Turns out, marrying just anybody is no longer a workable long-term solution. at PunkAssBlog.com

As far as Feminists go, this chick is actually pretty cool. And punkassblog promotes the most watered down, moderate version of Feminism in existance. But this post is uber cuntish.

Basically the bitch says that if we don't change, women won't marry us anymore and that we will be the one's who've lost out. The comments are interesting because they indicate that even the manginas these Fems have had relationships with are not sufficiently manginaish for them.


So like I said before, screw women. Having ANY relationships with women is the height of unmanlyness. Real men hate women and avoid them.

Honestly I think it will be a long time before many men and women are happy in marriages. The old contract is broken, and there isn't a new one in its place.

But in any case, the perspective of the post is quite warped. It may very well be true that women are unhappy in marriages (in fact I assume this is true, given who initiates divorces), but the lack of reflection by the poster is quite mind-boggling. From what I have seen, both in my own marriage and in talking with other men, married and divorced, is that men expect less from marriage than women do. Women generally want everything to be perfect, to be just so. You can see this reflected in many areas -- most women I have known have not been "satisficers" but "maximizers", whereas many men are "satisficers". So what happens is that the marriage settles down into a steady state, and the men are generally okay with this, whereas the women generally are not -- they expect more, and in may cases, much more than is realistic to expect in a long term marriage, especially where there are children involved. Contemporary women seem to have a large sense of entitlement in all areas, including marriage, and when the marriage isn't measuring up, they jettison it.

Which of course gets us to the real core of the problem. For women to claim that marriage is a raw deal for them when they have the power to end the marriage at any time for any reason, take the kids with them, and collect an annuity from their former husband -- belies an incredibly self-absorbed perspective. The precise reason why women feel so entitled, and demand more, and walk away is because the law lets them do this without penalty, and at least in the case of women who are capable of earning a good salary, with significant financial benefits. Women know this, so they are incented to trash the marriage and seek an upgrade. Some researchers like Michelle Langley think that this behavior may even be biologically based (the jury is still very much out on that, I think). If marriage is a raw deal for anyone, it's a raw deal for men, not women. Women greatly benefit from marriage and divorce, while men are left holding the bag.

Marriage is in decline, because it is a raw deal for men, and because women have unreasonable expectations for the institution. The institution could be revived, but that would require legal changes which seem far fetched at present. Barring those legal changes, we can fully expect that marriage will continue to decline, as will birth rates, and I think we can see where that leads.

why would we want revive an institution that benifits women?

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2008/02/...ave-right.html

Rob Fedders did an amazing post on marriage. Well worth the read.

There is no reason for a gent to marry a cunt these days. In fact, by the sounds of things, there didn't seem to be much of a reason to marry a woman back in the old days. No vagina is worth being a slave to.

Hire a whore or watch porn if you're really desperate. That sensation you get to seek out women when you're horny can be cured within minutes, and is a lot cheaper and less stressful.

A revived marriage would be beneficial to men, women and, most of all, children. If marriage continues to decline, the results will be disastrous for our civilization. I know that won't happen in our lifetimes, but in my view, there isn't really much use to being short-sighted, I think.

As usual the feminists only complain when something is bad for women, otherwise they pretend like everything is alright.

There is nothing beneficial for a man in western marriage anymore. Ever since it was corrupted by feminists with no-fault divorce and such by removing punishment for those that break the marriage contract has it become a bad option.

Women have a lot to gain with marriage, but men do not. A prenuptial agreement helps a lot, but it's not 100% waterproof.

You can do everything without signing away half of your possessions and income.

This I agree with. By "revived marriage", I mean getting rid of unilateral no fault divorce, and reinstating enforceable marital monogamy. Anything other than that will leave us precisely where we are, which, as you describe, quite toxic for men.

I don't believe that. The biggest reason women initiate more divorces is that they have less to lose and more to gain from divorce. Many men will grin and bear an awful marriage so they can still have access to their children and keep a roof over their heads.

Quote:

Amanda Marcotte Jun 18th, 2006 at 10:21 am The “never saw it coming” phenomenon is well-noted. I’ve talked to MRAs about this and even they concede that most marriages are ended by women and the end comes as a complete fucking surprise to men.

Poor Amanda seems a little confused and rightly states the bleeding obvious without even realising it..

She still around ?

The amazing issue that feminist rant about is the myth that "womyn are world's greatest communicators", unfortunately they forget to tell their partners before they drag them in front of the judge..
We know the reasons womyn will walk and any reason apparently will do. It's more for the high(emotive state) than any actual logical reason..

Feelings are much more important than reality.

A judge in Australia commented on this a few years ago. Stating that most divorced men had absolutely no idea why the princess walked, apparently 25,000 words a day did not carry that message..

Amynda will get what's coming to her some day. Vile cunts like that always do. She will piss off the wrong gent some day, and there will be hell to pay. I can't wait.

Certainly that's true as well. But the phenomenon described here applies to many cases as well:

According to Langley women simply detach and quietly build a Plan B, and then spring it on their husbands when they're ready to make Plan B work. Surely, as Brian points out, the fact that the family law rewards women for making this choice is a major factor -- if there were no longer no-fault divorce and the presumption of maternal custody coupled with substantial support payments from ex-h, Plan B would be much less attractive to women in most cases. But it's also true that women are generally rather quiet, cunning and even conspiratorial when they are going about setting themselves up to leave a marriage -- and communication about their unhappiness at *that* time is something many of them do not do -- because they want to set themselves up first, so that they can control the situation. The law supports them in this.

As always quantitiy does not mean quality....

THAT very scenario is the very reason that twisted fembitch Harriet Harperson Harm-man Harman wants to put a stop to this very option for men which she, like all other femcunts, sees as a cop out for men and a means to escape from the spiders' web that marriage now is for men and all the legal and social and marital advantages women now so blatantly have over men. Her Bill comes before Parliament later this year in which she clearly wants to make men even more disadvantged and deprived even more of what rights they may think they have already - precious few in fact, and this vile man hating woman knows that. More and more she wants to criminalise men in any whch way she can while at the same time adding more and more to the list of mitigating cop out "excuses" and therefore avoiding punishmen for any women caught up in similar, or even more serious, criminal acts.

Many women already feel that way.

Take the sentencing this past week of Karen Matthews, that nasty , evil dumbass social welfare scrounging creature and inveterate baby machine in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire and the sap of a male accomplice (her latest bit of c*ck) whose name I forget right now but who was under her control and so dumb he hadn't the gumption to know that what he was doing alongside her was wrong - she knew exactly what she was doing and she was the instigator full on. Anyway, they both got eight years in the jug for what they did to that little girl Sharon, the women's daughter.

The TV reporter was interviewing local people after the sentence was passed, and this woman, a neighbour, who constantly referred to this Matthews woman as Karen and the bloke by his surname, said that "Karen will be out in three years' time". Sadly that is very likely. When the (male) reporter asked this interviewee if that woud be the case for the man as well she said "I hope not - he deserves all he gets and should serve the full term!" She said that, even though the whole cime was planned and masterminded by the woman and the guy was just a stooge who could only think of cunt availabality all the time the whole kidnapping affair and subsequent lies and sob-stories by Matthews was going on in a case which cost the taxpayers many, many thousands of pounds and wasted an enormous amount of police time in the process.

Is there really any hope with this attitude all the time where men are concerned?

I am getting more misogynistic every bloody day.

It is just this willful blindness and misandry in the everyday woman in the street that makes the whole gender culpable. If she were the exception, I could accept that women were lead astray by feminism, but that takes 'agency' away from them.

This woman, as most, is not mentally deficient and quite capable of thinking and assigning responsibility correctly and proportionately, but she chooses not to. She defends a wicked woman and condemns a stupid man because she is a woman too and she is not a man. She identifies with the woman regardless of her wickedness.

well put !!


"" ..so they can still have access to their children..."

new age feminit womyn use this legal leverage to their greater benefit the kids are always her hostages to his fate

or to put it another way "" she has him by the balls """

signed sealed and delivered

if there is a dispute the Family Court will typically settle totally in her favour

there after he is a peonage slave I have heard some men pay 80% of their after tax wages or salary to her in the form of child support and alimony - ain't love grand !!!