditional values– before I confessed to Christ. Also, I had to uproot from my job and move to rural Oregon to find this kind of community. It took a lot of sacrifice.
So your answer is that you need to be equipped. And how can guys like Alan, Kristor, et al equip us, from across the internet? Homeschooling. Alan, Kristor, anyone, would you like to subsidize my children’s home schooling? My son is interested in sports but I’m not sure about finances. I am willing to provide regular reports, open my finances, and whatever else you want, so that my son can move up in this world and be a little classier than his dad. And if not me, then perhaps someone else?
Earl, I tell you what. I think you are already way far out on the bleeding edge with this. Ahead of me, certainly. Just having heard what you said in this comment, I am totally intrigued to hear your story, beginning to end, in your own words. It sounds to me as though you have a lot you could teach us.
If you were to write down your story and self-publish an e-book through Amazon, I bet you could actually make some money. Especially if you were willing to go to the trouble of promoting it by writing up a Traditionalist Family Man Tip of the Week email, or something like that, and send it to a marketing list. I bet you’d end up with quite a list. It could turn into a tidy little business.
There’s a blog opportunity there, too, for a community discussion among Trad Christian family men to trade tips, not just about marriage, but about church, kids, homeschooling, teenagers, etc. Not to mention knighthood, self defense, the disciplines, etc. It’s a little specialized for the Orthosphere, I think, but we’d sure be linking to it a lot, and I bet virtually all the male Orthosphere readers would be interested to participate.
There is no reason that such an online community could not develop an adjunct mutual aid society for homeschooling Trad Christian family men. But my guess is that it would be more efficient to build that community onto what you already have going with your church (which, again, I am fascinated to hear about). That’s how Lutheran Life and K of C Life got their starts. An interesting topic.
I am afraid that I myself am in no position to finance the homeshooling of anyone else’s kids, because I’m still strapped in financing the education of my own. Sorry!
I will send you an email, pick your brain on blogging, etc.
Not to mention knighthood, self defense, the disciplines, etc. It’s a little specialized for the Orthosphere, I think, but we’d sure be linking to it a lot, and I bet virtually all the male Orthosphere readers would be interested to participate.
Yes. We need, like the Mormons, to step up our mutual support and collectivism. A new order of knighthood sounds awesome.
I don’t think Alan is proposing that men should marry unsuitable women. He is saying that one should not categorically rule out marriage, even if there is some risk. Nothing in life is completely secure, but the key is risk management, not complete withdrawal.
Divorce rates among the upper middle class, i.e. people who read blogs like this, are already low. Choosing your wife carefully will lower your risk even further. Learning game tactics will lower it further yet. Those are acceptable risks. You have no excuse.
Some men, given the low quality of women they can attract, probably should not get married. But you should at least be seeking them out and, if you are able to find them and are able to attract them, you should marry them.
Which is fine. And I would agree with him, as I believe would many other men. Most men are inclined towards marriage, not away from it.
However, I find that traditionalist speakers usually have hollow words and pretty lies.
“Do _____ because it is what a strong man would do”
“Marriage is holy, and all men should pursue it.”
“Marriage is what allowed humanity to create our current world, there fore it is worth doing, even if you will fail.”
They preach to follow traditional teachings without giving men a traditional raising into leadership, nor traditional tools. He himself is using imagery of men dying in a war not for their own good, but for the good of the country.
What traditionalists should be teaching is that, if they raise strong men or if a man becomes strong, he will attract followers of quality. He can then, as a leader, make choices of what to do. Traditionalists don’t realize that what is good for men individually is good for the country as a whole. People may be fallen and sinful, but the majority of them are still noble at heart and able to overcome those that are not. Give men the ability to be true leaders and you will see the country turn around.
Give men speeches about how they should be leaders, lacking any tools or the rewards of leadership but with all of its responsibility and consequences…. And all you’ll get is exactly what we have now.
All the modern traditionalists are doing is exactly what the traditionalists were doing 50 years ago – empty preaching without engaging the environment those you’re preaching to are reacting to – yet you expect men to react differently than before or to turn this country around? Insanity and foolishness.
But I also said “But even a poor marriage has some great benefits…” In most cases, marriage is also for their own good. Marriage, among other things, forces a man to develop his powers and gives him a reason to care.
Traditionalists (real traditionalists, that is) do help give men the tools they need. We all need to help our brothers.
Why don’t you hop on Craigslist and start a discipleship group? Why don’t you move somewhere that you can do these things yourself? Why don’t you get out there and lead from the front? Not being rude here, just iron sharpening iron.
Divorce rates among the upper middle class, i.e. people who read blogs like this, are already low. Choosing your wife carefully will lower your risk even further. Learning game tactics will lower it further yet. Those are acceptable risks. You have no excuse.
A thousand times amen, Thursday. Exciting overseas travel is risky. Riding your motorcycle on a hot summer day is risky. Everything worth doing is risky. If you’re not partaking in some form of risk, you’re existing, not living.
I’m sure there are a few women who won’t like what I have to say… but when I was home with three small children, and my husband and I were not connecting, I would easily have left if it wasn’t for the fact that I had no income of my own at the time. Alright, so I stuck it out so my kids and I could eat, but now I’m VERY glad I did, because now our marriage is WAY better than it ever was, even when we were first married, and if I’d left, I would have missed out on really good things.
Viva la no better options!!!
LOL
The implications of this data are rather obvious, I hope.
Beyond that: Women are the guardians of the sex; and men are the guardians of the commitment. Full stop. No use complaining about it: an is not an ought. Neither should be given out for free in (increasingly vain) hope of getting a bit of the other.
I could not disagree more with this. Granting anything, no matter how reasonable, under the threat of divorce, is foolish at best and almost surely counter-productive. The threat to divorce is the threat to commit a great (and mortal) sin. What short-coming, what besetting sin do you, the husband, have that can compare to that?
Do you fail to “help out around the house”? Not as bad as divorce.
Do you fail to “spend enough time with your kids”? Not as bad as divorce.
Do you fail to “be the spiritual leader your family deserves”? Not as bad as divorce.
Do you fail to keep steady employment? Not as bad as divorce.
Do you gamble away money you cannot afford? Not as bad as divorce.
Are you addicted to porn? Not as bad as divorce.
Addicted to controlled and/or illegal substances? Not as bad as divorce.
Do you neglect her? Not as bad as divorce.
Do you force her to work outside the home, something she doesn’t want to do? Not as bad as divorce.
Do you beat her? Not as bad as divorce.
Bad enough to put her in the hospital? Not as bad as divorce.
Did you go to a prostitute? Not as bad as divorce.
Did you have an affair from which you have now repented? Not as bad as divorce.
Are you having an illicit affair which you refuse to give up? Now we’re in the same ballpark.
Surrender NOTHING, even if otherwise sensible, under the threat of divorce. The threat of divorce is Red Alert. Stop the conversation. Declare status quo ante, maintain your kindness and calm demeanor, and make the very best appearance of shutting her out of your mental and emotional life. That shut out ends, “we can talk”, when (and ONLY when) she unconditionally repents of that wish. Period. Repentance happens first. If she consents to sex, give her the roughest she’s ever had. That could help. A lot.
Your advice is consistent with mine. Do whatever it takes, short of sin or losing your dignity and self-respect, to stop her from divorcing you. Since you cannot prevent it directly, find other ways of preventing it.
And, of course, what tactics will work depends on the woman. You know her better than anybody, so you decide.
For very small values of “consistent”, I suppose. You cannot even appear to cave or to “negotiate”, you cannot negotiate with grave, permanent, soul-killing sin. It’s true you know your wife better than anyone, but Christianity too often conditions us to sometimes mistake kindness (a virtue) with niceness (not so much). The “I wanna divorce” card should drive any notion of niceness very far from your mind. You’ve just been dropped next to Sainte Mère Église in the pre-dawn of 6/6/1944. Fight for your life.
There was a bit of a problem with how Alan framed this. Trying to appease a woman will likely just provoke her more.
As to the charge of collectivism, I think Alan you are correct. A healthy society, defined by a healthy culture, is inherently collective to some extent. What we suffer today is not an opposite of collectivism, but really an excess of individualism. We just happen to socialize (collectivize) the consequences of bad decisions/social pathologies, which automatically create perverse incentives (for more bad decisions and social pathologies). A sane and just society would eliminate such perverse incentives, even if a few had to suffer immense hardship. The requisite amount of collectivization would occur naturally, largely without the hand of government, to recalibrate to “market conditions”.
Collectivism is OK when it is voluntary, and obviously beneficial, and when people are allowed to opt out (without disrupting the collective.) Acts 2 has a nice model of voluntary collectivism.
I am a man who has in fact lived traditionally, marrying a good woman at early age, being the boss of my family, etc.
Your advice sucks.
In particular, you urge men to make reasonable concessions.
This absolutely does not work. The most reasonable of wifely demands is a shit test. If she gets what she thinks she wants, she will be unhappy, will demand more. Yielding is a sign of weakness, and women do not want weakness.
You love your dog. You want your dog to be happy. You try to find out what it wants and give it that. But you don’t make concessions to your dog. It is not a negotiation. It is a favor to the dog
It is absolutely impossible to negotiate with women, because they don’t want what they think they want. What they are actually doing is testing you for weakness, and so their demands are incoherent, irrelevant, and made up off the top of their heads.
So that piece of advice may be bad. But not my overall point.
Also, it depends on the woman. Some women really are so selfish that they might contemplate divorce if they don’t get a particular concession from you, and be relatively happy if they do get it. And it depends on the seriousness of the item being requested / demanded.
As I said to another commenter, you know your woman better than anybody, so it’s your call.
Point is, do whatever it takes.
So you think of your wife as basically like a dog then? Interesting way to think of a marriage, do say more.
Meaning what, Mr. Morphous?
If you want good advice on raising children, watch Barbara Woodhouse or read her or her disciples on dog training. Similarly, wives.
The central thing in dog training is that you, the owner/trainer, are the alpha dog. Your will is like a force of nature. It can, briefly, be defied or ignored, but never to Rover’s profit and never for very long. Your dog cannot make you angry because the social gulf between you and your dog is too large. Amusement is the strongest emotion your dog can draw from you. Your dog’s defiance must never be met by giving it what it wants. Your dog’s obedience may sometimes but not always be met by giving it what it wants. Your dog must never get its way when its way conflicts with your orders. Giving the appearance of ignoring the dog without actually doing so is an important technique. The difference between Barbara Woodhouse and Roissy is small.
None of this precludes having a warm, loving, productive, fun (for both parties) relationship with your dog. “Firm, fair, and fun” In fact, this all conduces to having a warm, loving, productive, fun relationship with your dog.
I can hardly believe some of what I’m reading in this thread. To wit: “Comfortably married men sending other men off to die,” seems like as good a place to start as any.
First of all, the feminization of the culture has affected all of us – ALL of us; laws that favor women over men negatively affect us all to one degree or another.
Second, I have been married (yes, to the same woman) for twenty-seven years, so I assume I am one of those men you refer to as “comfortably married.” But if you think the entire twenty-seven years of my marriage has somehow been a bed of roses, so to speak, you are dead wrong, sir. And why would you make this assumption about any traditionalist man’s marriage – Roebuck’s, Lawson’s, Bohemund’s, mine, etc.?
Third, with all due respect, you guys need to spend a lot more time discovering who you are and what your purpose is as men created in the divine image, and a lot less time complaining amongst yourselves about your circumstances, and using that as an excuse for doing nothing (and advocating the doing of nothing!) to improve the situation for future generations. I recommend studying the Bible for starters. Oh, you don’t like the Bible? Well I don’t know what to tell you then.
We’re not sending you boys off to die. There is a man in there somewhere – a man who is willing to put himself in the line of fire for the benefit of himself and others; a man who is willing to take chances, even (or especially) when the deck is stacked against him – and we’re trying to bring that man out so that you can become part of the solution rather than part of the problem, and … live! And then,…
“Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine, thy children as olive plants round about thy table.”
There comes a time in a man’s life when he’s got to grow up. Besides, you sound like a woman wallowing in her own self-pity.
We’re not sending you boys off to die. There is a man in there somewhere – a man who is willing to put himself in the line of fire for the benefit of himself and others; a man who is willing to take chances, even (or especially) when the deck is stacked against him – and we’re trying to bring that man out so that you can become part of the solution rather than part of the problem, and … live! And then,…
Fantastic stuff, sir!
So the man who aims for marriage is, in a very real sense, going into combat. Not with the woman, but with the evil forces and institutions which influence us for the worse.
…
Is there a chance of divorce? Yes. This is war, and some men die in battle. But they fight for a noble cause.
Amen to all of this, Alan. Jim points out a flaw or two but overall this is the kind of piece I like to see.
Finally, are we collectivists, as was alleged? If the word means that we are concerned not just for the well-being of the individual, but also the group—the family, the church, the nation—then yes, we are collectivists. As were our ancestors, without whom we would not exist.
I’m not sure where this was “alleged”, but I find it interesting that you phrased it this way: it was alleged, as if an accusation of “collectivism” would be some terrible thing. To be sure, “collectivism” needs to be defined lest we equivocate. By “collectivism”, we don’t mean communism:
XXXVIII. Of Christian Men’s Goods, which are not common.
The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same; as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.
(With thanks to Jim.)
But “collectivism” the way you’ve defined it above is necessary, and I would argue that biblically, the case is pretty clear that Man is meant to live collectively, and that modern American individualism is a serious deviation from the Way Man Was Intended to Live. There’s a pretty good case to be made that Christianity succeeds so well in the developing world not only because of issues revolving around poverty, but because those peoples are culturally collectivist, which makes a biblical Christian worldview much more accessible to them.
(This can be viewed from the opposite direction if we consider the number of biblical passages that modern Americans misunderstand, or have a hard time with, because they come to the text with individualist assumptions, not realizing that ancient Near Easterners *always* thought of themselves as part of a group. Think, e.g., of OT passages that seem to advocate collectivist punishment, which American apologists go to great lengths to explain and make palatable, while people in collectivist societies just shrug and say, well, yes, of *course* that makes sense.)
This post is good but women policing the female hierarchy is an aspect that shouldn’t be overlooked. I understand men upholding marriage, being noble and going into battle against evil forces, but certain women should be doing their own in the trenches to help the good and true side, or else the solution isn’t complete.
Amen. The shaming and social ostracism of women who make “bad decisions” is principally the domain of responsible women, and one in which they have failed miserably for nearly two generations. There’s more than enough blame for the mess we’re in to stick to both sexes. And important ways for both sexes to work together to restore sanity.
Yep!
Pingback: The Thinking Housewife › Why Marry? A Response to the Manosphere
Mr. Roebuck writes:
In Proverbs 31:10, the Bible says:
Nowadays, she is rare indeed.
A 2002 survey of about 12,500 men and women found that 97 percent of people who were no longer virgins at age 44 had sexual intercourse for the first time before they married.
How is a man to find a virtuous woman? However so hard he may search, his odds are very low of finding her.
This matters a great deal. The Social Pathologist has delved into the research on Sexual Partner Divorce Risk:
Sir, surely you don’t advise a man to marry a woman who has given her virginity to another man?
No.
But if she has repented, she may be the best wife for him. (Notice the word “may.”)
And looking at the big picture, if most women are not virgins then many men will have no choice but to marry non-virgins. We cannot just call off marriage until things have been fixed. And it is possible for men to work with their women to help improve their character.
sunshinemary
Sir, surely you don’t advise a man to marry a woman who has given her virginity to another man?
Alan Roebuck
No.
But if she has repented, she may be the best wife for him. (Notice the word “may.”)
What would this condition of “has repented” look like, to an external observer?
It is not difficult to find women who, having spent their 20’s in a series of long term relationships (and a few one night stand) suddenly around the age of 28 or so rushing from church to church, insisting how they’ve changed and now they deserve a husband to marry who will father children. I have seen with my own eyes such women in megachurch, and in smaller churches, and at Masses, so it is not unique to any one denomination. Younger men whom I know tell me such women are quite common in the singles ministry at every church they have been to. As I’m sure you are aware, the probability of divorce increases monotonically with each sexual partner a woman has before marriage, although it does supposedly level off some place around 15+, albeit at a precariously high level.
I repeat the question: what does a promiscuous woman who has repented look like to an external observer?
I can’t read minds. I can, and have, and will, observe the behavior of women — and draw conclusions, however much that may enrage feminists of all stripes.
What are womanly virtues? How do I know whether a woman has them? What characteristics should cause me to reject a woman as a potential spouse?
An important question. And I will not presume to try to give a comprehensive answer, but here is a start:
A good woman:
Is willing to be led by her man.
Has genuine faith in Jesus Christ.
Wants to be a wife and mother, and is not ambivalent in these desires.
Does not want to compete with men, but wants to complement them.
Does not spout feminist (or, more generally, liberal) rhetoric. Instead, she is content to live in the world God has created and not try to Change the World.
Has good relations with the other members of her family, and is not seeking to “escape from her small-town upbringing” or some such.
More could be said, but it’s time for me to teach my class.
I am disgusted by the tone of this post, which shows the bankruptcy of so-called traditionalism (which is not traditional at all but an older version of liberalism)
Hey, young man go into the battle and if you must die, then die for your country. Your country that does not give a damn about you. Your society that is a decadent anti-Christian anti-male society. Because you are a LEADER.
But what about going to battle to change unfair laws? No, nothing about that. We won’t lift a finger to change the law. We want you to go into battle and be willing to spare your life. It’s easier that way for us.
What about being a leader with your woman? No, nothing about that. Find what she likes and give it to her lest she divorces you. So much about you being a leader.
Being a leader means having the authority and the responsibility. So-called traditionalist want men to have responsibility without authority. When your wife can destroy your life only by lifting a finger, you are NOT a leader. When you are being considered cannon fodder for the culture war, you are NOT a leader.
If you are serious about rescuing this country, fight for changing the law. If you want young men to spare their lives because you are too lazy to fight or you are too timid to go against women, you are only a useful fool of feminism, perpetuating the statu quo and sending men to die for a feminist society
“Find out what you wife wants, as a condition of remaining married to you and then, as long as it is not illegal, immoral, or grossly undignified, grant it to the best of your abilities.”
A real leader’s behavior, indeed. The Bible is full of exhortations about doing what your wife wants. This is traditionalism. And pigs fly
I was describing, in general terms only, what you may have to do when all alse fails. Your objection is invalid.
Exactly right. One is reminded of the Kobayashi Maru scenario from Star Trek II.
Roebuck’s advice is the same advice every Star Fleet cadet gets — “Die gallantly! Star Fleet tradition requires it!” Never mind that the Federation has been overrun by klingons and the new commander of Star Fleet is a green-skinned handicapped lesbian from Orion.
What is needed is advice on how to do what James T. Kirk did. When confronted with a no-win situation, he changed the game and redefined the problem so that he could win. This is the essence of real leadership. The approach advocated here — go over the top unarmed into the withering machine-gun fire for (traitorous) King and (fallen) Empire — is the opposite of that.
It is difficult to respond adequately to such hysterical rhetoric. Perhaps those who speak like Tarl have already made up their minds, in which case there is no sense in seeking dialog.
But just for the record: If you read the entire essay, you see that marriage has great benefits, and that it is foolish to reject marriage out of a chance that something bad might happen. And the truth that marriage makes the nation (meaning the people, not the System) is self-evident. One of the main reasons our nation is so perverted is that many children are raised in broken homes. There is only one cure for this evil: the deliberate creation of non-broken homes.
If a man aims not to marry, there is a good chance that he will sire bastards instead, regardless of his intent. In other words, the home will be broken from the start. Urging men not to marry is not so noble after all.
If you don’t want to marry, that is your choice. Nobody has the power to force you to marry, so don’t get hysterical that you are being forced to charge the machine guns. But to counsel others not to marry is to attack the foundations of human life.
Roebuck: “There is only one cure for this evil: the deliberate creation of non-broken homes.”
Amen, brother! At 19 years old I understood this very well, having come from a chain of broken homes. Someone had to end this evil, destructive cycle. I took it as my responsibility. Which compelled me to do two all-important things:
(1) seek God’s assistance, knowing that if I asked him bread, he would not give me a stone, and (2) to raise my standards to a fairly high level (These are interrelated, but I can’t get into all that at the moment.). My prospective wife had to be several things, therefore, in order to qualify: she had to be a virgin, she could not have come from a broken home herself, she had to be at least receptive to the gospel of Jesus Christ, she had to have a strong relationship with her own father, she had to desire children and have no plans of working outside the home. And so on and so forth.
And keep in mind what Bohemund said above: Men are the guardians of commitment. I could not agree more. If you understand this prior to getting married, you’re halfway there already.
Otherwise, all I see coming from the opponents of marriage is one confirmation after another that they are not in the right frame of mind for building a successful marriage, thus contributing to the building of a more stable, cohesive society necessary for eliminating feminist-based marriage laws.
Change existing law to suit me, then I’ll consider marriage? Hogwash!
[This is in response to Mr. Nobody’s post of 3:40 am]
Your comment shows that you do not understand.
If men “refuse to marry,” our race, our nation, comes to an end.
If men “go on strike” until the laws are changed for the better, it will probably be many decades until men can marry again, and our nation comes to an end.
I did not tell men how to relate to women. All I did was make some observations. Yet you act as if I am trying to lay out a comprehensive program, which you reject.
Do not be hysterical when speaking about this issue. Calm down and learn something.
Our race, nation, our culture, our religion, are all subject to the power of people who intend to end it, and cannot continue if their power continues.
To reproduce biologically and culturally, need a marriage contract enforced on both parties, an unequal marriage contract. Women and children have to be supported by individual men, rather than supported by the state. At present the state attempts to prohibit bad male behavior, ever more broadly defined, but the problem is bad female behavior, bad female behavior being behavior unlikely to result in intact families, or likely to destroy the family.
With sufficient state support, we get biological reproduction, as in scandinavia, but the woman seek the seed of thugs, members of other races, and underclass males, resulting in severe dysgenesis. Further, without fathers, we don’t get cultural transmission or civilization. London illustrates this with a white underclass not very different from the black underclass. Fatherless whites behave similarly to blacks.
We need to return the marriage law not to what it was in 1950, but to what it was in 1850, and for that deal to be perceived as desirable by women, discrimination and profiling has to be permitted, including profiling against the fatherless, and support for women and children by men has to be conditional on marriage and female good behavior.
Agreed, except for the part where you say
Marriage and family can be primitive community that is ultimately beyond the power of the System to abolish. If the family can ride out the storm, even if damaged, then our nation can survive.
As for the rest of your comment, agreed. But what to do in the meantime? Human beings come from families, even if the families are damaged by the state. If men go on strike, this will only produce more bastardy, that is, more damaged children. And marriage is ultimately about children.
Another possibility if men go on strike is that the children will be contracepted and aborted out of existence, in which case our physical nation literally passes out of existence.
So a marriage strike is a great evil. Nobody is forcing you personally to marry. But do not counsel men in general not to marry. A good marriage, or even an adequate marriage, is still possible.
Alan Roebuck | May 7, 2013 at 11:42 pm
> But what to do in the meantime?
Marry virgins.
OK.
But what if you’re already married? Marrying virgins is not the cure-all.
Ploygamy.
Another question that occurs to me – don’t women feel pathetic when they read this article?
Not if they know what’s good for them.
Alan Roebuck | May 7, 2013 at 11:42 pm
> If men go on strike, this will only produce more bastardy, that is, more damaged children. And marriage is ultimately about children.
As I said, I lived a traditional life, married a woman who had not slept with anyone other than me. It is women, not men, that control the level of bastardy. Manning up and marrying those sluts is not working and is not going to work.
I agree 100% that “man up and marry those sluts” is despicable and wholly part of Protestant Anglo influenced Churchianity.
The problem is that even the so-called “virgins” in America (USA) are corrupted by the Anglo Puritan-Victorian culture and the English language has been distorted beyond repair in some cases (e.g. Exhibit A is the fact that they always say “male gender and female gender” instead of “masculine sex and feminine sex”, as they say in a Latin derived language like French, Spanish or Portuguese, which is that sex is a much truer and better word than “gender”).
I hope I don’t sound like an advocate for foreign women (since some of them are nasty and backstabbing creatures, they are not all kind), but if one wants to marry an actual virtuous religious virgin woman, the best resort is expatriate and marry foreign. Think Latin (South) American women, far East Asian women or Eastern European women. It’s not too late there, but be careful too, because Anglo culture is global and English is an international language (don’t forget that).
I assume that what you mean by “Protestant Anglo influenced Churchianity” is liberalism. Also, as Mr. Roebuck has pointed out, no one around here is advocating the position you are arguing against.
As for marrying a foreigner, well, that is an awfully tough row to hoe. Marriage is difficult enough as it is; why make it even harder by throwing in additional complications, like different cultural backgrounds? Why make it harder by adding a language barrier?
Also, more often than not, marrying foreign means miscegenation. Don’t we have too much of that already?
Finally, using “gender” instead of “sex” is a recent leftist innovation. English speakers used to know the difference; perhaps someday, we will again.
If one wants to marry foreign and expatriate, don’t go on dating websites. Meet these women and their families in real life. Travel there in the flesh.
[This is in response to Mr. Donald’s comment of 4:32 am]
I did not say, or imply, “Man up and marry those sluts.” Neither do real traditionalists say that. You are arguing with someone else.
Members of the self-pitying Manosphere are almost always arguing with a straw man. Nothing new here.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/05/08 | Free Northerner
Pingback: Marriage is intrinsincally good, but it has turned evil in mos situations | Alcestis Eshtemoa
Alan,
I think the dispute between traditionalists and the manosphere comes down to two issues:
1)The chances of success given the current circumstances. There is no problem with the soldier metaphor but even just war theory has a component on having a good chance of success or the war is not considered just. Those of the manosphere see the chances of success as being quite low so the urging to fight such a war is unjust.
On a related point, you urge those threatened with divorce to “do whatever it takes” to save the marriage. Do you think the default answer, when men are blindsided etc with divorce due a combination of bad women, bad laws etc, is that if they were more willing to save the marriage then it would have been saved? I think such is an overly individualistic view of the world.
2)It seems that traditionalists wish to save their fire for men (and their real and perceived failings) without calling out the evil that women do that sabotage marriages or prevent them from even getting to the point of marriage. If the critiques were seen as balanced then the manosphere would probably be more willing to listen.
Here is a link that goes into some of the things that I said above – https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/what-we-need-is-more-chivalry/
“Those of the manosphere see the chances of success as being quite low so the urging to fight such a war is unjust.”
He is not urging you using chance, but reward. This leaves men of the manosphere open to persuasion, because many are just demoralized.
“If the critiques were seen as balanced then the manosphere would probably be more willing to listen.”
That’s fine. What I don’t see from the manosphere are men testifying to the glorious, adventerous, romantic, heroic, almost mythical marriages/families they enjoy- marriages like mine. Perhaps I will start such story telling in the manosphere my darn self. It’s too bad the manosphere is full of victims, but I’m sure there are plenty of us who have kids and are hanging around the manosphere so that we can raise our children to overcome the obstacles in the marital marketplace.
Earl,
“He is not urging you using chance, but reward. This leaves men of the manosphere open to persuasion, because many are just demoralized.”
Reward in the abstract is meaningless outside of the context of the chance of reaching that reward. For example, someone might hype a penny stock and say it could go up 2000% in a few months. The problem is that the chance of that happening are slim to none and the more probable outcome is that you will simply lose all of your money. There are in fact some people who have made that sort of return, but most should not be influenced by such stories because they will not replicate it.
@Earl
Here are two:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/rejoice-in-the-wife-of-your-youth/
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/what-if-a-wife-doesnt-regulate-the-couples-sex-life/
Several other posts came to mind regarding telling about good marriages in the manosphere, but I’ll limit it to two more. In Newsflash: My marriage still doesnt suck! I encouraged readers to tell their own stories of happy marriages in the comments. Many did, and several other manosphere bloggers decided to write posts on the subject (see pingbacks). The other link I’ll share is: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/when-do-i-get-to-start-having-fun/
Hi Dalrock,
Thank you for your contributions to this discussion. It’s definitely important to tell stories of good marriages and to speak of what can contribute to making a good marriage. One sees too much pessimism and anti-marriage propaganda from all sides.
And we also must acknowledge that even a relatively unhappy marriage has benefits, and the potential to change for the better.
@Dalrock I’ve been reading your blog for several months now, almost having memorized every title and theme of the links to previous posts you constantly provide in your new posts– so that I do not accidentally read your previous posts twice. Except, sometimes I go back and read them twice anywayz, cuz they’re awesome. I have never seen those two posts on your site, but thank you for sharing them, I will check them out. I am seeing a market for male romance novels involving wifely submission, guns and ammo, government collapse, and rebuilding of society.
Christiantrader,
Regarding your first point: The chance of marital success varies greatly, depending on the type of women (and more generally the type of people) with whom the man associates, the quality of his character, and on other factors. Therefore a blanket judgment that men should “just say no” is not justified.
(Of course, men should understand as well as possible what they’re up against and how they can improve their chances. This is where the Manosphere has been of some use, highlighting the injustices towards men and giving practical advice on being strong and effective men.)
And there is the little matter that the production of a non-perverted next generation requires intact families. Society needs a lot of men marrying, and if many men don’t marry, things will only get worse, as bastardy and female unhappiness will only increase.
About criticizing women: I suppose traditionalist bloggers think of themselves as primarily addressing men, so there may be some merit to your claim. But I don’t think a simple imbalance of criticism can explain the outright hostility shown by many Manosphereans for their potential traditionalist (or “traditionalist”) allies.
The post you linked spoke of “chivalry” as being something like the automatic obligation of all men to protect and defer to all women. That’s obviously a perversion, for the man must discriminate in whom he loves and protects, but it is a perversion of something valid, namely the man’s obligation to care for his family.
Alan,
“Regarding your first point: The chance of marital success varies greatly, depending on the type of women (and more generally the type of people) with whom the man associates, the quality of his character, and on other factors. Therefore a blanket judgment that men should “just say no” is not justified. ”
When I read your response, I started to think of why those who say “man up and marry those sluts” give such advice. (I am not accusing you of such). They say something along those lines because they believe that the women in question are at core quality women who due to some combination of bad judgement/circumstances are not virgins and have various sordid sexual pasts. The belief is that they are quality wife material.
You advocate having a very critical eye and not simply marry the first woman who looks good to the eye. Given the current scene’s rampant sexual immorality, children born to broken homes, careerism, etc. Do you believe that there are enough women that can pass the “critical eye test”? That will not be looking for the exits at the first sign of a failing of her potential husband (real or simple perceived) to satisfy the demand of men that want to marry for life and contribute to society?
Also there is the question of whether or not the big problem of today is a potential marriage strike by men or if the real issue is a current marriage strike/postponement by women while they pursue career, strange men, etc instead of marriage and family? If the answer is the latter (which is the conclusion of many in the manosphere), then the view of traditionalists will look similar to blaming to victim as they are simply attempt to deal with the hand with which they are dealt.
christiantrader | May 8, 2013 at 10:24 pm
> Reward in the abstract is meaningless outside of the context of the chance of reaching that reward.
Males who earn over one hundred thousand a year face a fairly low rate of divorce. But marriage is definitely a bad idea for males earning sixty thousand dollars a year or less, because Uncle Sam the big Pimp offers about sixty thousand dollars a year incentive payments for a woman to throw the father of her children out of her life and her children’s lives.
Of course another problem, especially with military husbands, is the cash and prizes aspect of divorce – that the woman gets the money upfront. Thus if a thrifty husband marries a spendthrift wife, whose focus is on the short term, he is apt to be divorced for short tem cash rewards regardless of income.
Good discussion here. I’m a blogger in the manosphere who is a staunch supporter of traditional marriage. Would you be interested in a guest post from me responding to this? If so, feel free to email me at that address included with this comment.
Thanks for your proposal, Dalrock. I’m interested.
But I’m not finding your email address. Contact me at asrprof (at) yahoo dot com and we’ll get the ball rolling.
Update: Found your address. (Not hard to find if one knows where to look…)
Pingback: A License For Profane Wickedness. | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Must a Traditional Man Accept Modern Marriage? | The Orthosphere
Pingback: A Proper Framework for Marriage. | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Links and Comments #10 | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Is it ever advisable to marry a woman who has had previous sex partners? | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: Zeitgeist Report 2018 | Σ Frame
A young man commenting was on this blog… I disagree with most of your arguments. You focus on getting married, but you happily skip over the fact that basically several generations of women have been corrupted to view men as disposable after-thoughts. We have to weed through the human wreckage before ever getting a chance to be married. I have done this. I spent years doing it. I eventually realized the task was a folly and the time was better spent working hard and developing masculine attributes. I agree that children do best in a nuclear home. However, the women of today are in aggregate not worth siring children with. They are too corrupted. And further, you want us “for the sake of society” to put ourselves at great risk, knowing how far the deck is stacked against us. For the sake of a better society. I offer a counter prescription. Our society needs to fall. Rome needs to burn. Western leaders deserves not our sacrifice.
Pingback: Zeitgeist Report 2023 — Part 1 | Σ Frame