Don’t Marry

Why Modern, Western Marriage Has Become A Bad Business Decision For Men

Essay

with 3,143 comments


The intent of this website is to help educate men about
the realities of today’s modern marriage. Please pass the word.

Why Modern, Western Marriage Has Become A Bad Business Decision For Men

This writing seeks to educate men about the realities of what they may be getting into when they marry a Western Woman. An informed decision is less likely to be one that may be regretted later in the marriage. The intent is not to dissuade men from marrying, but to encourage them to communicate frankly their concerns and expectations regarding marriage with their potential spouses. The secondary aim of this essay is to enlighten women to a few of the reasons why increasingly larger numbers of successful, eligible, unmarried men, who would otherwise prefer monogamous long-term relationships, are turning their backs on marriage.

Society typically paints a negative stereotype of men who hesitate, delay, or elect not to marry.

They are labeled as either:

A) Womanisers who are unable to participate in a long term relationship, or
B) Selfish, childish or irresponsible men who can not take care of themselves or another person.

No other explanation is ever explored.

The cost of proclaiming your undying love

In University, in professional sports, in politics, in the workplace; women have the same educational and professional career opportunities as men. Contrary to commonly believed feminist propaganda, women do indeed get paid the same salary as men, given that they are willing to work the same types of jobs as men, and work as many hours as the men do. Despite this reality, many women come into marriage with very few assets, and often are saddled with substantial quantities of debt. In general, men are the ones who save and invest. Don’t believe me? Count the number of women of marrying age that you know who subscribe to financial services magazines or newspapers. A significant number of 20-something and 30-something women spend all of their disposable income on luxury rental apartments, upscale restaurants, frequent exotic vacations, leased cars, spa treatments, and excessive amounts of clothing, purses, shoes and accessories. Yet ironically, in the media, men are the ones who are portrayed as reckless, irresponsible spendthrifts.

When marriage enters the picture, double standards and financial imbalances leave responsible men to pick up the slack and fix the mess she may have made of her finances. Men are forced to spend their hard-earned savings, or take out an usurious loan, on a diamond ring. Women justify this relatively recent, mid-20th Century ritual, which was spawned by a brilliant 1940’s mass-brainwashing campaign launched by DeBeers, by insisting that a man wants to buy her a diamond and that it makes him proud to be able to proclaim his love and affection towards her in this fashion. Granted there are some men who may be inclined to declare their commitment to a life-long partner in this way, but there are plenty of men whom seek a lifelong partnership and commitment who have no interest in buying diamonds. What choice do these men have? None! To many young men, the ring, catered wedding, and honeymoon in an exotic locale at a five-star hotel is an unwelcome land mine on their journey towards adult financial stability and independence. To add insult to injury, he is now locked into a lifetime of insurance payments for this grossly overpriced jewelry. Contrary to popularly held belief diamonds are not rare at all, but instead are common and inexpensive. Their high price is due to their supply having been artificially manipulated. Some men are more concerned with realising their dream of owning a home and becoming financially stable enough to begin a family and responsibly provide for their welfare. Men worry about these matters, because, ultimately, it becomes their sole responsibility.

The purchase of the diamond ring is a predictor of things to come. Immediately after buying it, the man may be rewarded with bridal demands to finance all or part of a lavish wedding, depending upon the size of his bank account and the ambitions of his fiancée. The average costs of today’s Western Weddings frequently exceed that of a house down payment or, in certain parts of the world, the entire cost of the house itself. If a man enters a marriage having saved up a down payment for his dream home, it can suddenly be snatched right out from underneath him. Many men may object to spending such a large sum of money on what is basically a very expensive one-day, four-hour party. He also will be spending a year of his life planning it, when he could use the same time to further his career or education. However, what a man wants is really not of any concern anymore at this point in the proceedings. His wants, desires, hopes and dreams are ignored almost in their entirety. Her opinions regarding the wedding are frequently non-negotiable. A wedding is no longer an event that is equally for the bride and groom. As many of today’s Bridezilla’s will gleefully remind you, “Today is MY day!”. This gives her licence to become selfish, irresponsible, demanding and childlike. A man who balks at spending his entire life savings, or shouldering a five-figure debt load, for the ring, catered wedding and honeymoon in an exotic locale at a five-star hotel, can and will be labeled as a selfish cheapskate or not a “Real Man”. If a woman leaves such a man for him suggesting that they try to keep their costs under control, she would have the full support of everyone around her as she dumped him.

“She can do better”, “Clearly, he doesn’t love her”, “He doesn’t deserve her”, and similar sentiments will be muttered in quiet circles just out of his earshot. This is a sign of her good self-esteem and healthy self-image, and a sign that she won’t settle for anything less. She is the poster girl for the Modern, Independent Woman.

Imagine if a man demanded equal treatment and asked that she buy him a new bass boat, and a two-week bear hunt in Siberia as a condition of marriage. This would be viewed as absurd, yet women do it every day. Modern Western Marriage is supposedly an equal partnership, isn’t it?

The injustices go from bad to worse when children enter the picture. If he can afford to carry the entire familial financial burden, the woman may now elect to stop working entirely. She will often make this decision regardless of how he may feel about it. The day she stops working is the day that all of her past financial baggage unequivocally gets tossed onto his shoulders. If the woman has racked up substantial credit card debts, these are now his payments to make; if the woman has not bothered to pay off her student loans, these become his responsibility; if she owes an enormous sum on her luxury car note, it is up to him to pay it off. Irony of ironies is that he is now paying for her degree and she isn’t even working anymore! Can he object? Can he say: “No Honey, you made your mess, and it should not be my job to clean it up. You knew that you wanted kids even before you met me, and you should have planned ahead.” No, he cannot. The payments can’t be deferred until she is once again able to continue repaying them herself, not if he wants to retain a clean credit rating to get a loan for their dream home. If he even suggested that she return to work to pay off some of her own debt load, he opens himself to criticisms of being an unsupportive husband and bad father who is endangering the welfare of his children. Now the noose tightens and the responsible husband compensates for the mother’s freewheeling and irresponsible past, and begins slowly to pay off her old debts. In the most twisted turn of events yet, the debt he is paying off may often be on credit cards used to finance Vacations, Hotel Rooms and Christmas gifts shared with previous husbands, boyfriends, fiancés and lovers. Caveat Emptor! This is the reward for today’s man who works hard, makes sacrifices, plans ahead, and invests wisely. By getting married to the typical Modern, Western Woman, the man is certainly susceptible to being railroaded into this situation, because it is completely acceptable within today’s gender roles and societal norms.

Marriage can mean career slavery

Anyone who says, “Slavery is dead” clearly has not contemplated the predicament of the average Western Husband, where a good paycheck can mean career slavery. Merriam-Webster’s English Dictionary defines slavery as “…(T)he state of a person who is a chattel (an item of tangible movable or immovable property) of another person.” If the husband earns enough to support both of them, he would be hard pressed to make an argument to preserve equality and have her continue working as he does. If the wife decides to stop working, the man who has been left holding the financial bag finds his options very limited. He may find himself working in a career that he hates, for abusive and exploitative management, excessively long hours, in a position that is physically dangerous or demanding, in an organisation that has no growth potential, far away from home. At this point, considering the corner he’s been painted into, he is often powerless to affect any positive, meaningful change in his own life. He may have been harbouring delusions that once his wife was able to return to work, he would be able to gain some flexibility to rectify some of the shortcomings in his own career. Perhaps changing careers or accepting a lower salary at a different firm in exchange for better hours, a shorter commute, or more fulfilling work. Nevertheless, the distinct reality is that he will continue to shoulder the financial responsibilities of his family alone. His reward for working hard and getting ahead is to become trapped into his career, and become a specialised beast of burden to an emotionally and financially dependent family. Does it really pay to work hard anymore and apply oneself to his full potential?

If she stops working, she may never work again.

There are many debates about the merits of a stay-at-home mother vs. a working mother. My goal here is to simply educate the prospective husband on frequently unseen risks he is taking on when he agrees to accept 100% of the financial burden to allow his wife to stay at home. An informed decision is less likely to be one that may be regretted later in the marriage.

Every parent will agree that staying home with children is backbreaking and often mind-numbing labour. Many new fathers may concede that it is much easier to go to work than to stay at home with several children. However, the greatest imbalance in efforts and contributions to a marriage can manifest once all of the children are of school age. The house is now empty from 8am-3pm. The wife has 7 hours to herself while the kids are at school and the husband is at work. After a few years of hard work at home, many wives may feel entitled to “kick back” and take it easy. The good, supportive husband, however, has worked those same years, has done his 50/50 of the housework, and is still working just as hard to support the family once the kids are in school. His workload has not diminished, and it may have even increased as her expectations rise. He is rarely afforded the same option to scale back his daytime efforts.

What motivation does the modern wife have to return to work? Very little. For several years now, the man’s salary has been enough to live on. Otherwise, she would have been working to make ends meet. Unless tight finances dictate that she must return to work, the husband really has little say in this matter. The wife can hide behind many different excuses in order not to work, despite having little to do from 8am-3pm. Among the commonest are:

“I’m busy with the housework”
It is easy to exaggerate the labours of daily housework. Yet how long does it take to throw clothes or dishes into the washer, and remove them later? Vacuuming can be done in 1 hour a week. Grocery shopping is another hour per week. A decent meal can be prepared in under an hour. Does all of this add up to 7 hours a day? The lie that housework is hard, time-consuming drudgery is no longer as persuasive as it may have been in the past, because in an age of later marriage, many men are already experienced in cooking, cleaning, and general housekeeping and know that it doesn’t take that much effort or time. Humourously, not every stay-at-home-wife even performs all of these duties.

“I can’t find a job”
She has been out of work too long, and therefore is unable to find a job. This may be true, but many men do not consider this risk when they agree to support her while she “temporarily” stops working. Hopefully now they will, and can make a more informed decision. Many wives may use this as a convenient scapegoat to stop looking for any job at all. The next section describes how this can be used against him in the event of divorce.

“It doesn’t pay for me to work”
In the short run, the expenses of returning to work such as gas, lunch, clothes and day care may not make it worthwhile for her to return to the workforce. This may be true, but does that justify her playing tennis, drinking lattes and ‘catching up with her friends’ while her husband toils away? Many couples may be too shortsighted to thoroughly and comprehensively think through this issue. Initially, the cost to benefits ratio may not be ideal, but her returning to work will improve her job skills and network of contacts and over time the return on investment will improve. More so than strolling through the local mall every afternoon and window-shopping for new window treatments. Over time, as her career gets back on track, and she becomes qualified for better jobs, her salary should also improve.

It should be duly noted that some working wives view their salary as “personal spending money”, and still expect the man to pay all or most of the bills. Western Women are often heard to claim that, “What’s mine is mine, and what’s his is ours.”

Even more unfair double standards that favour wives

Cheating
If a married man cheats, he’s the scum of the earth. He is a selfish jerk that has jeopardised the family unit, done his ‘thinking with his little head’, and disrespected his wife and children. However, when the woman cheats, she’s portrayed as the victim of an insensitive and inattentive husband. “Poor thing, he ignores her. It is for her empowerment, to boost her ego. She deserves it after bearing and rearing his children.” It’s good for her self-esteem. Worse, her cheating is portrayed as the man’s fault. If he works long hours to provide for her and the children, he works too much. If he is tired at the end of the day from 13 hours of manual labour, then he doesn’t compliment her as much as she wants. Into this vacuum of conflicting expectations steps the first man who “makes me feel like a Real Woman again…”. You read that correctly; the man who is scrambling to pay the mortgage and car payments and is working double shifts to pay for the consumer goods she demanded to have is now considered a negligent and emotionally abusive husband. The man who may be working two jobs to allow her to be home with her kids is now considered a candidate for Domestic Violence.

When a woman cheats, the first thing people ask is what he did, or more often, didn’t do, to drive her into the arms of another man.

When a man cheats, no one ever asks the same question.

When a woman cheats, the reaction will be; “Oh, poor thing, I guess her husband couldn’t get the job done in the bedroom”.

When a man cheats, no one ever stops to think; “Oh poor fellow, his wife was horrible in bed.”

Let’s not forget what happens if a man were to leave his wife for a younger woman. This will become fodder at the coffee shop for months. It is automatically assumed that he is a shallow sex maniac whose only motivation was to be with a younger woman. The possibility that his wife was of a generation of women who were taught to hate men and that younger women do not, that she was lazy, or a reckless spendthrift, or verbally or physically abusive, or grossly overweight, or an incompetent mother, are rarely considered and are often totally ignored. The myth is that the only reason a man leaves his wife is to be with a younger, more attractive woman. Never mind if she is a better match for him and a more supportive, nurturing mate.

Pre-Nups
If a man insists on a Pre-Nup, he is selfish and unromantic. However, when is the last time a woman who demanded a Pre-Nup was called “unromantic”? On the contrary, if a woman requests a Pre-Nup, she is being fiscally responsible, sensible and looking out for herself. (Note: If your fiancée refuses to sign a Pre-Nup, she has just shown her hand. Best to leave now.) Why is it that a woman can refuse a Pre-Nup, and it is accepted by society? In reality, the man should be outraged that she is after a legal contract, and not love.

What is astounding is the hypocrisy of the usual reaction towards Pre-Nups. Women can conveniently assert that a man is unromantic if he suggests a Pre-Nup. After all, how can a man pollute true love with the signing of legal paperwork! However, what is a marriage licence? Nothing more than a legal contract entered into between the man, woman and local and state government authorities. A woman does not seem to balk at signing this legal paperwork, which entitles her to at least half the assets a man has accumulated as well as half of everything he earns in the future, and obligates him to support her in perpetuity in the event of a breakup. Why aren’t men allowed to note how unromantic this contract is? The distraction of bridal magazines, place setting selection, floral arrangements, wedding dresses, receptions, wedding showers, and honeymoons have clouded the legal reality of what men are getting themselves into. Marriage is as much an unromantic legal contract as a prenuptial agreement is.

Initially, Pre-Nups were devised as a way to protect women. Nuptial agreements were popularised in the 19th century, mostly to protect heiresses from marrying men who were “out for their money”. Until the Married Women’s Property Act of 1848, under English Common Law, a woman’s property, upon marriage, was usually transferred to her husband.

“Stupid, Irresponsible” Men
Men are severely abused in our media, quite frankly. Just watch any TV commercial or sitcom and see how they portray men as idiots, dolts, or well intentioned, if bumbling, buffoons. If women were portrayed in commercials in the same fashion, “Women’s Organisations” would have a fit. If it weren’t for their wives in these shows and ads the men would be lost “animals”, unable to feed themselves or perform even the simplest of tasks. Other commercials make it appear that men act without thinking, only responding in an impulsive and irrational manner, and that the wife is the brains of the family. Even many women will agree that women often are the ones who act upon emotions and make judgments solely based up on emotional attachments and not logic or reason. Almost every “couples budgeting” article will portray the woman as the one who has to rein in the man’s childish spending, when in truth it is usually the woman who cannot control her expenditures.

Job Loss
If a husband loses his job and is having trouble finding work, the wife is completely and totally justified in threatening to leave him. However, can you imagine the reaction if a husband threatened to leave a wife who was in the exact same position? He would be vilified! If a man loses his job, the woman is justified in resenting the fact that the financial burden lies on her. He is no longer a ‘good provider’. When is a man allowed to resent this very same predicament? If a man is laid off and cares for the household and kids while the wife is working, he may be accused of not pulling his weight! Yet this is exactly the same situation that women demand more recognition for with each passing year! No matter what role the man plays, he loses!

Traditional Roles
It is perfectly acceptable for a woman to demand that a man make a certain salary, drive a certain car, live in a certain part of the city, have a certain job, have the ‘right’ manners, talk a certain way, walk a certain way, behave a certain way, have a degree from the ‘right’ University and dress in a stylish fashion, to be deemed “marriage material” and be able to provide her with the stability she feels she deserves. If a man demands his wife do the cooking and cleaning, he can now be labeled old fashioned and sexist. If he asks her to carry her weight financially, just as he does, he may be criticised as an inadequate provider. If a man insists that his wife honor the conjugal requirements of the marriage contract, he can and will be accused of sexual abuse, sexual assault or rape.

To add insult to injury, some women have gotten so pampered that they not only quit their jobs the day they find out they are pregnant, but they then go out and hire as many nannies, cooks, gardeners and pool boys as their husband can afford. Many Western Wives stay at home and hire someone else to rear the kids and clean up, while they drink lattes and go shopping all day with other pampered “stay-at-home” mothers. Does it pay to work hard and get ahead anymore, if this is how your hard-earned money is squandered?

The concept of the pampered wife is a relatively new one. Most of Western Civilisation was primarily an agricultural economy even up until the 1920’s and 1930’s. Western Wives contributed to the well being of the household by helping on the farm. A man needed a wife as an equal partner. It was not until the 1950’s that the first generation of Western Wives, first in The States and later in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, began to emerge as dead weight. Perhaps this coincides with the spiking of the divorce rate in The States, and later Europe and the other English Speaking Nations, and the rise of Feminism. Perhaps men have become tired of giving so much, while getting so little in exchange.

Divorce

43% of Western Marriages end in divorce, and 70% to 93% of these divorces are initiated by women.

All men should consult a legal professional before marrying, and understand the implications of divorce, because the chances are 1-in-3 that they will participate in one whether they like it, want it, inititate it or not.

Upon divorce, all assets accumulated during and prior to a marriage are subject to division. It has become, simply put. a licence to steal. Even if the woman has not worked in years, and has spent the intervening decade(s) shopping and lunching from 8am-3pm, she is entitled to half, or more, of everything the man worked for during the course of the marriage. Is this fair? How many people would ever agree to a job contract that stipulated that in the event of separation that one party would have to return 50% of the gross amount of everything in the pay packet? No one in his or her right mind would knowingly sign such an agreement. Yet Western Men unknowingly agree to the exact same insanity each time they sign their marriage contract!

“Assets accumulated prior to a marriage are exempt from a divorce”. In theory this is true, in practice it is not. If funds from an account are commingled or combined, it can become marital property. How do funds become commingled, or mixed? If even the smallest sum from a prior account is spent towards the marriage, all of that account will now be considered marital property. Buy your child a lollipop from your own account, and a good lawyer will take one-half of it for your ex-wife when you divorce. If a woman moves into a home the man owned prior to the marriage, it is not safe from divorce. If she so much as hangs up a sheet of wallpaper, puts up draperies, paints a wall, or installs a light fixture, the home is now classified as joint marital property, and is now subject to equal division. Worse actually, the man can be ejected from the home if she makes a false claim of domestic violence, physical abuse, verbal abuse or child abuse. Where is the equality and fairness?

Note: “Equal Division” is also somewhat of a misnomer. Often, she can get upwards of 70% – 90% of the assets, while the man gets the majority of the debts! She gets all of the benefits, he gets all of the responsibilities. This, of course, is just and right and is his reward for working so hard all of those years. He can afford it; she can’t because she was not working.

If you pamper your wife, it can be used against you

Imagine that in the spirit of generosity and kindness that you gave a beggar a hot meal. A generous act, indeed. Now imagine your reaction if that same beggar sues you in court. He is petitioning the judge to have you keep providing him with the food that you gave him willingly, freely, out of a big heart. The judge orders you to keep feeding the homeless man meals, indefinitely, forever, because he has become accustomed to eating those meals! This is categorically absurd, yet this happens to Western Men in divorce court every day. Instead of thanking you for paying her bills for all those years, what you get is the privilege of being legally forced to pay her bills forever!

After having children, many women demand to quit working and stay home. Before the kids came along, many of these same women may have been in careers they hated, working long hours, and enduring long commutes. It is the man’s generosity and dedication to his own career that enables her to walk away from her own career. During a marriage, a man with a stay-at-home wife might work long and grueling hours in order to support her. He will pay the mortgage, the property tax, grocery bill, phone bill, cable bill, Internet bill and electric bill. He also pays for her car, gas money, clothes, and vacations.

As one final slap in the face, the man may be punished for working hard enough to allow his wife to have the luxury of staying at home with the kids. As noted above, after the children are in school, the wife may enjoy a life of leisure and relaxation that is afforded to her by her man’s hard work. In the event of divorce, he will be legally obligated to support her for years or decades to come. Because she stopped working and led a life of leisure, the ex-husband is now responsible for supporting her, forever! History has a tendency of rewriting itself. Originally, a woman may have had a career that she may have hated, and was begging to leave. Western Women often “play” at work and career for a few years after University, and then when they near 30 or grow tired of the workplace they seek out a man to “take her away from all of this”, whatever “all of this” may be. In fact her desire to leave the world of work may have been her motivation to have kids in the first place. But now, in her eyes, and definitely her lawyers eyes, she “gave up” her career for her man and his kids. She is now “owed” all of her “lost income”. His gift of leisure and support to her has now become twisted and is viewed as her sacrifice! Another way in which the situation is turned against him is that he will be characterised as being threatened by her having her own career, and that he forced her to quit her “lucrative career” and stay home with the children. Her lawyer will now attempt to convince the judge that he wanted to “oppress” his wife and “keep her down”. Truthfully now, how many men do you personally know that are upset at having a wife that earns a good living? Many of these misleading stereotypes still run rampant in our society, and are routinely used to the woman’s advantage during a divorce. As a result of her not working, regardless of whether she was minding the home or not, she remains a financial liability.

Generous, caring men who spoil their wives should certainly think twice about how this generosity can later be used against them. The phrase used in divorce court is “She has become accustomed to a certain lifestyle”. A husband’s reward for spoiling his wife today is the legal obligation to spoil her indefinitely, forever. Buy her a luxury car today, and you may be obligated to buy her luxury cars after she leaves you for another man! Yet, imagine a husband that became accustomed to eating a home cooked dinner, or regular conjugal visits. Now imagine the courts obligate the ex-wife to continue cooking for him and sharing her bed with him and his new girlfriend each night, despite being divorced! Inconceivable, but it happens the other way around every day!

The ultimate insult, however, comes when the man loses half or more of his life’s assets even when she has decided to leave him. Yes, a wife can unilaterally decide to kick a man out of his own home, and have the courts force him to continue paying the bills, while she is sleeping with her new boyfriend in the very house the husband worked so long and hard to buy! She can, and often does, spend her alimony check on gifts for her new boyfriend or lover! How is it that the legal system supports a woman who feels entitled to this?

The risks are clear, yet what exactly are men getting out of marriage? Many times, the reasons men get married are unfounded.

Many of the traditional reasons why a man gets married are a myth.

“I won’t die alone”
Wrong. The simple fact is that one spouse WILL die alone. Visit the hospital and go to the terminally ill or cardiac departments. Few people have the time to sit with an ill relative all day and all night. Yes, you may get visitors, but they aren’t having the same thoughts as you are. You’re contemplating your mortality, while they’re wondering what food the hospital cafeteria offers. In the end, even with a loving and supportive family, most of us will leave this world alone, unless you both die simultaneously in an accident of some kind. Your spouse may die fifteen years before you, or you may be in the hospital for your last year. Ultimately, we all die alone. Married or not.

“I won’t grow old alone”
Not necessarily. A marriage can self-destruct at any time. Your partner may initiate divorce at age 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65 or 70. Many married people end up in the same position (alone) as if they had never married at all. Now they enter their twilight years broke, as a result of being stripped of half or more of their life’s assets, losing half their retirement and pension funds, and being assessed alimony payments. Experiencing financial devastation from one divorce often may preclude a man from ever marrying again. This is a common observation of many middle-aged Western Women. Q: “Where are all the men?”. A: “He is broke from the divorce settlement, alimony and child support payments.” Thus these women don’t find him marriable, and he grows old alone and poor.

Men are led to believe that not marrying implies only one destiny; that of a solitary monk in a cave, a shunned loner. However, life is not so black and white. Not marrying does not mean you cannot continue to date or have meaningful relationships throughout your life. There are plenty of single people in all age brackets. A bad marriage can be the loneliest of institutions, because most of your emotional outlet and companionship is concentrated into one person who gives back nothing in emotion, affection or support. Young men in their 20’s and 30’s should be more aware of the alternatives that exist in life. They should be aware that marriage is a choice, and is not the only path life has to offer. An informed decision is less likely to be one that is later regretted.

“I’ll get regular sex”
Not from Modern, Western Women. Access to regular sex is the oldest and the most frequently cited reason to marry. Many men now know that Modern, Western Women frequently stop having sex after just a short time of being married. There are plenty of “sexless” marriages. Talk to a few married couples that are honest about their relationship. One or both partners may stop wanting sex after kids, or the sex may be as infrequent as once a year or once every six months, or the wife may only have sex when she wants the husband to buy her something, take her somewhere, or remodel the house. Read the honest opinions of married men on the Internet. Most Western, Married Men will have more sex with their Western Wives in the first six months of their marriage than they will in the next 40 years. Lastly, it remains to be seen whether sex with one exclusive partner for forty years or more is even a natural act, or just a man-made convention. In many Western Nations, the wife is no longer required to have sex with her husband. She can deny him at any time, for any length of time. She can, if she wishes, deny him sex forever and there is nothing that he can do about it. In fact, if he insists that she honor her end of the marriage contract by being available for sexual relations, he can and will be accused of, charged with, and arrested for Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault or Rape.

Marriage is hardly a guarantee of regular sex, as many people are led to believe.

“I’ll have someone to cook and clean for me”
Not necessarily. While a Modern, Western Woman is perfectly justified in quitting her job in the name of staying home with the kids, she can also demand that the husband pay for a cook, a maid, and a nanny. This leaves the man to earn the money, and leaves him to pay for maintenance of household and children, while the wife gets to play at being a housekeeper. Today’s woman is empowered by not performing the traditional housewife duties, regardless of whether she is working or not. If a husband asks that his wife perform traditional household duties because she is not working, he will often be labeled sexist, abusive or controlling, even if he is doing his “traditional role” of paying all the bills, providing for his family, and performing the traditional manly duties of vehicle repairs, maintaining the lawn and house upkeep.

“I have to be married to have kids”
Not anymore. Her ovaries do not physically need a contract at the government center in order to be fertilised by your sperm. Cro-Magnon man had children long before lawyers invented marriage contracts. Often, you do not need to be married in order to share health benefits. You do not need to be married to designate your partner on a life insurance policy. You do not need to be married to own a dream home together. It is ironic that responsible parents who raise a healthy family, but never actually sign marriage paperwork, get less respect than divorced parents or married parents who are ineffective, inattentive or incompetent.

-Having a lifelong, faithful, committed relationship has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Owning a beautiful dream home together has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Rearing healthy, happy, and successful children has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Building a family and life together has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Growing old together has nothing to do with being “married”.

In fact, recent changes in cohabitation, partner and marriage law have proven that the only tangible consequence of marriage is having a formalised separation process that usually requires the talents of an attorney.

You do need to be married in order to throw an extravagant four-hour party, and share the same last name.

You do need to be married in order to involve the state and government in your romantic affairs.

You do need to be married in order give away half of everything you own.

Besides that, marriage does nothing more than introduce lawyers and social workers into your life. These are people that otherwise would have nothing to do with your life or your relationship.

Men need to stop and ask themselves:

“Why exactly am I getting married? What exactly does marriage mean to me in today’s world? What is the benefit to me to get married?”

It is no longer a lifelong commitment, because it can be reversed overnight on her unilateral whim.

Marriage was originally created as a way for families to merge land, property, political power and influence; perhaps people should return to viewing it as just that and nothing more. The rest of it is fake modern TV Fantasy and Tabloid Gossip and Hype polluting the minds of today’s impressionable youth, and a way to keep the multi-billion-per-year wedding industry chugging along. Perhaps the only criteria should be to ask oneself: “How excited am I for us to merge our finances and assets?” When all the fluff and hype are boiled away, that may be the only remaining reality. Spend a day in divorce court, and you’ll see exactly what is real and tangible and lasting about marriage. You’ll see women who signed the marriage contract under romantic pretenses who are now expert laymen attorneys who can cite case law. Bouquet throwing ex-brides now embroiled in warfare to get everything that is coming to them and more! The rest are myths, lies, bold unsubstantiated promises, and maybes. “For better or for worse…”

The Western Divorce rate is 43%. It is higher in some parts of the world such as California, Great Britain and Australia. In Japan the recent change in pension law may have many pensioners out on the street. In India new changes to dowry law have men being threatened by their wives. Consider the number of people who are in a bad marriage, but elect to stay; Men who don’t want to lose 50%, women who know they can’t support themselves alone. Next, think of how many more couples stay together just for the sake of the kids. Of these “forced marriages”, consider how many of these marriages involve infidelity, no sex, or sleeping in separate beds or separate rooms. I estimate the percentage of happy and monogamous marriages to be under 5%. Are these odds you would take in a business venture, investment or loan? Most of the risk-averse population would not. Yet they seek this exception to the rule everyday through marriage.

Written by dontmarry

November 21, 2008 at 4:44 pm

3,143 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. femiNazis claims that they dont need men, but they sure as hell go into teaching elementary and junior high schools to indulge in inappropriate conduct with their male and female students.

    Female teachers need to stop flucking their underaged students

    August 11, 2014 at 11:48 am

    • In the U.S., men are raped almost as often as women are. http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

      A recent analysis of BJS data, for example, turned up that 46 percent of male victims reported a female perpetrator.

      In the last few years, the BJS did two studies in adult prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities. The surveys were excellent because they afforded lots of privacy and asked questions using very specific, informal, and graphic language. (“Did another inmate use physical force to make you give or receive a blow job?”) Those surveys turned up the opposite of what we generally think is true. Women were more likely to be abused by fellow female inmates, and men by guards, and many of those guards were female. For example, of juveniles reporting staff sexual misconduct, 89 percent were boys reporting abuse by a female staff member. In total, inmates reported an astronomical 900,000 incidents of sexual abuse.

      Now the question is, in a climate when politicians and the media are finally paying attention to military and campus sexual assault, should these new findings alter our national conversation about rape? Stemple is a longtime feminist who fully understands that men have historically used sexual violence to subjugate women and that in most countries they still do. As she sees it, feminism has fought long and hard to fight rape myths—that if a woman gets raped it’s somehow her fault, that she welcomed it in some way. But the same conversation needs to happen for men. By portraying sexual violence against men as aberrant, we prevent justice and compound the shame. And the conversation about men doesn’t need to shut down the one about women. “Compassion,” she says, “is not a finite resource.”

      Kirk

      August 21, 2014 at 12:16 am

      • Sexual abuse of males is downplayed in Canada and the UK. In fact, the male victim regardless of age is viewed as the benefactor when an adult female in a position of authority lures, entraps and manipulates the male victims. The common denominator between leftwing feminists and social conservatives are that they agree on placing women on a pedestal, hence why in Canada and the UK, the governments are trying so hard to criminalize the male clients of adult prostitution while female adults can have their privilege to enter jobs which have access to children such as public schools, social worker, child care services, juvenile prison guards.

        Canada and UK’s form of governance is disturbing at least, and the USA is no far behind in the feminist autocratic regime.

        random_name

        August 21, 2014 at 4:40 pm

  2. You must be marrying the wrong people. My wife didn’t care about diamonds either and we never bothered with a ring.

    e

    August 13, 2014 at 11:51 pm

    • “You must be marrying/dating the wrong women” = shaming language. I’m glad your marriage worked out, unfortunately many men don’t want the anvil of a potential destroyed life via the divorce courts hanging over their heads based on a woman’s whim. The majority of men don’t get divorced until around 10 years into a marriage, which means you’ll be in your 40’s or 50’s most likely when you have to rebuild your entire life all over again. Many believe this is what drove Robin Williams to suicide despite his current wife’s protestations to the contrary.

      John Galt

      August 15, 2014 at 7:52 am

    • Why is it that when women complain about men, they are given sympathy while when men complain about women, they are told that they just married the wrong women?

      Perhaps because society still needs men to pay for the bad choices that women make. Who will pay for all of the abortions, alimony, welfare, public housing, affirmative action programs that women demand?

      Well, we will find out when more and more men become unproductive, refuse to marry and the state funds run out. I am sure that diamonds and rings will be the least of women’s problems when that happens.

      Kirk

      August 21, 2014 at 12:10 am

  3. Fellow men it is time to explain why womyn in Toronto are complaining “where have the good men gone?”

    The womyn view men as walking ATM machines, land deeds and debt relief agencies, in spite of the amount of equality (cough coercion from the state) they have gained over the past 50 years or so.

    The womyn in Toronto are free to go to school, work in a bureaucratic management job or education, express their sexuality even if it’s technically illegal in Harper’s religious utopia and suck as many weiners as they can without being judged as a lowlife praustitute.

    Meanwhile, fellow men of Toronto, Crazy Scientist has discovered that men in Toronto, maybe the entire Canada, are frowned upon by the government for unforeseen reasons, yet men are expected to pay their fair share in taxes and work harder than women, and then “man up” and marry a used up ratchet hoe who probably got a few STDs.

    The fact is, many Toronto womyn are primitive and tribal in nature, which is why 80% of them prefer to f-u-ck with the 5% of alpha males, even if the alpha males are degenerate thugs and criminals.

    In third world countries, women (not womyn) despise alpha thugs and criminals and instead marry ambitious men with an aim to keep up the family tree.

    While you have Toronto womyn working away 9 to 5 and f-cking every Tom, Dick and Harry of the 5% alpha males, other women work part time, own a home business and work with her husband because they depend on income for survival of their family tree.

    Toronto womyn make great w-h-o-r—es but terrible wives!

    Be forewarned of Toronto womyn fellow men!

    guest

    August 19, 2014 at 4:24 am

  4. Truth is being spoken here, heed the warning men. Don’t cry when you get porked, we all told you. My ex set my life on a path to financial ruin. She enjoyed my gains and support on the way up. But when up arrived, she wanted more and went. No thanks, no effort to stay, gone, a dear john letter and divorce court. Sell house, unequal split of money and personal property. (Of course in her favor). There was no way to regain what was lost as my gains were made as a very young man. (I speak of time not being on one’s side).

    G. Snyder

    August 19, 2014 at 8:49 pm

    • Sorry to hear pal. I’m not clear as to why Western women are selfish and greedy to destroy the sacred vows of marriage?

      Somebody should be telling social conservative Stephen Harper that the majority of Western women in Canada act like whores, and this is why adult prostitution needs to be regulated just like progressive countries eg Germany

      Why buy when you can rent?

      Binary MGTOW

      August 20, 2014 at 9:08 am

      • This porblem is not only in your countries, its there all over world, specially in INDIA. Indian men are the most unfortunate persons in the world. here we dont get choice to select our wife, we cant ask for dowery, we cant expect our wifes to work and earn, even she is working and earning, she will not contribute anythng rather she will ask for her day to day expense, parties , gifts , mobile bills etc for performing job duties.

        also we can not compel her to leave job if she is enjoying job. reverse is if she dont like job, she will leave, without worrying for family funds, or her responsibilities, and will stay home doing nothing just waste time.

        in addition we have to engage cooks, servants to perform household dutis, and incur exps on hotels, restaurants, gifts, diamond rings, tours, travels to keep her happy.

        WHat she only expects from you is to marry her, as she can be your dependent for a life time. even if separation takes place, she will have all our properties and earnings for a life time in free. this stupid law makers should understand that, by virtue of one years relationship, a man should not be compelled to give his life times properties and earnings to selfish , irresponsible and wast EVIL called WIFE.

        woman is an AVATAR of EVIL on the earth, to make your life HALE.

        bhaumik

        August 25, 2014 at 1:22 am

        • Not having a thorough understanding of India, I have to infer from what I read. It seems that culturally, there were SOME values and practices that were not favorable to women. Just as in our own culture, and others around the world. There was no patriarchal conspiracy, since there were plenty of inequalities and hardships for men too.
          Then of course, cultures changed, and are based on tech, electricity, transportation and communications. Up until the steam engine, society had no better engine than a horse.
          As soon as life became easier, thanks to men, women started screeching about “inequality” Accusing males of every sort of evil for built in societal negatives inherent in the culture.
          Many problems with these premises.
          First, feminism is not true at its most basic premise. There is, and never was any patriarchy, any conspiracy. Life as it was simply doled out plenty of hardships, and society developed best coping mechanisms. Women had to deal with some of that shit, although throughout history, women were protected and insulated by men’s sacrifices from the worst of it.
          . However, now women didn’t want to work, achieve and improve. They simply wanted it handed to them…NOW!
          The USA was rich and advanced, and was able to carry along these parasitical leeches, until politicians started applying the method to other hate groups. Now, we stagger along with a small, hated, working minority of men, who have everything they produce stolen, and it still is not enough to satisfy the desires of the unproductive, whose votes are bought with the labor of this hated minority. Now, we also need monstrous mountains of unsustainable debt too.
          India is following this path. More quickly, like a younger brother who learns to walk at an early age, motivated by wanting to join his older siblings. Thus, their politicians divide and conquer, by swallowing the conspiracy theory, siding with the “victims” and punishing the “guilty”
          How can we solve our differences when our most basic premises are ones of hate? Women are taught that men are evil, and taught to hate them. Every “solution” is rooted in this evil sickness, and therefore, punitive, not healing. When your premise is false, selfish, and rooted in hate, your “solutions” must be also, and can only fail.
          I am not the enemy. Men are not the enemy. But as long as women allow themselves to be used and manipulated. As long as they let hate and anger motivate them, they will always be used and manipulated by politicians and other self-serving scumbags. Unfortunately, love and marriage are the roots of the tree of all cultures on earth, and its dying.
          Women have traded all that is best, and sweetest, for a bowl of hate and anger. Their heritage for a mess of pottage.

          Brian

          August 25, 2014 at 4:01 am

          • I was recently at a debate where a woman argued that any woman who sacrifices her career in order to take care of a husband and children should be given alimony for life. She argued that if a woman stays home to take care of her family, she gives up any chance at having a career so she should be compensated. She also said that being a stay-at-home wife and mother is worth at least $100,000 a year in U.S. dollars.

            I responded by asking if she paid her nanny at least $100,000 a year. I also asked if she provided health care coverage or a retirement plan for the nanny who took care of her two children. Furthermore, I asked her that if her nanny ever leaves her employ, should that nanny get alimony or “nanimony” for the rest of her life? After all if a mother and wife deserves a lifetime stream of income for taking care of her OWN children and husband, then why shouldn’t a nanny/childcare worker/housekeeper deserve a lifetime stream of income for taking care of someone else’s family?

            While I was asking these questions, there was a mixed reaction – some were stunned, a few applauded, some gasped, others booed.

            The woman responded by saying that most women weren’t making $100,000 a year so they couldn’t pay a nanny that much money. Besides, nannies chose that career so they should be aware of the pay and pursue other options if they are not happy with being a nanny.

            I responded by saying that most men don’t make $100,000 a year so why would they be required to pay alimony to their ex-wives for choosing to stay home with the kids? Besides, stay-at-home moms choose to stay home. If they are not happy with that choice, they should go back to their paid jobs.

            I told her that if raising children and taking care of a household deserve a lifetime stream of income, than all people who engage in that occupation should get a lifetime stream of income – wives, husbands, grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles, babysitters, nannies, childcare workers, maids, butlers, etc.

            And then I also mentioned how a man loses out when a woman stays home to take care of the children. He loses her income. He loses time with his children. Should he be reimbursed for that? And what if men decided to stay at home to take care of the children? Should they get a lifetime stream of income from women for raising the children? Does this apply to gay couples? Or is this just an outmoded hetero-centric way of thinking – the man must pay for the choices of a woman?

            She responded by stating that while I bring up some important issues, this was not the forum for this discussion. This was a discussion about families, not domestic employees. I responded by saying that in many cases domestic employees are like families to the children. It’s pretty common for children to refer to child-care workers and nannies as “mommy.”

            That’s the problem with the feminist culture today. It’s all about compensating women for their choices but they refuse to take responsibilities for their choices. Feminists want wives and mothers to be compensated for what they do for the family but they ignore the contributions that husbands and fathers make to the family and they create an underclass of underpaid nannies and child care workers to take care of the family.

            So feminists say that they don’t need men. They just need their money, the taxpayers’ money and an underclass of poor working women to scrub the toilets and wipe their baby’s behinds. Furthermore, they demand that employers and co-workers accommodate them so they can take care of the children and still be promoted even when they are not as productive as they should be.

            It’s amazing how many people in society have to sacrifice just so women can have it all according to feminists.

            Kirk

            August 25, 2014 at 7:25 pm

            • Kirk,
              Quite awhile back, one of my sisters pulled this on her husband. He was doing Ok financially, until she “decided” to quit her job to be a full time mom. No discussing it with her spouse. I mean, since when does he get a choice? The stress about killed him and their marriage broke up quickly after.
              Knew a woman at work who did much the same thing. She “decided” to quit work, and go on welfare to raise her two illegitimate daughters. I was taught that welfare was not a decision, but a last resort. Not anymore.
              When my sons were born, I was frantic to quit work and be with them. I think many men would have no problem being the home maker. Want to speculate what percentage actually has that choice? Do you think welfare is going to accept men “choosing” to quit their jobs to be with their kids?
              Yeah, and I have this bridge for sale…..
              This woman and her $100,000 a year? Look at the huge numbers of fat, surly welfare moms we have now. If anything even close to this went through, how many of these parasites do you think are actually going to “choose” to work?
              Not too many years ago, when some of the more insane proposals were made, we laughed, but now they are standard practice. This seems insane to us, but the fact she is unblushingly proposing it, that people agree with her, that you were actually booed for daring to question her? Well, consider it as good as passed.
              As bad as they are, even places like China are starting to look good in comparison to the insanity here.

              Brian

              August 26, 2014 at 10:04 am

              • Well said, Brian. If feminists want to place a price tag on human relationships, then it’s no wonder that more and more men are refusing to marry.

                This could be one of the reasons why more and more men are turning to porn rather than to relationships with women. They feel that women have nothing to offer them but pain.

                This is what Naomi Wolf, a feminist, wrote:

                “The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as “porn-worthy.” Far from having to fend off porn-crazed young men, young women are worrying that as mere flesh and blood, they can scarcely get, let alone hold, their attention.”

                More young men are reporting that they are not turned on by “live women” or women in person – they are only turned on by women on their mobile screens.

                Too many women make the cost of being in relationships with them too high. And then they wonder why “there are no good men out there.”

                Kirk

                September 2, 2014 at 12:24 am

                • Kirk,
                  You nailed it as usual.
                  Women used to be the tender ones, romantic, loving, giving. The men struggled, took on the harsher tasks and responsibilities, while the women raised their kids in whatever protective cocoon they could produce.
                  But now, women have commoditized themselves, and the cost is never love, fidelity or any of the tender emotions.
                  I used to joke that women only want three things from a man. Looks, money, and a big dick…..and she will cheat on the first two to get the third.
                  Yeah, its cynical as hell, but how else do you avoid catastrophe? Its the same with porn. I would bet 99% of the guys who view it would rather have a real woman, but not for what it costs. Not just time, money, self-investment, but your heart, finances, future and children, maybe even prison.
                  Our John Galt is also very good at illustrating how women avoid responsibility for even their most evil and criminal actions. Canada seems to be wholly lost.
                  This site has me seeing things with clearer eyes. There was a couple down here in the USA, PA I think, who kidnapped a pair of young Amish girls and sexually abused them. They were caught, and within a day or two, the official story was, it was all HIS fault, as he manipulated the woman in some Svengali-like way. So, she gets to testify against him for a lighter sentence, the man being the “real” criminal you see.
                  I learned long ago, that liberals eat their young. Its always the Ideology uber alles. Thus, they will sacrifice even their children to the ideology. In this case, a kidnapper/child-molester will be given special treatment, excuses made, and turned loose to destroy more young lives. But feminism will be served, by excusing the woman, destroying the man.
                  Its way past the point of reason.

                  Brian

                  September 2, 2014 at 4:56 am

            • Kirk I’m glad I read that comment, it was long but very informative. I like your argument and viewpoint very much – particularly in regards to how many women these days expect men/.others to pay their way and for their choices in life. What I work for and have is mine – I choose to give it to whom I please or no one at all – I owe no woman a damn thing.

              John Galt

              September 1, 2014 at 6:38 am

            • Kirk I needed to get the ball rolling(however slowly) on my blog so I thought you might like this: http://johngalt2014.wordpress.com/perspectives/

              John Galt

              September 1, 2014 at 6:54 am

              • I am so glad you appreciated my comment, John Galt.

                Kirk

                September 2, 2014 at 12:10 am

    • Canada is joining other countries, considering criminalizing a prostitutes customers, not the prostitute. Most are drippy tip countries, but France is among them.
      The Economist has an article about it, and their focus seems to be, prostitution is inevitable, it is becoming much easier and more common, and safer, due to the internet, and all these countries are just having a woeful case of the fantods over it all, and criminalizing the customer is just a new attempt to control it.
      Shit too.
      Liberal countries are controlled by liberal politicians who get elected and stay elected by sowing division and hate. Feminism is just about the biggest hate crime going.
      Purchasing the services of a woman is right at the top of the list for MGTOW’s. You make a happy, get relief, get to choose a honey who is actually attractive to you. You pay what you feel is fair, and have nothing invested but a specific amount of money and time. No pleasing the impossible to please. No lifetime ball and chain. No throat slitting divorce court.
      This, of course, makes men completely independent of the feminists. I can work and earn, I can drive, cook, clean. Take away sex/romance, and who wants or needs them? If I can purchase what I want as a commodity, for a reasonable cost to myself, the whole feminazi house of cards collapses.
      So, the reasoning behind criminalizing the customer, is it protects the prostitute, (female) and punishes the male. Their voter bloc is protected, and of course, the myth of women not being responsible is perpetuated, and only the male is “bad” Prostitutes continue merrily on, men get prosecuted, the government makes money and pleases its voter bloc, and harpy feminists are deliriously happy.
      Feminism is an ideology of hate, and will never, ever stop, even after it destroys the culture that allowed it to exist. Hate can never be happy

      Brian

      August 21, 2014 at 5:59 pm

      • in the states there is a loophole which I wouldnt mention here, but in Canada anything which deals with approaching women, game, flirting with women or even asking a woman out on online dating is considered a serious federal criminal offense.

        The female victim mentality only applies to middle and upper class women in Canada; women which are viewed favourably by the PC Conservatives and Lieberals.

        Marriage is a huge risk in Canada, and the feminists are dependent on divorce to fuel the socialist Ponzi scheme.

        I might advise young men who try to “ghost” in Canada that it’s not easy because 1) the country is cold at least 6 months in the year, 2) the government snoops in everyone’s business and everyone is a snitch in parallel to communist Europe days 3) covert racism is strong in the major cities and there is a lack of unity in the non-mainstream (hipsters are not non-mainstream!).

        A man is more likely to be denied social safety nets such as disability, unemployment benefits and welfare in Canada…so one tip I advise these men is to move to a warm province such as British Columbia or live in the States.

        The social conservative traditional political system is outdated because they expect men to be white knights while the women can act like sluts and classless whores.

        Canadian political analyst

        August 22, 2014 at 12:07 pm

      • Correction: in the states there is a loophole in the prostitution laws which I wouldnt mention here,…but to add only a few counties in Nevada have decriminalized prostitution which might be a sign of a little hope in the anglosphere

        Canadian political analyst

        August 22, 2014 at 12:08 pm

        • It has been legal in parts of Nevada for a long time. Nevada was mostly founded by organized crime, establishing the gambling, prostitution, etc. I assume it was scandalous in its day, but no longer. And although it was founded and run by organized crime, it is at least as honorable and honest as anything the government does.
          I think the MGTOW movement and the hate-driven feminism that caused it are a symptom of a much worse, much larger problem in politics, of divide and conquer. A political party sees an advantage with a defined group, and will offer that group some form of more-than-equal status in the form of benefits and/or superior social and legal status, in exchange for their money and votes. The hate driven true believers get special status such as head of their local KAM chapter, (Kill All Men) and receive a high salary for perpetuating the hate, and keeping the masses stewed up.
          It was done by Hitler and the nazi’s, using the Jews as The Enemy, and if you think it wont happen again, here, you are fooling yourself. It will snowball until it eats itself, or until China or Russia take over.
          Man, just imagine what these vicious harpies will have to deal with then!
          Most of them are absolutely worthless, in that they are too mean to love, and too ugly to fug. In the New World Order, people like that will come in two varieties. Easy opening cans or bags of dry kibble dog food.

          Brian

          August 22, 2014 at 4:07 pm

  5. Amen to this article. It is too late for me: my life is screwed. But hopefully is will reach some of the younger guys considering marriage. Remember: the State care nothing about justice. Not even about “the best interests of the child”. They care only about the money flow, and that’s a fact.

    Robert What?

    August 24, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    • The female teachers are indulged in inappropriate conduct with their students while they teach feminism from early education. Young men need to opt out from public schools and government funded colleges. It’s for the better of their future. Plumbers, electricians and skilled trades don’t need that much bloated overpriced B.S degree. Even Gerald Celente admitted that he doesn’t care about college degrees and all that matters is the brain power, which unfortunately are not what the public schools are teaching to a greater extent

      Free Man

      August 26, 2014 at 2:46 pm

  6. dirty slut tramp bitch hoes in Canada don’t mean squat. Theyre only after a man’s moneys and assets, after that the dirty slut tramp fock bitch hoe is getting her cunt eaten by the alpha males on the side or some other nasty fetish she gon fux wits

    JeFF prINCE

    August 26, 2014 at 8:35 pm

  7. My name is Tanya i live in USA were Divorce seems to be the other of the day,i was married to my husband Lawson for 18 years and we were living happily together with our 3 kids and all of a sudden their came this sad moment for the first time in my life i curt my husband having an affair awith a lady outside our marriage before this time i have already started noticing strange behavior like he used to spend some time with us, comes home early after work but since he started having an affair with this lady all his love for his wife gone and he now treats me badly and will not always make me happy.I had to keep on moving with my life never knowing that our marriage was now leading to divorce which i can not take because i love Lawson my husband so much and i can’t afford to loose him to this strange Lady,i had to seek a friends advice on how i could resolve my marriage problem and make the divorce case not to take place and my husband live this Lady and come back to me again having heard my story my friend decided to help me at all cost she then referred me to A spell caster named Priest Ajigar, my friend also told me that Priest Ajigar have helped so many people that were going through divorce, and also finding possible ways to amend their broken relationship. To cut my story short i contacted Priest Ajigar and in just four days after the spell was done my husband left the other lady and withdrew the divorce case all till now my husband is with me and he now treats me well and we are living happily together again all appreciation goes to Priest Ajigar i never could have done this my self, so to whom it may concern if you are finding difficulty in your relationship or having problems in your marriage just contact Priest Ajigar he is Powerful and his spell works perfectly,i am somebody who never believed or heard about spell but i gave it a try with Priest Ajigar and today every thing is working well for me and if you need his help his email is (priestajigarspells@live.com)

    Tanya Laws

    August 27, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    • In that case, Tanya, tell Priest Ajigar to cast a great spell against the feminist women who divorce good men, take away the kids and plunge families into poverty. Tell the great spellcaster to cast a spell against the single mothers who abuse and neglect their children so that they grow up to become criminals – if they don’t kill them first. Tell the Priest to cast a spell against those female teachers who sleep with their under-aged students. Tell the Holy Priest Ajigar to cast a spell on women so that they appreciate good men and family life. In other words, tell the Great Holy Priest to save our families from the hateful, misandrist scourge of radical feminism. Then come back to us.

      Kirk

      August 27, 2014 at 6:53 pm

      • My son in Grade 6 said that he would rather beg on the street than go to school in Toronto . He said that all the teachers are Feminazis and men haters in Toronto . The principle of the school had to be removed because she was in a relationship with a 13 year old male student for a year or two until his parents found out.

        Vanessa George will love living in Canada for her despicable deeds.

        Concerned Canadian against Feminism

        August 28, 2014 at 7:45 pm

    • I think they already have a priest in family courts in America – He can magically make all the money disappear out of your bank account and simultaneously suck all the joy out of your life so if priest Ajigar could deal that that other evil spell caster we’d all appreciate it. I hear he wears a black cloak and walks around carrying a wooden hammer..

      Thanks.

      John Galt

      September 1, 2014 at 6:27 am

    • Fuck off spambot.

      Little Big Dave

      September 3, 2014 at 5:33 pm

  8. why are there so many downvotes on comments which are anti-paedophilia, anti-feminist and anti-misandry? Are modern, independent women these days child molesters? I’m not surprises since in Canada a number of female teachers Kim Gervais, Jennifer Mason, Nathalie Champagne, Mary Gowans and Tania Pontbriand were in court for highly inappropriate conduct with their under aged students. The courts in Canada were so lazy that they had to let Mary Gowans and Nathalie Champagne off the hook. Imagine how many innocent teenage males in Canada have their lives ruined because of false rape allegations in high school and on college campuses.

    Concerned Canadian against Feminism

    August 28, 2014 at 7:49 pm

    • I think it’s largely because our bitter angry lurker has been coming in from multiple I.P. addresses again and taking out her scorn on us for not finding a guy rich and dumb enough to shower her with pointless presents and trinkets.

      Little Big Dave

      September 3, 2014 at 5:32 pm

  9. Tania Pontbriand was a 32-year-old gym teacher at Rosemere High School when she started a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old student.

    The two-year relationship started in 2002, when Pontbriand was 32 and the male victim was 15. The victim went to police in 2007.Tania Pontbriand has been sentenced concurrently to 18 months in jail for two counts of sexually exploiting a minor, and 20 months in jail for sexual assault because the teachers unions and her oversized public sector pay allowed Tania Pontbriand to hire a feminist friendly attorney.

    Tania Pontbriand will be out of jail before March of 2016, and she will be lauded and applauded by the feminist movement for defying patriarchal oppression.

    Canada is one of the most FemiNazi states in the world, and if the Judge was not using his professional discretion, female predator teachers such as Tania Pontbriand would have been given the Mary Gowans acquittal.

    Bringing you the news about female predators

    August 31, 2014 at 9:31 am

    • Totally despicable. Every time I hear about another one of these sick paedophiles getting released I’m grateful I don’t have children and also grateful to the people who bring attention to this stuff. Much of the mainstream media have lost all respect and credibility when they knowingly hide cases of female child abuse. I keep seeing that smirk on the face of another child abuser, Lauren Moriss who sexually abused an 8 yr old boy over 50 times and got let off with 2 years in prison. If I did have children they’d be home schooled – it really is an epidemic of female child abusers we are seeing of late and it has to stop.

      John Galt

      September 1, 2014 at 6:20 am

  10. The big question here is WHY, why are women getting away with this in this day and age? What we need is a strong leader, one that has the education, resources, and recognition to bring men together on the same page to demand change, hell if the gays can do it why can’t we?

    Dash Riprock

    September 2, 2014 at 4:49 am

    • I tell you why no one’s making a change. Because they “the ones who rule us” want to destroy traditional families so the population itself is easier to control, the values are out the window. Look it up

      I am a woman and I wholeheartedly agree with the article. Although I am European, and fortunate enough that I wasn’t raised as the “modern western woman”

      Elisia

      September 2, 2014 at 2:04 pm

      • I just looked it up.
        Darn it, you’re right!

        Hank

        September 3, 2014 at 9:36 pm

      • You are correct. There is evidence that the CIA in the U.S. funded feminism. Gloria Steinem, an American feminist, was paid by the CIA to spy on Marxist students during the 1960s. The CIA funded Ms. Magazine, which didn’t need any advertisements to operate.

        http://www.rense.com/general21/hw.htm

        Kirk

        September 4, 2014 at 6:02 am

  11. Will I marry Canadian women – no way.
    Why ?
    1. Attitudes towards men are discriminatory, hateful and prejudice.
    2. No-fault divorce rip-offs, which is the norm here in major cities such as Toronto.
    3. Incompetent women get promoted while a hardworking male can lose his job over an unsubstantiated women harassment/sexual harassment/ politically incorrect comment.
    4. Canadian women have no accountability for their actions
    5. When Canadian women travel abroad for holidays with their female friends, at least 75%of those friends only outings are sex tourism, but the Harper government focuses on stamping out legitimate marriages abroad for example a 30 year old Canadian born male of Kenyan descent falls in love with a 20 year old female in Kenya.

    6. Female sex tourism is horrible. These women as the older as they get, they feast on younger and younger boys. Look at the state of public education today and the amount of sex scandals involving female teachers.

    7. Worst of all, if the government will cater to increasing the demand of Canadian women by outlawing strip clubs, brothels and adult porn, but the same government will turn their heads the other way if a 50 year old female teacher commits statutory rape on 13 year old males.

    Canadian women are pathetic

    September 2, 2014 at 4:12 pm

  12. This is one of the most sexist articles ever written. My husband wanted me to buy a diamond ring and I said no. I am the one with savings and investments. I am the one with a career, he is not, etc. Etc. There are so many terrible stereotypes in this article, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    Michelle

    September 3, 2014 at 9:32 am

    • And how would you react if a man with such assets treated his wife the same way? I’m betting you would give him the same lashing you gave us. Difference is we aren’t the suckers buying that whole “shame on you! Get back to the dinner table so you can eat the poison I have prepared for you!” bullshit.

      What you call stereotypes we call an all too familiar reality. I pity your husband because you clearly lack enough empathy to even realize that much.

      You should go fuck yourself.

      Little Big Dave

      September 3, 2014 at 5:45 pm

      • Nice article by the way. I agree with many of the points.

        Now, to put a cap on this: What would Hitler say about all of this? Hmm?

        Hank

        September 3, 2014 at 9:13 pm

      • When I read Michelle’s comment, I think she might have been saying her husband wanted a diamond ring, whether for him or her/both, but she said no because of the cost and not doing so because it is expected. Her point being not all women want to spend extra money to have one or give one.

        I, on the other hand, did buy my husband a three diamond gold wedding band just like my father’s and he didn’t see it until we exchanged vows. Of course , he was very happy and I did it in honor of him and my dad. The ring he gave me was very nice and I always got compliments. But it was not expensive, maybe around $2,000? We both bought them from retail jewelry stores.

        Plus, we saved during the yr. for the wedding and paid for everything in advance or by the day of the ceremony. It was 20-plus years ago, but we spent about $16k. Very traditonal church wedding, full buffet reception and live band. Why anybody, man or woman, would want to spend tens of thousands of dollars, or use credit to start a marriage in debt then or now is beyond me. Yes, there are people who can afford it, but it still sets a greater expectation for eveything you do during the marriage.

        None of my several close girlfriends or my four sisters did that either. I believe that is why Michelle said the article was full of terrible stereotypes . . .I know plenty more women who are money-minded, not money-hungry. I think many people, men and women, are so influenced by celebutantes and social media that everybody feels to needs to be over-the-top, etc.

        I even made more money for several years than my husband, but we bought two homes and two cars TOGETHER. Increasingly, people seem not to have the right mindset for marriage, and it’s all about the wedding show and excessive consumerism afterwards, but it’s not exclusive to women.

        Not Bitter

        September 8, 2014 at 6:11 pm

        • @Not Bitter

          It appears that feminists want to get rid of the stereotypes that hold women accountable and keep the stereotypes that hold men accountable.

          If feminists are saying that women shouldn’t be bound by stereotypes, fine, but men shouldn’t be bound by stereotypes either.

          If a woman says that she doesn’t want to take her husband’s name and be the one who manages the household, that’s fine, but then she shouldn’t expect the man to provide her with an expensive engagement ring and pay for everything either.

          Furthermore, if a woman makes a lot of money, great, but then why does she still expect the husband to pay for things during the marriage and why does she feel that she is entitled to alimony and at least 50 percent of his assets and income during a divorce?

          There is nothing wrong with re-writing social contracts but be fair about it. Don’t just keep the terms that are favorable to you and eliminate the terms that are favorable to the other party. Negotiate and come up with a social contract in which everyone feels happy.

          And while having big wedding is not exclusive to women, women constitute the majority of those who seek out big weddings for show. That is why wedding planners tend to cater to women.

          Kirk

          September 9, 2014 at 6:02 am

          • Very little of your reply addressess what I wrote. I don’t give two hoots and a holler about feminism, I care about how humans treat other humans, period. So, please take that off the table where I’m concerned. At no time did I promote that solely one person, man or woman, “pay for everything”. Also, in what universe does anyone in any type of civil union or marriage not “pay for things during the union/marriage”, as you worded it?!

            Whether a woman changes her name or not has nothing to do with being provided with an expensive engagement ring, either. I was nowhere around when my husband bought the engagement ring, anyway. He picked it out with the help of his best friend. So, maybe, don’t have her around when you purchase it and things won’t get out-of-hand with the hard sell and feeling pressured by the salesperson to impress her with more than you know you can afford or want to spend. Be sensible or be single, sparing yourself and others all this hatefulness!

            Moreover, if a wife makes more/has more assets than the husband, a court is not awarding her alimony, etc. Men can be awarded alimony/support/assets, if they meet the conditions, according to civil law. Plus, couples can negotiate how to divide assets between attys. and never have the judge in court be involved.

            True, women are the main consumers when it comes to wedding planning, and the industry caters to them, accordingly. Most men still want to just show up at the right place and time, wearing the right tuxedo, etc.

            However, it’s the COUPLE that determines the budget. It has to be discussed between the two of them – alone! If one or the other doesn’t agree with a particular item because of costs, etc. the decision is “no”, or find a compromise. If either party is so inflexible/demanding/ stubborn/childish about it, then let them find a way to pay for it, or if they want to walk away, then let him/her walk!

            It will save alot of heartache in the long run – which I haven’t read much about here. I suspect it’s central to the hostility expressed because of unmet expectations regarding a person, I hope you wanted to marry because you loved them and were committed to them, and you thought they felt the same. Much of what is written here makes it seem like men are being coerced into engagement/marriage. Obviously, if you don’t want to marry, you’re a grown man, be honest about your position and walk away, if necessary!

            If you do ask, then come to realize the person you asked is not right for you, not in agreement with whatever social/financial contract you propose BEFORE marriage, you’re a grown man, call it off! But, I emphasis that conversation must occur BEFORE marriage to be fair to both parties – who have to be mature enough to be upfront and honest with each other!

            No matter how much I loved someone, if I was not willing to do so, there is no way ANYBODY could force me to walk down an aisle, or pull money out of my pocket(book).

            Not Bitter

            September 9, 2014 at 3:38 pm

            • It didn’t take long for you to show your hostility. Change your screen name from “Not Bitter” to “So Bitter.”

              All of my reply addressed what you wrote, you just don’t want to admit it so you show your anger. You mentioned that this article is full of stereotypes. Well, I responded by saying that feminists point out the stereotypes that paints them in a bad light but are perfectly willing to uphold the stereotypes that paint men in a bad light. If you are not a feminist as you claim, why would you care that I said that?

              And I didn’t say you claimed that only men should pay for everything. I said that many women still expect men to pay for things. Many women don’t want to play the role of a nurturer, okay great, but why do they still expect men to be the provider?

              You typed: “Also, in what universe does anyone in any type of civil union or marriage not “pay for things during the union/marriage”, as you worded it?!” I didn’t word that at all. You even put it in quotes to claim that I typed that word for word, when I didn’t even type that. Typical feminist tactic – when you can’t reply to a coherent, reasoned argument, make up words and attribute that to the person because you can’t form a coherent, reasoned reply.

              “Moreover, if a wife makes more/has more assets than the husband, a court is not awarding her alimony, etc.” Not necessarily true. A judge looks at a variety of factors, such as how much each party earns, the standard of living that existed for each individual during the marriage and each party’s conduct prior to and during the divorce proceedings when determining whether or not to award alimony. While alimony laws differ by state, judges frequently take financial need into consideration.

              Besides, I didn’t say that a woman who makes more money than her husband will definitely get alimony in the event of a divorce. I said that many women who make more money than their husbands feel entitled to alimony in the event of a divorce. And when women are required to pay alimony to their ex-husbands, they are even more bitter about it. Furthermore, women are more likely than men to default on paying child support. And women who receive child support are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed compared to men who receive child support. Child support is the right of the child and should be spent on the child, not to support the parent who has custody of the child.

              You typed the following:

              “Whether a woman changes her name or not has nothing to do with being provided with an expensive engagement ring, either.”

              Why not? If a woman has the right to refuse to change her name, why doesn’t the man have the right to refuse buy an engagement ring for the woman? And why doesn’t the woman buy the man an engagement ring if she makes more money? Or they could buy each other rings. You are proving my point. Women want the right to change customs that require them to make sacrifices but refuse to support the right of men to change customs that require them to make sacrifices. You want the right to keep your name or change your name after marriage to a man but you still feel entitled to the engagement ring. Well, why don’t you both keep your names and buy each other engagement rings? That didn’t even cross your mind, did it?

              You typed: “Be sensible or be single, sparing yourself and others all this hatefulness!” When a person disagrees with you, you become hateful as evidenced by your response to my post. So you know what, maybe you are the one who shouldn’t have married. Do you expect your husband to agree with everything you say? It doesn’t matter. Even if he agrees with everything you say, you will probably divorce him because that’s what so many women do. So many women hate good men because of their own personality disorders. You’re a grown woman. Don’t marry a guy if you think you will regret it later. And if you are married to a good man, respect him and treat him well. Don’t be bitter (which you clearly are despite you screen name of “Not Bitter”).

              You typed:

              “No matter how much I loved someone, if I was not willing to do so, there is no way ANYBODY could force me to walk down an aisle, or pull money out of my pocket(book).” Yeah, you haven’t been to a divorce court where you were forced to pay alimony as well as a chunk of your income and assets to your ex-spouse. Change the divorce laws so that they are more fair if you are not a feminist and you really care about humans treat other humans.

              Finally, you typed:

              “But, I emphasis that conversation must occur BEFORE marriage to be fair to both parties – who have to be mature enough to be upfront and honest with each other”

              Yeah, like a woman will be upfront and honest with her fiancé and tell him that she really just wants to have children with him and then take the children, along with the assets when she gets bored with him. No need. Men are figuring that out more and more. That’s why you are threatened by this article “Not Bitter” (who really is SO BITTER.)

              Kirk

              September 9, 2014 at 6:16 pm

              • It didn’t take long for you to show your hostility. Change your screen name from “Not Bitter” to “So Bitter.”
                All of my reply addressed what you wrote, you just don’t want to admit it so you show your anger. You mentioned that this article is full of stereotypes. Well, I responded by saying that feminists point out the stereotypes that paints them in a bad light but are perfectly willing to uphold the stereotypes that paint men in a bad light. If you are not a feminist as you claim, why would you care that I said that?

                *Ok, nothing I stated was in anger, just being sincere. Also, I referenced another responder who had stated the article was full of stereotypes. And, no I’m, in fact, not a feminist which is why I said I didn’t give two hoots and a holler about it and didn’t want to be lumped in that category. That is why I care about what you said.*

                And I didn’t say you claimed that only men should pay for everything. I said that many women still expect men to pay for things. Many women don’t want to play the role of a nurturer, okay great, but why do they still expect men to be the provider?

                @Not Bitter
                It appears that feminists want to get rid of the stereotypes that hold women accountable and keep the stereotypes that hold men accountable.
                If feminists are saying that women shouldn’t be bound by stereotypes, fine, but men shouldn’t be bound by stereotypes either.
                If a woman says that she doesn’t want to take her husband’s name and be the one who manages the household, that’s fine, but then she shouldn’t expect the man to provide her with an expensive engagement ring and pay for everything either.

                You typed: “Also, in what universe does anyone in any type of civil union or marriage not “pay for things during the union/marriage”, as you worded it?!” I didn’t word that at all. You even put it in quotes to claim that I typed that word for word, when I didn’t even type that. Typical feminist tactic – when you can’t reply to a coherent, reasoned argument, make up words and attribute that to the person because you can’t form a coherent, reasoned reply.

                *As you can see below, you did write that statement, and yes, I added civil union because today some couples are not married in the traditional sense, but are civilly bound as a couple/family.*

                Furthermore, if a woman makes a lot of money, great, but then why does she still expect the husband to pay for things during the marriage and why does she feel that she is entitled to alimony and at least 50 percent of his assets and income during a divorce?

                There is nothing wrong with re-writing social contracts but be fair about it. Don’t just keep the terms that are favorable to you and eliminate the terms that are favorable to the other party. Negotiate and come up with a social contract in which everyone feels happy.
                And while having big wedding is not exclusive to women, women constitute the majority of those who seek out big weddings for show. That is why wedding planners tend to cater to women.

                “Moreover, if a wife makes more/has more assets than the husband, a court is not awarding her alimony, etc.” Not necessarily true. A judge looks at a variety of factors, such as how much each party earns, the standard of living that existed for each individual during the marriage and each party’s conduct prior to and during the divorce proceedings when determining whether or not to award alimony. While alimony laws differ by state, judges frequently take financial need into consideration.

                *In court, regardless of gender, the higher wage earner and assets holder has more accountability to the lesser. So many states don’t allow infidelity as a factor, or standard of living anymore, especially if the lesser party has income/prior work history, education and is physically able to gain employment, etc. There definitely has to be a court-documented financial need, not just someone’s personal assertions. Many actually enter into an Equitable Distribution v. alimony, because it is not taxable and short term, unlike alimony which is taxable and can be long term.*

                Besides, I didn’t say that a woman who makes more money than her husband will definitely get alimony in the event of a divorce. I said that many women who make more money than their husbands feel entitled to alimony in the event of a divorce. And when women are required to pay alimony to their ex-husbands, they are even more bitter about it.

                *Ok, no major disagreement there. There might be some who have a feeling of entitlement and being more bitter about paying alimony, but it doesn’t change the fact that the court makes that determination based on civil law, period. They can feel any way they want to about it, but they still have to pay!*

                Furthermore, women are more likely than men to default on paying child support. And women who receive child support are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed compared to men who receive child support. Child support is the right of the child and should be spent on the child, not to support the parent who has custody of the child.

                *If the stats bear that out, then the facts speak for themselves. I’ve never disagreed with child support being for the child. If evidence exists to the contrary and the child is neglected, take them back to family court.*

                You typed the following:
                “Whether a woman changes her name or not has nothing to do with being provided with an expensive engagement ring, either.”

                Why not? If a woman has the right to refuse to change her name, why doesn’t the man have the right to refuse buy an engagement ring for the woman? And why doesn’t the woman buy the man an engagement ring if she makes more money? Or they could buy each other rings.
                You are proving my point. Women want the right to change customs that require them to make sacrifices but refuse to support the right of men to change customs that require them to make sacrifices. You want the right to keep your name or change your name after marriage to a man but you still feel entitled to the engagement ring. Well, why don’t you both keep your names and buy each other engagement rings? That didn’t even cross your mind, did it?

                *You missed my point! I am agreeing the two decisions are individual ones, and BOTH have a right to decide what they want to do or not do. What I’m not getting about buying the ring is most men have already bought the ring before proposing. If he wants to give it only on the condition she changes her name, then he should know that in advance.

                Come on, most men I know wouldn’t want to wear an engagement ring – maybe a nice watch? I got my husband a set of gold cufflinks with a diamond accent he could wear at the wedding and beyond. Some men don’t like wearing rings/jewelry and don’t wear the wedding ring they do have.

                However, if she agrees to a name change and/or both to getting engagements rings, problem solved! If he is okay with her keeping her name and getting the ring, problem solved! I do know women who have bought/contributed to their own rings because they did want more than he could afford, and some couples who have combined last names to create a new married name.*

                You typed: “Be sensible or be single, sparing yourself and others all this hatefulness!” When a person disagrees with you, you become hateful as evidenced by your response to my post.

                *I was not saying that because someone disagreed with me. I said to be sensible to let you or anybody else know you don’t have to participate in anything or be with anyone who causes you to have hatefulness in your life – it will make you sick, sad, and joyless. You can be single, be happy and have a great life! I have male and female friends who have never been married and they are living their lives happily. And, I am happy for them!*

                So you know what, maybe you are the one who shouldn’t have married. Do you expect your husband to agree with everything you say? It doesn’t matter. Even if he agrees with everything you say, you will probably divorce him because that’s what so many women do. So many women hate good men because of their own personality disorders. You’re a grown woman. Don’t marry a guy if you think you will regret it later. And if you are married to a good man, respect him and treat him well. Don’t be bitter (which you clearly are despite you screen name of “Not Bitter”).

                *I was very confident about getting married and who I was marrying. Plus, I was definitely a grown woman because I was 30 yrs. old when I did marry. Even my parents were surprised I decided to marry because I had been living on my own for years, dating and had a good career, etc. I never talked about ‘needing‘ to get married or looking for someone to ‘complete me’, either. I looked at it as adding love, joy and companionship to my life. I do not hate good men. In fact, I looked for someone who was like my dad, who was a good man. I considered my husband to be focused, ambitious and he had a plan. He didn’t disrespect me, therefore I didn’t disrespect him either. We didn’t always agree, who does? Sometimes we comprised, and sometimes we went our own ways, and learned the world didn’t stop revolving because of it.*

                You typed:
                “No matter how much I loved someone, if I was not willing to do so, there is no way ANYBODY could force me to walk down an aisle, or pull money out of my pocket(book).” Yeah, you haven’t been to a divorce court where you were forced to pay alimony as well as a chunk of your income and assets to your ex-spouse. Change the divorce laws so that they are more fair if you are not a feminist and you really care about humans treat other humans.

                *I was responding to your various comments about men getting engaged, wedding planning, expectations, buying rings, spending habits, etc. Court is court, and what is decreed by the court has to be followed. Very few people ever like what happens in court whether civil or criminal. If any law is unfair, then legislation or court rulings will effect change, like no-fault divorce and community property. It is always an ongoing process . . .a good attorney helps, too.*

                Finally, you typed:
                “But, I emphasis that conversation must occur BEFORE marriage to be fair to both parties – who have to be mature enough to be upfront and honest with each other”
                Yeah, like a woman will be upfront and honest with her fiancé and tell him that she really just wants to have children with him and then take the children, along with the assets when she gets bored with him. No need. Men are figuring that out more and more. That’s why you are threatened by this article “Not Bitter” (who really is SO BITTER.)

                *I’m not the least bit threatened by this article, nor am I bitter. I have absolutely no reason to be bitter. It’s actually sad to read how pressured and hurt many men are from marriage experiences. Personally, I am a firm believer it should be VERY, VERY difficult to get married (at a minimum, to the degree of difficulty people experience when obtaining a divorce).

                If I were able to add/change any laws, it would be to enact a law that mandates a minimum 1.5 or 2 yr. exclusive dating relationship and if they decide they want to get engaged, an additional mandatory 6- month weekly intensive pre-marital counseling, Then, people will really know who they are and who the other person is as well. Able to be honest and mature with yourself and with others. Most of us avoid that because we love being in love and want to trust in the goodness of those we love.

                But, human nature cannot hold out but for so long before it reveals itself. If a person is being deceptive, reckless or just plain clueless about what marriage really requires beyond love, it will show itself. I know without a doubt, 80-90% of people would come out of the process not wanting to marry EVER, not wanting to marry THAT person, and/or knowing they need to wait/mature before they do to marry ANBODY. The other 10-20% would be close to 100% successful in marriage because they stayed the course and were really committed. So, unless something so terribly or criminally bad happens to cause an absolute need to divorce, which I also firmly believe should be granted quickly, people could actually live happily ever after.*

                Still Not Bitter

                September 9, 2014 at 10:38 pm

                • “Okay, nothing I stated was in anger, just being sincere.” Yes, you were sincerely angry.

                  “Also, I referenced another responder who had stated the article was full of stereotypes.” And I said that feminists always point out the stereotypes that make them look bad but tend to uphold the stereotypes that make men look bad. You may say that you are not a feminist but you use their tactics. If you don’t want to be lumped into a category, then don’t display the common traits that characterizes that category.

                  “Also, in what universe does anyone in any type of civil union or marriage not pay for things during the union/marriage……As you can see below, you did write that statement.” NO, I did not write that statement I wrote that if a woman makes a lot more money, great, but why does she still EXPECT the husband to pay for things during the marriage……? Not the same statement at all. You can claim it’s the same but it’s not. I never said that anyone should not pay for things in any relationship but rather why should the woman EXPECT the man to pay for things?

                  “In court, regardless of gender, the higher wage earner and assets holder has more accountability to the lesser.” Generally, that is becoming more true because of recent reform. In states such as New Jersey, Connecticut and Florida where divorce laws are based on century-old notions of what an ex-spouse deserves, laws are being proposed to limit alimony in recognition of wives’ earning power and the changed economic circumstances husbands can face. Some feminists are saying that a woman should have a stream of income from her ex-husband for life if she stayed home to raise the kids. Then nannies and child care workers should get the same stream of income for life for raising other people’s kids.

                  The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers in 2007 recommended restricting alimony amounts and duration. The proposal became the basis for Massachusetts’s alimony reform laws in 2011. Those statutes eliminated permanent alimony and gave judges guidelines for calculating amounts.
                  Furthermore, women who out-earn their husbands are not so willing to accept the old obligations of spousal support when the marriage ends.

                  The MRA has been making strides in that area, which is why feminists are becoming more angry at the movement. But there are still states that have laws which allow women to obtain alimony even if she makes more money than the man – it is changing – but it happens.

                  The stats on child support do bear out and women are more likely to default on child support.

                  “Whether a woman changes her name or not has nothing to do with being provided with an expensive engagement ring, either.” That’s what you typed. I didn’t miss your point as you claim. If your point was that BOTH have a right to decide, you sure did not make it clear in what you typed. But my point was that many women have refused to change their names after marriage because they believe it is archaic and sexist but those same women still expected to receive engagement rings. Why didn’t those women claim that engagement ring tradition is archaic and sexist as well?

                  “If he wants to give it only on the condition she changes her name, then he should that in advance.” Sure, and then she will claim that he is a misogynistic jerk and everyone will shame him for that. If a woman liberates herself from the custom of taking her husband’s name after marriage, she is praised for it. If a man liberates himself from the custom of offering an engagement ring, he will be vilified for it.

                  Why exchange gifts at all? Isn’t loving each other enough? You know women who bought their own rings? Great. I don’t think that is most women and even many of the women who bought their own rings will probably harbor resentment over it.

                  “You don’t have to participate in anything or be with anyone who causes you to have hatefulness in your life.” Yes, more men are realizing that. That is the purpose of this blog.

                  I am glad you are happy about marrying your husband but you don’t mention if you are still married or whether he is happy he married you. I suspect if you were still happily married, you wouldn’t be using the screen name “Not Bitter” and “Still Not Bitter”. Why didn’t you use the screen name “Happy” or “Happily Married.”? Whatever.

                  “Court is court, and what is decreed by the court has to be followed.” Tell that to the feminists who fight every time there is a court decision that they don’t like. Why don’t they fight for more fair laws in divorce court? Isn’t feminism supposed to be about equality? Guess not.

                  Many people date and even live together for years before marrying. They also obtain pre-marital counseling. They still get divorced. That’s because it is just so easy to do so. People change. People can be deceptive for quite a while.

                  Perhaps when joint custody of kids becomes mandatory (with exceptions for special circumstances of course) and assets are divided up according to who contributed more to the marriage, people will be more reluctant to file for divorce and be more inclined to work on the marriage.

                  Kirk

                  September 9, 2014 at 11:54 pm

            • Oh, one more point.

              You typed: “However, it’s the COUPLE that determines the budget. It has to be discussed between the two of them – alone!”

              YEAH, RIGHT! The COUPLE! That’s feminist code for the woman makes the decision and the man must go along with it or he is a mean, selfish, abusive misogynist who doesn’t respect the woman’s right to make decisions. Fewer and fewer men are falling for that.

              Kirk

              September 9, 2014 at 6:20 pm

    • So why didn’t you buy him the diamond ring he requested? Men have been buying diamond rings and other expensive baubles for women for years and years.

      What’s the matter? You couldn’t find a man who could afford to buy you a diamond ring? Not surprising. Successful men tend to be smart and they can tell when a woman just wants to use them. So they move on after bagging these gold-diggers (assuming you were attractive enough to be bagged in the first place).

      I guess after years of being “bagged” by all the alpha men you wanted but who didn’t want you, you started to look more like an old bag so you decided to settle by marrying a gold-digger. Good for your husband.

      You deserve it. After years of trying to use men for your own selfish purposes, you wound up with a man who may be using you for his selfish purposes. You are a terrible stereotype and you should be ashamed of yourself. Meanwhile, your husband should be proud. He will divorce you one day and take your savings and investments because you are the one with the career. He deserves a medal in addition to your income and assets.

      Kirk

      September 3, 2014 at 9:04 pm

      • I actually went on a date with this chick and then she started telling me she was a feminist, and started getting into all that topic, like I would be interested or something, so I just started drifting off and not paying attention to her telling me this and that, and then I was thinking, ‘oh man, i wonder if i should ask her to get the check,’ but I didn’t and she didn’t offer. Haha.

        Careful out there fellas!

        Hank

        September 3, 2014 at 9:21 pm

    • Baby, it ain’t a sexist article.
      (not that there’s anything wrong with that)

      Hank

      September 3, 2014 at 9:31 pm

  13. Marriage in Canada is like slavery for men. Toronto is a city “designed” to turn people into robots, who’ll be working their a**es off just to “keep up with the Jones” in a rat race, paying for overpriced mortgages, student loans, $10,000 limit credits cards, $50,000 credit lines and other stuff.

    Canada and Toronto do not need people who dare to think, to differ from the mainstream crowd, to lead by example and to be a personality! The Canadian legal system will use every trick in the book to censor free speech and countless number of political activists in Canada were prosecuted for thought crimes, albeit the offensive remarks of their opinions. In the USA, although feminist in some states, allow free speech.

    Do robots, slaves and sheeple have a soul, beauty, class and history?? NO! They ain’t got nothing! They all think, look and act the same, the way the mainstream propaganda and politically correct society wants them to!!!
    Do not expect Toronto and Canada to change and better run away from this country! You’ll never regret it!

    The reason why marriage is against men is because of the American 1960s feminist movement and fourth wave Slut Walk feminist movement of the 2010s from Toronto.

    It shows how global the femininist movement in Toronto is going! Some say it has a more direct and worldwide impact than the 1960s wave of feminism.

    No wonder the southern American states shun commie Canada!

    Ben Thomas

    September 7, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    • You can’t turn a hoe in Toronto into a housewife.

      Speaking of Toronto feminist hoes, I don’t give a single f*ck about them or their relationship or her fake bullsh*t ass
      lifestyle of Sex and the City.

      Men should stop working in Canada and move abroad and starve the feminist mafia of tax monies.

      And I’ve always thought that Canadian females were world known for their sense of entitlement and “ME ME ME FIRST!” attitude:-)

      Kyle Marshall

      September 8, 2014 at 1:25 am

  14. A number of media outlets in the USA are accusing that female teachers are sleeping with her students and playing with dildos in TDSB schools. Where are the feminists to prevent child sexual abuse by female teachers? There are no feminists to prevent sex crimes because feminists are degenerate as any other Marxist!

    Jack

    September 16, 2014 at 8:12 pm


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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 165 other followers

%d bloggers like this: