Advice to the Single Young Man

Abstract

I argue here that most men should attempt to marry, for several basic reasons. First, marriage is necessary for the survival of a people. Second, men (and women) need to be a part of a good order if they are to live well and a good social order includes marriage. And three, men were designed for leadership, as they are more attuned to the practical application of truth and justice, and are more able to impose their will on a situation, than women are.

This essay does not refer much to Christianity. Of course, all men and women should be Christians. But that is a subject for other essays.

Introduction

Throughout our Western Civilization there is a crisis of marriage. Not enough marriages occur. Homosexual pseudo-marriage is causing (and reflecting) extreme moral confusion and devaluing real marriage. Many people marry later in life than is healthy for them and for their children. Many fewer babies are born per woman (married or not) than is healthy for our nation. And many children are no longer raised properly, that is, with a father to provide masculine order and authority and a mother at home most of the time to supervise the children.

So what can be done to make things better? And who’s at fault?

The basic answer to the less important question, the second question, is this. In the immediate sense, and with exceptions acknowledged, it’s more the fault of women than of men. Men, by nature, are always seeking relationships with women, but women do not always seek relationships with men. Therefore womankind is always the ultimate factor determining whether relationship occurs.

But in a broader sense, marriage is in crisis because our entire society is in crisis. America is not a basically healthy nation in which, for some mysterious reason, marriage is failing. No, American society is fundamentally and radically disordered, and one manifestation of this disorder is that marriage is generally no longer done correctly, or even adequately. The proper way to do marriage is rarely taught, and when it is, the teaching is often rejected.

What then can be done to make the marriage situation better? There is no glib answer to this question, at least no glib answer that is valid. The best an individual can do is know the right way to marry and then seek to do it. The rest—both his marriage and the state of marriage in his nation—is in God’s hands.

Disclaimers

At the start we must make three disclaimers. First, this essay mostly presents general principles rather than specific advice. All the specific advice that could be given would fill volumes, so the present work will only offer specific advice in order to illustrate general principles. This is as it should be, because the principles are the ultimate source of the advice, and advice is of little use unless one understands the principles.

Second, this essay deals in generalizations, and generalizations, by definition, are true most of the time but not all. When we speak of how men and women behave, we of course do not mean that all of them behave that way all the time. But when a man must decide how to order his life, he has no choice but to make use of valid generalizations.

Third, this essay does not claim that all men must marry. There are some individuals who should not marry, and there are others who choose not to marry for honorable reasons. This essay argues that most men should seriously consider marriage.

The Basic Problem

We have seen the summary. Let us unpack it:

Why, in the immediate sense, are women primarily at fault for the marriage crisis? Because we men, by nature, are always eager for action with women, but women, by nature, are not always eager for action with men. The woman generally determines what sort of action will occur, and these days, she usually determines that proper marital action will not occur.

And not enough proper marital action is occurring primarily because women have been taught—and have generally believed—that traditional marriage is bad for women and therefore to be avoided. As a result of the liberal propaganda that has surrounded us for several generations, many women (possibly a majority) postpone marriage, attempt to pursue a career, are sexually promiscuous, only attempt to have children when their fertility is low, place children in day care rather than take primary responsibility for their well-being, refuse to regard their husbands as the head of the household, demand that their husbands submit to their whims, and, when they divorce, think themselves justified in divorcing their husbands for reasons our ancestors would correctly have viewed as trivial or wicked.

The liberals have created this situation partly by working hard to saturate society with the teaching that traditional marriage is wicked and that selfishness is admirable. And they have also ensured that society’s laws reflect their perverted beliefs. To give only the most important example, divorce laws now uniformly allow a woman (and the majority of unilateral divorces are initiated by women) to divorce her husband for any or even no reason.

Consider for a moment the fundamental wickedness of these laws: A man and woman marry because they love one another and intend to start a family. As time passes, the disappointments and resentments that are unavoidable in life begin to make one or both of them wonder if they made a mistake. Any noble enterprise is difficult, and in the face of adversity, man (and woman) is sometimes tempted to give up and start over. But to “give up” would be to betray one’s spouse and children, sentencing them to a life of hardship that can be avoided by remained married. And, in the majority of cases of divorce, even the spouse one who wanted the divorce does not fare well after the divorce. In view of this, the law should force the unhappy spouses to tough it out because everyone involved will be happier in the long run. And a society cannot be happy unless its citizens are happy.

But what does the law do in this situation? It allows the unhappy spouse (usually the woman) to divorce, causing much avoidable misery, whenever she wants. It gives (usually) the woman unlimited power to destroy the lives of husbands and children for no other reason than a whim. And even if most divorcers make the decision with much fear and trembling, the fact remains that the law permits her to do the wrong thing.

Today, for the first time in human history, the authorities permit a married person to divorce his or her spouse for no reason. The natural result is that many marriages fail (more properly, are deliberately destroyed), and the empirical data show that a solid majority of unilateral divorces, divorces sought by only one of the spouses, are the fault of women. This basic fact points to a fundamental asymmetry between how the sexes view marriage, with the women generally being the ones who strikes the fatal blow.

The Fault of Men

Women, of course, generally say that it’s not their fault. Their explanation of the marital catastrophe is that there are not enough good men.

Although it misses the mark, this complaint contains an element of truth. A strong element. With the general cultural decline of the West, most young men are demoralized. Men much more than women are attuned to the philosophical and spiritual nature of society. Most men have a natural love of order, and a natural desire to form and support a good social order. And when they observe the disordered society in which we live, and that efforts to correct this order (efforts commonly called “conservatism”) generally fail, they become demoralized.

[To be sure, some men respond to the disorder by loving it because it allows them more easily to indulge their lower nature.]

Demoralized men show their demoralization by becoming either unmanly or hyper-masculine: wimp or thug. Many men respond to social disorder by becoming selfish: If society is messed up, thinks the man, then I’m not going to work hard to support it. I’m just going to “game the system” as best I can. It’s a dog-eat-dog world, and every man for himself. Other men respond by becoming depressed. Things don’t work, so what’s the use?

But men respond to women, just as women respond to men. Most men will become properly masculine if they can find a good woman who will respond to them in a properly feminine way.

Unfortunately, many women are not helping. It is primarily women, with their inflated sense of self-esteem in marriage (a self-esteem held by few husbands) who are the immediate cause of the marriage crisis. Women know that law, custom and the general worldview of the West all support them in the battle of the sexes. Instead of recognizing their duty and doing it, they often look for excuses to be selfish.

We are, of course, speaking in generalizations, and there are exceptions. Most of the female exceptions are of two sorts. One is the women who has a naturally feminine nature and is happy to admire her husband despite the liberal propaganda and the unavoidable troubles that occur in every marriage. The other is the woman who has adopted these beneficial attitudes as a result of participating in a conservative religious tradition.

How to Respond

So how should a single young man react? How should he order his life in light of the situation?

There are two key factors: The general atmosphere of ideas in society, and your personal response to them.

The atmosphere of ideas is indeed toxic, as a foolish liberalism has become the de-facto ruling philosophy of America and all of the West. Under the rule of liberalism, we have normalized and officially mandated the love of sexual promiscuity and perversion, filthy and nihilistic entertainment, mass abortion, the denigration and pulling down of white people, mass immigration leading to Balkanization, unlimited governmental control over society, and countless other ills. And, most relevant here, we have institutionalized the tearing down of male authority over families and the promotion of a female selfishness and independence that are dissolving the family.

You, as one man, cannot cleanse the poison from society. But although you cannot change the atmosphere of ideas by yourself, you can make a small personal contribute to the restoration of a properly-ordered society by supporting properly conservative enterprises. And in your personal response to the conditions of society, you can stand firm, refusing to agree with what you know is wrong.

You will sometimes, perhaps even often, be forced to accommodate yourself to the false ideas that currently rule. But you must never let yourself begin to agree with them.  This is the key. When forced to accommodate, you must recognize that you are making a pragmatic choice in order to protect yourself, but you must never let the fact that you have participated in liberalism let you begin to accept it. You must keep liberalism outside you, as an external pollution that can be washed off when need be. You must never let the poison into your soul where it can kill you.

You must also avoid spiritual lethargy. We all desire to live a peaceful life, and sometimes we weary of fighting evil. But we must not let this natural desire lead us to drop our guard against danger or to begin to agree with falsehoods.

The Game

The current basic rule of male-female interaction is this: Anything goes, as long as you have the permission of your partner and you do not try to invoke religion, morality, tradition or authority to get what you want.  There are, of course, innumerable smaller rules, but they are all based on this one basic rule.

If you play by the current rules, you will probably have short-term success, that is, occasional pleasurable female company. But playing by today’s rules guarantees long-term failure, because a good life cannot be based on “anything goes.”  A good life must be based on your participation in a good order. A good social, moral, intellectual and religious order. Left to his own devices to order his life in any way he wants, man inevitably degenerates.

A properly masculine man, then, does not settle for occasional sex and other forms of trivial companionship with females. Man was designed by God to be the leader of a family, and that means finding a wife with whom he can beget and properly raise children. Living in this way, the man is not just a parasite on a society created by others, but rather a sustainer of the life-giving order that is human society. For marriage and the childrearing to which it naturally leads are the foundation of any society, and no nation can prosper, or even survive long-term, unless its marriages are done correctly.  Marrying well therefore ought to be the goal of the properly masculine man.

We must acknowledge that some men will be unable to locate a good wife, and will have to settle for either permanent singleness or a wife who has been significantly corrupted by feminism. But you should at least set your sights higher, for the future of our people is at stake. Without marriage and children, a nation passes out of existence. And young feminist-brainwashed women have been known to change their minds.

A Good Order

Many men are tempted to “game” a corrupt system in which real marriage seems unattainable. Such men think that occasional pleasure is all they can expect from women, and so that is all they aspire to.

But you’re not a woman, so don’t act like one. What we mean is this:

With occasional exceptions noted, most women are content to affirm the status quo, even a corrupt status quo, as long as they can have a comfortable life. (This is true of many men too, but it is more common among women.) Most women are relentlessly practical, and we must acknowledge that there is a need for the practical. But you are not a woman. A life of comfort is not enough to sustain you. You need to participate in a virtuous order (a social, intellectual, religious and moral order) if you are to avoid demoralization and spiritual sickness. If this order does not currently exist in your environment, you must begin by participating by yourself in such an order. You must seek the traditional order of your people, currently hidden and suppressed by our current liberal overlords, and begin affirming it and seeking to live by it and within it.

The “traditional order of your people” includes the traditional religion of Western man, Christianity. (And Christianity has the additional virtue of being true.) It also includes what are currently called conservative and traditional sex roles, morality, and patriotism, understood not as uncritical praise of all things American, but rather a love for the America and the American people to which you are indeed connected. The traditional order also includes the traditional philosophical understanding of the nature of things, an understanding that, among other things, allows one to make wise decisions.

In other essays we have referred to this order as the “order of being.  See for example here and here.

You know the status quo is corrupt and dying, so don’t go along with it. As a man, when you see a problem, you take action, either to make things better or at the very least to enable yourself to endure it. You don’t cheerfully go along with a corrupt system. Nor do you complain that somebody else ought to fix things. You move to a better environment, or, at the very least, you find allies to help you endure. What you don’t do is surrender to what you know is wrong.

A properly masculine man facing the shortage of womanly women and an atmosphere that is anti-traditional-family does not give up his ideals and behave like a degenerate. He takes action to secure his future and to contribute to the revitalization of his nation.

How Man Should Relate to Woman: Basic Principles

To be successful in love and marriage you must understand the proper way for men and women to relate. You must understand the proper roles that men and women ought to play in society and in marriage so that you can play—to the best of your ability given these corrupt times—your proper role.

And you must understand that even if you are defeated, you are participating in a truth that is higher than yourself, and you are supporting—even if in a very small way—a future restoration of a properly-ordered society.

Notice that this is exactly the opposite of the advice the liberals give. (Nowadays, everyone who is not explicitly conservative—and many who call themselves conservative—is a liberal.) The liberal advice is “be yourself,” “don’t discriminate,” and “don’t judge.” In other words, their advice is “We don’t know what you should do, so just wing it and hope for the best.”

The liberals are confessing, indirectly, that they don’t know anything. Indeed, they are not allowed to know anything about how marriages ought to be ordered, for such knowledge would constitute discrimination, which is for them the greatest sin. So do not look to liberals for advice. Let the blind lead the blind; you seek a guide who can see.

We do not claim that this essay can give all—or even most—of the advice you need. We are not so arrogant as to think that we can solve the problem. All this essay can do is point out some important facts that currently are not widely acknowledged, and describe a general framework for understanding the times and taking action.

End the Hostility

Men and women were designed by God to love and support each other in marriage, but modernity has set them against one another. The most accurate brief way to characterize the current disorder in male-female relations is to say that modernity has made men and women into rivals, each seeking to gain the advantage at the expense of the other. At the outset, then, the properly masculine man rejects the modernist paradigm. Although probably a majority of women will not be seeking a proper relationship with a man, and many women will be hostile toward men from the start of any relationship, you will transcend the hostility. You will not mistrust women in general (although you know you must be wary of many of them), because you know the God-ordained purpose of marriage: Fellowship between man and woman, under the leadership of the man, leading to marriage and children. And even if your woman shows signs of hostility or rivalry, you will recognize it as a sin to be opposed rather than accept it as an unavoidable expression of the fundamental female nature.

Lead Properly

Man’s basic role, in society at large and in his family, is leadership. Men were designed to rule, but modernity has denounced male rule as sin. Indeed, the feminist identifies patriarchy (literally “rule by the fathers”) as her ultimate enemy. She will not submit to be led by a man.

But as the maverick feminist Camille Paglia has pointed out, “patriarchy” is another name for civilization. It is only through male rule that a proper order can be established and maintained, either in the family or the nation. This is simply because of the natures of male and female. There is overwhelming empirical evidence that men far more than women are concerned with the abstract concepts of truth and justice that are necessary for the establishment of any good social order. Women, in general, are content to live within whatever order (or lack of order) is present, as long as they can meet their immediate practical needs. This is not to badmouth women; there is a great need for female practicality in the affairs of everyday life. But when it comes to establishing social order, which every nation and family needs in order for its people to live well, only the male spirit can supply what is needed.

Indeed, one of the primary reasons that American society is becoming more and more disordered is that the male spirit is being driven from the public square. Male virtues such as intellectual clarity, decisive action, and the protection of our people and way of life, are being officially villainized, and replaced with the female virtues of tolerance, flexibility, openness and inclusion. These virtues have their places, but to make them the fundamental ordering principles of our nation is to court disaster. Enemies of the physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual type do exist, they can do real harm, and they must be defended against.  And there is the enemy of entropy, as it silently and spontaneously disorders and weakens us. Only the male spirit can protect us.

It is similar in the family. The woman has her virtues, but leadership is not one of them. The woman needs a man to lead the family.

Be Strong

After the fog of courtship has dissipated, men and women do not naturally relate properly one to another. Most men are naturally lazy and most women are naturally rebellious. Only effort can make the relationship a proper one.

Since you cannot control your wife’s actions, we only offer advice to you. There is one cardinal rule that controls all the myriad of other rules concerning how properly and effectively a man ought to relate to a woman. There is one rule that contains within it all of the other valid advice that you will ever hear on how to prevent marital discord.

The rule is this: Appear strong.

Of course, a necessary requirement for appearing strong is actually being strong. But strength is attained in part by making a pose of strength. “Assume a virtue if you have it not” reads Shakespeare’s advice. And strength is also of no value in a relationship if your wife does not see you as being strong. You must therefore begin by acting deliberately to make yourself appear to be strong. In so doing, you will foster both genuine strength in yourself and respect in your wife. A strong husband and father calms the wife and children, and allows them to be themselves without fear of disaster.

Strength, of course, must be tempered by love, wisdom and compassion. But without strength of character, your other virtues cannot truly exist.

[For another view of this issue, and from an explicitly Christian perspective, see Dalrock’s post “Headship Game” here.]

What exactly do we mean by being strong? Precise definitions cannot be given in a broad discussion such as this. We presume that the reader has an intuitive sense of what we mean. But the strength being discussed here is primarily moral strength, the ability to persevere, and to appear undisturbed, in a course of action that is unpopular but right.

Decisiveness is another important part of strength. Women and children often have difficulty making up their minds, and masculine decisiveness is crucial for the smooth functioning of any enterprise.

Leadership

Man’s role is leadership, but what does it mean to be a leader? Much could be said, but the key point is this: Proper leadership consists of knowing what must be done, then seeing that it gets done. Leadership does not necessarily mean giving orders and being obeyed, although it often entails just that. But ordering and obeying are only the form of leadership. The substance is knowledge of what must be done, coupled with an acceptance of the responsibility to make it happen and the ability to impose your will on the situation in order to make it happen.

A leader must therefore understand how things work. This knowledge is of two basic types: knowledge of how things are (descriptive knowledge), and of how things ought to be (prescriptive knowledge.) The two go hand-in-hand, and each is worthless without the other. To be a good leader, then, you must study how the things and processes of the world work, especially how groups of people work, and you must learn how things ought to be done. Although it must be based on accurate “book knowledge,” this study is not primarily carried out in the classroom, for much of the necessary knowledge is not codified in books. Instead, you must observe the events of the world, ask questions about them, seek the counsel of wise elders (generally in the form of what they have written), and draw conclusions yourself.

But knowledge is not enough, for you must also learn how to decide what must be done in any situation, and how to implement your decisions. And this learning can only come about through practice, which will necessarily include many errors.

The point is this: As a man, you are a leader right now, like it or not. You have been endowed with a nature that desires to lead, and women instinctively look to men to provide leadership. Your only choice is whether to lead well or poorly.

Leading Your Family

As the leader of your family it is your responsibility to understand the natures of your wife and children and then to push them (usually gently) in the right direction. Women and children, although sometimes capable of pushing themselves toward a difficult ideal, will often need your help keeping to the right course of action. [And, of course, you will often need help keeping on course.]

Look at it this way: Even if all its members refuse to acknowledge the fact, every group needs a leader. Even if they occasionally (or often) resent it, the other members of your family need someone who will provide order in the family, and the only person who can do this job is the husband.

A great deal of the order that the husband must supply is seemingly trivial: What will we do this Saturday?  At what time should we leave to go shopping?  Should I buy the black dress or the blue one? Can Junior go to the mall with his buddies after soccer practice? Although these decisions may seem trivial, your leadership in the relatively trivial is actually a great source of comfort to wives and children. It gives them the sense that the captain is on the bridge and the ship will therefore not run aground.

When we think of male leadership in the household, though, we generally think of the more weighty things: Which church should we attend?  Is it acceptable for Junior to join the Navy?  Is Susie mature enough to begin dating?  Should the family move to Virginia so that Father can get the promotion?  In this area, leadership consists of hearing the concerns of all family members, and then making the decision that is of the greatest benefit to the entire family, or perhaps that avoids the greatest detriment to one of the family members, regardless of your personal preferences. As the leader, it is your duty to think of other’s welfare before your own, much like a military officer. Just as the Colonel of the regiment does not eat or sleep until the needs of his men are met, you do not satisfy your own needs as a father until the basic needs of the other family members are met.

An obvious question arises. Why should I subordinate my desires to the needs of my family? Because you are not just an individual. You are part of an order. A God-ordained order. Unless you believe this, your life will be meaningless. If you do believe it, you can endure hardship and achieve a measure of greatness.

Most women will respond well to a man who exercises domestic leadership without being a bully, but what if the wife refuses to be led? There is no easy solution to this problem, but we offer some advice: Divorce is a great evil, so you must remain her husband. She may divorce you, but you must not initiate evil. Instead, you must seek to hold the family together.  To do this in the face of a selfish wife requires a balancing act. On the one hand, you must not appear be so tyrannical that you provoke her to open rebellion. If it’s not that important, let her have what she wants. But you must also avoid appearing weak, for that will arouse her contempt and therefore make divorce more likely. Whenever her desires are not illegal or immoral you must accommodate them to the best of your ability, and you must reserve your righteous indignation for instances when she really is in the wrong. If you look strong, your wife will respect you (and therefore find you attractive) even if she manifests momentary anger over the fact that she’s not getting what she wants. And “strength” does not mean anger and bluster, which are actually signs of weakness. Strength means remaining relatively calm in the face of adversity, and cheerfully brushing off the trivial irritations that constitute the majority of the conflict-inducing clashes of marriage.

In other words, keep your eye on the big picture, and don’t let yourself get down when the usual details of life cause conflict with your wife.

Courtship

Marriage, of course, begins with courtship. We avoid the word ”dating” because this term often refers to the search for temporary sex partners, whereas the properly masculine man seeks female companionship that will lead to marriage.  That being so, we can identify one fundamental piece of advice: Court only women who appear to be interested in marriage, and who appear to be properly feminine.

[For a somewhat crude but still useful list of some “types of women to avoid,” see here. For those not familiar with Manosphere jargon, “NAWALT” means “not all women are like that.”]

Another basic problem with dating is this: If you spend enough one-on-one dating time with a woman to get to know her, it is likely that you will become emotionally attached to her even if you discover that she would not make a good wife. It is better if you can get to know the woman without “going out with her,” for the latter implies an emotional connection from the beginning. It is better if you can court only a woman who you already are reasonably sure would make a good match.

The Men’s Rights Movement

The men’s rights movement has some good points to make. But its fundamental flaw is that, generally speaking, instead of advocating that men work to restore a proper, traditional order in their lives and in society, the MRM tends to advocate that men accept the premises of modernity and work to maximize their short-term advantages. The error of this way of thinking is well expressed by Nicholas Davidson in the introduction to his translation of Louis de Bonald’s On Divorce,

In truth, there are no “women’s questions,” no “men’s questions,” no “children’s questions.”…There are only social questions, which can only be answered in terms of society as a whole. Do you wish to help any of these groups? It can only be done by strengthening the bonds of society. To attempt specifically to help any of these groups necessarily corrodes those bonds, injures vital relationships, and so hurts those it purports to help.

[The author is grateful to Lawrence Auster for publicizing this important quote.]

Thus, for example, Bonald held that divorce should be illegal in all cases. He recognized that some would suffer under this rule, but that society overall would be far healthier, as most husbands and wives, realizing that there is no easy escape from an unsatisfying marriage, would have to work harder at making a tolerable marriage and family life.

It is true that not all members of the Men’s Right’s / Manosphere movement think this way. But to the extent that an individual member of the MRM does advocate for restoring proper order, he is transcending his movement. [For the moment. We may hope that the Manosphere will one day mature.]

Postscript

Most people, even if they are inclined to be sympathetic to traditionalism, say, when they first hear our traditionalist proposals, “It’ll never work.  The old-fashioned ways have been decisively refuted, and nobody wants to go back to them. Your ideas will never be implemented.”

Of course society will never implement them under current conditions. But individuals can implement many of these ideas right now. And social conditions do change. We must work for the future.

And man is always guided by his ideals.

About these ads

29 thoughts on “Advice to the Single Young Man

  1. I am a regular reader and a male nearing my 23rd year, I recognize that the wisdom in your words Mr Roebuck. It’s always been the ideal I believed in, but for the past half-decade or so I have been woefully hypocritical in living it. Your essay came about at a time that I feel God is speaking to me to turn my life around.

    Alas, I really have no faith that living the traditional ideal of masculinity would change my utter failure with women. It seems that is just my cross to bear.

    • It is better to be alone than to be lonely-in-the-midst of a multitude. It is better to be single, even if for one’s entire life, than to be tied to a shrew. It is better to never (in one’s entire life) “get any” than to be p****-whipped — and if one’s life is oriented toward “getting some” (as are the “gamers”), then one is, indeed, p****-whipped.

      • I meant to say, “if you marry (or fornicate) …”

        Of course you want to do something about that fire, it’s very insistent. And, you’ve got a whole (intentionally anti-Christian) culture around you telling you that that is *all* you want or need.

        But, that isn’t true. What you want, what you need, what you really crave is the respect of the woman you cherish.

      • … so, just for starters, observe how the young women you find interesting treat their brothers, and especially their fathers. Do she disrespect her father? Then she’ll disrespect you, put you down before other people, talk about you to her shrew-klatch, pick fights with you over you’ll never know what, and so on.

        If you want to have *good* marriage, don’t let that fire do your thinking for you. And, keep your powder dry, ’cause getting it wet immediately puts the fire in charge.

  2. Mr. Hartley, you’re 23. Considering it is perfectly historically normal for men to marry in their mid and late 20s and yes, even early 30s, you have plenty of time to figure things out as far as marrying a Godly woman with a good chance of bearing children. There are many traditional ideals of masculinity even among the many lands of Europe, you’d probably be more optimistic if you figured out which one is your primary ancestral base and sought to model that one to the extent possible given the constraints of modernity. Even most Americans who feel that they are “mutts” have ancestry primarily from a specific ethnic/cultural region.

  3. Pingback: The Thinking Housewife › Alan Roebuck’s Advice to Single Men

  4. “..old-fashioned ways have been decisively refuted, and nobody wants to go back to them. Your ideas will never be implemented.”

    I would have a quibble or two with your interlocutor – they have not been refuted, but rather rejected. And whether we want to go back to them or not is largely irrelevant – we will go back to them or perish. If we do it deliberately, less pain will be involved. If it is forced upon us as reality asserts itself – ouch.

    • I agree that they have not been refuted. To paraphrase Chesterton, they not been tried and found wanting; they have been found difficult and not tried.

  5. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/02/26 | Free Northerner

  6. Pingback: Gay “marriage” is both a cause and a result of the destruction of traditional marriage. | Sunshine Mary

  7. Submission isn’t something you force out of your wife with game or religion or whatever. You can’t maintain that even if you can achieve it momentarily. Submitting comes naturally in a relationship if you care about each other’s happiness. If she loves you, she will consult you before doing anything that might upset you because she cares about how you feel. So what you’re really looking for is a woman who will put your needs before her own.

    The only one who can find you a woman who loves you is God. There is really no way you can screen for it yourself. You could end up with an awful feminist woman, but she might be transformed by her love for you into a good wife. Or you could be with a good Christian woman and she might be really selfish because she doesn’t care about your feelings. The only one who knows if she will love you is God. So just relax and pray about it. God knows what you want and need, and he’ll help you if you ask. Also, it’s okay if your relationship doesn’t conform to the ideal Bible model. I mean, how many of your current relationships (parents, friends, colleagues, etc) meet the Biblical standard? But it’s not like those relationships aren’t good ones just because they fall short of the ideal.

    I also agree that divorce shouldn’t be legal. How can you have any security when your other half can just leave you at any time? What’s the point of getting married then? I think adulterers should also be punished for the good of society.

  8. A couple of points. First, a slight quibble. Love is not a prerequisite for marriage. That is, it is neither definitional, nor essential. Of course, love is practically necessary for any good marriage, and it is, from the outset, kind of impractical not to have it (in the West at least).

    Second, it is a disservice to characterise man’s role as the leader of the family, without fleshing this out a little more. This is not leadership amongst peers. With two close friends, even in public, one will take the lead more often than the other. One will instigate. The other will acquiesce (or not). Yet, their interests are separate, alpha dog notwithstanding.
    Leadership here is more in the species of a kingdom or an army. The head is the king or the general. He sets the rules. He plans the strategy. And he is served. The head may be the first servant of the kingdom, of the army; but for practical purposes, the others exist for his seeming benefit. The head does not exist just so he can make decisions for them, and for their benefit. The proper family is an organic partriarchy, not a Hobbesian social contract. One unified interest. His.
    Obviously, it is this last part that is the biggest rub in modern familial life. Many women (though not all, and feminists would not like even this much) are likely quite happy to have their men to take responsibility and do the planning and ordering. Far fewer women are amenable to “disappearing.”

    I would recommend not only taking a look at the woman and her father, but also taking a look at her father and oneself. If she has a proper, admiring relationship with her father (and really most still do, or so I have found), but you are almost the opposite personality type from her father… that is a problem.

  9. Hello there,

    I came to your blog thanks to Codgitator’s sharing of your post A plea for mercy which was a well written post. I then proceeded to browse around and came across this one which was excellent as well.

    However, to be quite honest with you, I felt a bit uncomfortable when I read the phrase “the denigration and pulling down of white people” in your post. If I may ask, what exactly do you mean by this text? More importantly, why did you see today’s crisis as having anything solely to do with “white people”? Are you unaware of the “pulling down” of the “non-white man” based on their color and race?

    I will be honest with you, after reading that line, I kept thinking throughout my reading of the rest of your post how you would view a non-white man marry a white woman. Would you consider it a great crime that a white male has lost a potential spouse to propagate the race?

    I am sure you are aware that many other cultures (non-White) share similar marriage views and that of the role of the husband (some of these cultures are not even Christian). In my experience, I have seen “white persons” today make fun of them as holding on to archaic values that they left behind long time ago as they “advanced”. So I do feel, with all due respect, that your analysis is not correct as well.

    I apologize for my line of questioning if I misunderstood you. But I just felt a bit offended. I am not a white person but I am a Catholic who always thought of all Catholics regardless of race and color, being in this together. I love the Western traditions or traditions of any culture in so far as they stem from and safe guard the Catholic faith and facilitate a Catholic living. So I am a bit upset at the idea of identifying the problem of good marriages today as a result of what has happened to a particular color of persons.

    • Hello Tony,

      I listed the “pulling down of white people” as an example of the wickedness and foolishness of liberalism, not as a signal of a specific racial agenda in this essay.

      But since you raised the subject: America historically was a nation consisting mostly of European Christian peoples in which non-European and non-Christian peoples could participate, but with the understanding that they did not have the right to change the character of the nation. In recent years, the Left has targeted both Christians and whites for marginalization and both acts are fundamentally wicked, for any people has the right to keep the basic character of their nation.

      The crisis of marriage is not fundamentally a racial one, for persons of all races are hurt by the toxic atmosphere in which matrimony now occurs. It is most certainly not a matter of white marriages being dragged down because non-white marriages are being lifted up.

      About interracial marriage: It resembles immigration in that a certain amount of it is not only harmless to a nation, but probably beneficial, whereas too much of it is harmful, for it tends to dissolve the identification of the people one with another which is so important for the life and health of a nation.

      • Thanks for clarifying.

        Not to get in to an argument. But, America was not historically a nation of European Christians. It belonged to the Natives from whom the lands were at times taken by force. The Missionaries no doubt had very good intentions to convert the people but most lay European Christians who set foot in the Americas obviously had other ideas. This is where I find the assertion that “, for any people has the right to keep the basic character of their nation.” somewhat questionable. How would you reconcile this assertion with respect to the original natives to whom the Americas belonged?

        I should also point out that the degradation of the culture among the European cultures in it’s local settings as well as the new home in Americas had started to deteriorate even prior to allowing of mass immigration and the likes. In fact, I would assert that the degradation was taking place due to adoption of Liberalist philosophies and Americanism without any help from non-Whites. In other words, the European Christians were already starting to destroy themselves from the inside by rebelling against their own traditional heritage.

        Perhaps also importantly, today the “white populations” usually lead the attack against the any traditions. This can be their own as well as those of other nations including those who migrate to the Americas. I am sure you are aware that most of the “white” missionaries go to different countries and spread their liberalism part and parcel with their missionary work. Some fight to further feminism in countries where such things are not even allowed. The economic arm twisting also follows through bodies dealing with “Human Rights” to make the new “white culture” the culture of the world. In short, there is a serious question as to whether the culture promoted by the predominantly European or American post Christian “white” person is even healthy. So sure, you do see some denigration but that is really not because of their older rich traditions but because of the modern decadent philosophies usually held by them.

        Just curious, how do you think most people who come to the Americas or Europe feel about the local “white Christians” when they see the Liberalist attitudes they hold dear? From my own personal experience, it feels like bringing someone like Pope Pius X or a saint like St. John Vianney in to our own times. The initial reaction is always that “what are these people doing to themselves?!”. Then of course some adopt them because the old (and true at the time) mentality that values of Western culture are beautiful makes them think maybe this is “progress”. But for many others, it remains something odd and this is the reason why most do tend to find the average “white person” somewhat odd. Most people tend to look negatively on those who throw away the wisdom of those who went before them.

        It is rarely that someone comes across a traditionalist like yourself who respects the values and wisdom passed down to you by those before you. When they do meet such a person, they realize what has happened and start to dread what might happen to their own nations with the rapid spread of Liberalism. But you have to understand that most of the local European descendents who once upon a time were Christian are now in a terrible state which is comparable to the natives the Christian missionaries found when they visited the world. So it is natural to see some distrust or denigration by those who end up going to high places.

        I am not trying to justify racism toward “white persons” here. I am pointing out a problem that has occurred in that the descendents of European Christians are now acting contrary to the very values they spread around the globe during the Christian missionary age. For all purposes, the average “man of European descent” tends to look like the immoral Christian in the community of Corinth that St. Paul admonished. Sadly, those who are traditional like yourself (and I presume European descent) are few and far between.

      • If I may also ask, you mentioned that interracial marriage is harmful above a certain limit “for it tends to dissolve the identification of the people one with another which is so important for the life and health of a nation.”

        Now
        1) Who determines how many interracial marriages are too much?
        2) Should the overall mindset be to discourage interracial marriage?
        3) If your answer is “Yes” to (2), what is the basis in Catholic teaching for doing such a thing in order to preserve “identity of nations”?
        4) If not with a policy like that of (2), how do you suggest we curb the rise of interracial marriages (if it has not happened already, what would you suggest in the hypothetical case)

        Please note that I am 100% with the Church position against marrying outside the Catholic faith. I respect and value it because the preservation of the Catholic faith is important and such marriages not only threaten it in the general level but most often threaten the faith of the individual Catholic who married as well as that of their children (I would say such marriages breed indifferentism). But what I do not understand is how “national identity” is such a valuable thing that we must look negatively at fellow Catholics who are not of the same color or race as see them as a threat.

  10. It’s always nice to have another person join the conversation. Welcome, Mr. Jokin!

    I would like to clarify something you said about the colonization of America by whites. First of all, the history of the world is the history of one people “moving in” (however that might have happened) to an area already occupied by another people. Our ancient ancestors appear to have done the same thing to the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, and we have been doing it to each other ever since. The primary difference is that in the case of America, it happened much more recently than in most of the rest of the world, and it involved white people taking a land previously occupied by a non-white people (the same is true for Australia and New Zealand, of course, but outside of those countries, we seldom hear about that).

    Next, there are the notions of nation, state, people, and the like. The American Indians were several peoples, perhaps even several nations, but they had no states. At the time of contact and colonization, they were Stone Age savages, and North America was sparsely populated. I am not justifying all that was done to the American Indians, but it is no more than a variation on the theme that has been played throughout human history. White Americans and their ancestors are not uniquely wicked because of the historical record in America. There is more to be said on this; I will follow up with some links from Lawrence Auster, a great thinker whose writings shone truth onto the dark lies of our age.

    Here are some more thoughts in response to you.

    The right to maintain one’s nation is not handed to us on a silver platter; we must work, sometimes even fight, to preserve it. We traditionalists observe that the leftists/liberals are subverting our nation through deception and other dishonest means; they knew that they could not attain their goals by a honest methods, so sought to change America gradually and by stealth. We take exception to what they have done, without blaming their pawns (such as blacks, Mexicans, and other minorities), who are simply persuing their own interests, albeit with the collusion of the leftists who have another agenda.

    Finally, I would like to point out that the Orthosphere is not a Roman Catholic site; it is a traditionalist, Christian site. Among the contributors, Prof. Roebuck is a Protestant (Confessional), and among the commenters, we have, or have had, Orthodox Christians, as well as Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, and others. Not all commenters agree with the majority of the contributors, but we have maintained, for the most part, an agreeable community. I look forward to reading more from you.

    • Thank you Lewis. I will also take a look at Laura Wood’s site later today.

      On the matter of Americas (also New Zealand and Australia as you pointed out), I think you might have misunderstood. The idea I presented was that given the European Christians took over the country as their own and suppressed the way of living by the Natives (directly or otherwise), there is no real objection to make against another non-White race doing the same to those of European descent today. If it was right then, it must be acknowledged as natural now, no? Or if it is acknowledged as some grave evil, one should see whites themselves be ravaged with guilt or trying to make amends and restore the control to the Natives.

      I am also not sure how “not being uniquely wicked” really helps either. One could I think make a very good case that in the history of our times, whites were the first to perhaps discriminate based on color of skin at such a large scope and organized manner and exploit it. But I am not sure “who is the more evil here?” is really important.

      ——————————————–

      The more important point I wish to articulate here is the following. The men who started the French Revolution and revolted against tradition (which subsequently lead to the unraveling of Western society to what it is today) was not non-Whites. They were not Blacks, Mexicans or Native Indians. They were White European men who had come up with these ideas on their own without the help of any non-Whites. They framed the battle as rebellion against the Catholic Church and then as they eventually had to do, one against tradition itself (which Protestantism had much support to offer due to it’s own core beliefs).

      The sexual revolution in the 19th century was also not brought about by Black women or Mexican women. It was championed by white women. Even to this day, those championing the revolution are mostly white women. They aren’t using the Blacks or Mexicans as pawns but are more interested in getting the whole world to embrace their philosophy and ideology.

      So it seems to me, that if you were to truly fight a battle to preserve your way of life, you should be fighting white people. To frame any non-white nationality as being pawns or a problem is therefore missing the elephant in the room.

      I was also unaware that this was not a Catholic site and for that I apologize. I assumed with the banner of St. Michael and coming here from a Catholic blog that this was also probably a Catholic site. I am not sure how much my ideas would really matter in that context since I hold to more of an assent to the Church and her doctrines primarily and hold that every action for it to be good must stem from that assent. To that degree I would view some “traditions” as purely inferior. For an example, European Christians would have traditions that stem from the core belief in the past that persons of color were less in dignity. That I would consider as a morally inferior traditions that should be suppressed. But when it comes to traditions of the Church or those stemming from her teachings, I respect and would like to see them come back.

      • Mr. Jokin,

        Either you are trying to bait us, or you are somewhat hostile to white people. Or both.

        You said,

        America was not historically a nation of European Christians. It belonged to the Natives from whom the lands were at times taken by force.

        This is an absurd response. For one thing, “America” is not defined to be the landmass. It is the nation created by the European settlers and our Founding Fathers. The Indians were many, mutually hostile, nations. For another thing, all nations (with perhaps a tiny number of exceptions) were formed by strife and conquest. If America does not have the right to defend herself, then no nation does.

        You also said,

        I would assert that the degradation was taking place due to adoption of Liberalist philosophies and Americanism without any help from non-Whites.

        True, but largely irrelevant. This still does not make it acceptable for our elites to favor nonwhites at the expense of whites, even if this initiative comes from our (largely) white elite.

        And when I refer to the pulling down of whites, I assumed that it would be obvious to any reader that this is not to badmouth nonwhites. It is to badmouth bad policy.

        In one sense, I understand your hostility to the white people who are busy trying to corrupt all nations with their liberalism. But this is no excuse for a general hostility to all white people.

        You then ask a series of questions:

        1) Who determines how many interracial marriages are too much? [AR: Nobody does. It is not a thing determined by a person.]
        2) Should the overall mindset be to discourage interracial marriage? [A.R: In general, one ought to discourage people from marrying in such a way that their difficulties will be multiplied. One is also allowed to observe that private marriage choices influence the national atmosphere.]
        3) If your answer is “Yes” to (2), what is the basis in Catholic teaching for doing such a thing in order to preserve “identity of nations”?[A.R: Not being Catholic, I cannot answer this question. But I do not need an authority such as Rome in order to recognize common sense.]
        4) If not with a policy like that of (2), how do you suggest we curb the rise of interracial marriages (if it has not happened already, what would you suggest in the hypothetical case) [A.R: We can only curb the destructive by encouraging the constructive.]

        Later, you said:

        …given the European Christians took over the country as their own and suppressed the way of living by the Natives (directly or otherwise), there is no real objection to make against another non-White race doing the same to those of European descent today.

        “There is no real objection.” Maybe you don’t object, but we do. And in general, when I see a people being dispossessed, I sympathize with them, and I don’t lecture them that they only had it coming.

        You then pointed out, correctly, that white people developed, and are uniquely susceptible to, the disease of liberalism. Therefore, you say,

        …it seems to me, that if you were to truly fight a battle to preserve your way of life, you should be fighting white people. To frame any non-white nationality as being pawns or a problem is therefore missing the elephant in the room.

        That’s largely correct, but it misses one big point: You initiated this thread by objecting to my brief statement that white people were being “pulled down.” You did not object to me blaming nonwhites, because I didn’t. I blamed liberalism. There was something about me condemning the pulling down of white people that set you off. That’s why I say that you are at least somewhat hostile to white people.

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