An interesting, although somewhat simplistic, view on marriage written by NewlySingle on the mabtw forum.
http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com...about4549.html

---

Hi All,
I was thinking overnight and had some thoughts to share with young men who were willing to listen and consider my experiences. Up to you.

Some women tell me (and even some 'men') that I sound very 'bitter' and all I need is a 'good women' to help me heal. They tell me "they are not all like that". They tell me "the next one might be good"...You name it, people are doing their damndest to get me to jump on the next hook!!!

Here are some facts that you might want to think about.

For the last 100,000 years....or maybe even longer, up until 1945, the survival of the group, be it a family, a small communal group, a village, a town, a state or a country, depended directly up the number of young men who could be pressed into battle.

That's right, for the last 100,000 years the survival of the group was answered by the question "how many men can be pressed into battle."

Sometimes small technology edges or better tactics swayed the outcome of the war. Sometimes, races that did not advance their weapons quickly enough were all but wiped out due to inferior weapons. The Australian Aboriginals, the Incas, the American Indians, most African countries.....these were all conquered by the Europeans because of superior weapons rather than superior numbers.

But in the European Wars until 1945 it was the number of young men who could be pressed into battle that decided the issue because there was relative parity in the weapons among the European countries.

So, old men, yes men, modifying political and social systems in secret or at least very quietly knew that it was their solemn duty to their heirs to create institutions and 'norms' that encouraged the highest possible birth rates. Survival of the group depended on it. And they were right to do so.

So marriage was mandated in almost all western countries, and the Catholics got it the 'most right' with their 'no contraception' rule. The woman had no function other than to produce as many babies as possible and look after them until she died.

Men had the function of protecting the group and providing for the group because we are good at that from our last 100,000 years of practice. The old men made damn sure that no woman would leave her husband by making damn sure there was no way she could survive if she did so. Women got the husband they got, and got lots of babies, and were taken care of. If the husband abused her the other husbands would generally kick his arse or he would get drafted into the army to be used as cannon fodder.....

And so life was well 'balanced'....though also pretty harsh and short....Women never loved their husbands, they had to stick with them to get 'babies and money' and they had nothing else to do and nowhere else to go anyway and so they were 'satisfied' with their lot reportedly.

Men lived short lives dying of disease and war in their millions and were 'satisfied' with their lot reportedly.

After all, in either case there was no point bitching because things were not going to get better in their lifetimes......and it didn't.....it was as simple as that.....

As I said..this went on for 100,000 years...but if you look at the last 200 years you can see how clearly it was the role of the women to produce babies to fight wars (boys) and have more babies (girls). Having babies was the 'nuclear arms race' up until 1945...

Even Adolf Hitler eased marriage laws so that women could have more babies with more men as quickly as possible. A new soldier takes 18 years to make....it's a very slow growing weapon.

So, to blame women for wanting 'babies and money' is like blaming a dog for liking a bone. It's what they have liked and done for 100,000 years and it is bred into them and re-enforced by ALL the social norms including language, books, movies, family histories. You name it. And it was done from necessity.....

Women are given dolls at a young aged and taught to 'play mummy'.

So, I for one do not blame them for wanting 'babies and money'.....my wife still plays with dolls houses and dolls. If you think you can get a 'career woman' who does not want 'babies and money' you are stupid. That is the same as saying "I think I can get a cat that is a dog." You can't.

A cat is a cat and a dog is a dog. A woman is a woman and a man is a man. They are not the same...they are not equal. No matter how much a cat claims to be a dog, it is not.

No matter how much a woman claims to be a man, she is not.

We make great mistakes when we assign 'manly' attributes to women like 'honesty'. They aren't. They have never, ever needed to be 'honest' in the last 100,000 years, why would they start now?

Something else to be really clear on. For the last 100,000 years, men have been the 'most disposable' member of society and the most easily replaced. That is why the cry on the titanic was 'Women and children first'. One man can impregnate many women, but a woman usually only has one baby at a time.

Whether we like it or not 'society says' that a man is the most disposable member which is why in a divorce the man is 'disposable' and everything he has goes to the women and kids. When she cries for 'divorce' he should hear 'titanic'.

So, what happened in 1945 to upset this 'balance'?

Three things.

1. Manufacturing capacity.
With WWII Russia and the USA built factories to produce arms all through the early 1940s...with the number of factories buit and the volume of weaponry they could turn out, for the first time, manufacturing capacity started to outweigh number of men as the deciding factor in war. Sure, the Germans also ran out of men, but the Japanese didn't. By the end of the war boys as young as 12 and men over 65 were pressed into service by the Germans....and they had almost nothing in the way of weapons. The Japanese had many men but nothing in the way of weapons.

2. Nuclear Weapons.
For the first time, ever, in the history of man, the number of men that could be pressed into service was irrelevant. With Nuclear weapons the balance had swung completely to the favour of technology. No matter how many men you have, if the other side nukes you they don't count, they are all dead.

3. Advances in Medicine.
Remember that in 1900 we had 1B people on the planet and in 2000 we had 7B people on the planet. Most of that growth coming in the second half of the century due to reductions in deaths by war and disease.


What happened next?

Because women worked in the factories in WWII they got the idea they might like financial independence from men and have jobs....and since men had given them the vote there was not stopping 'women's equality'......it was just a matter of time.

And since they had the vote and were allowed into governments it was only a matter of time until they started getting divorce laws changes so that there was something else for a woman to do other than have babies and then die.

For some reason, stupid as it was, women decided having a 'career' sounded like a good idea....people always think the grass is greener on the other side....personally I think staying at home with the kids is wwwaaayyyyy easier than working for a living.

And pretty soon, women were writing the 'Family Law'.....but they did not write it in 'isolation'.....as with any group that perceives itself to have been 'disadvantaged'....they stacked the rules in their favour.....They denounced any politician who tried to right the balance a bit as a 'male chauvinist pig' so women would not vote for him and he would lose his political office....

Remember, women do not recognise that men dying in their millions to protect them and the children were in fact the 'disadvantaged' members of society....they think they were 'disadvantaged' because they didn't have a job...yes, they are that f***ing self centered....they do not appreciate a man who will fight and die for them.......

So, you think you can 'impress a women' or 'gain a woman's respect'? No. Not even if you fight and die for her....ask the poor f***ers in Iraq today who's woman divorces his or girl leaves him while he is doing his duty.....No woman now will give a man respect for anything he does....

In stacking the rules of Family Law women, sly cats they are, used the social norms, morals, and plain manliness of men, to stack the laws......the talked about the 'little kiddies' and how they need to be protected and men bought it because it had been so ingrained in them for 100,000 years....and they played up the incidence of 'bad husbands' and they played up the incidences of how 'women need to be protected'...

Indeed, they used every sly trick in the book to manipulate the honourable intentions of men to strip future generations of their manly power and rights.....

And this is where we are now.....Family Law strips a man of his power and rights as soon as the baby arrives.....two babies and you are really screwed.....

Getting married and having two babies is like buying tickets on the titanic...it is going to go down and the cry will be 'women and children first'.

And men, we did this to ourselves......men gave women the vote, and the Family Law we have today was inevitable from the time women got the vote....

All you need to remember is...you do not HAVE to buy a ticket on the titanic.

And because of all this history, and because of all these laws, you have no chance of getting a decent woman today. Women who grew up in WWII know how hard it was and they were grateful to have a man look after them....this is my mums generation......

Women who were born after 1950? They have no idea how hard it used to be and they are given jobs and money, even though they are terrible at them, and told they are 'equal' and told they are 'entitled' to whatever they want.

'Women's Liberation' has created two generations of totally self interested women. There are no women like there were in the first half of 1900s because they do not need to be like that any more. It's as simple as that.

And, if history is anything to go by, it will take a couple of generations for all this to sort out.....We do not need 'more babies' for the survival of the group any more.....and so all the old 'norms' have become redundant...indeed, if we keep having babies at the rate we are going they will actually threaten the survival of the group.....

So, young guys, as you think about whether you want to marry a woman and have babies....remember, you are being suckered in by your 100,000 years of 'manly' history...your desire to 'be honest', have integrity, be honourable, protect the woman you love, give her what she needs, your desire for children......all these things are conspiring to convince you that getting married and having babies is what you SHOULD do......

And before 1945, for the sake of the broader group, it was what you SHOULD do...this is why these desires and feelings are so strong in young men....and were in me and still are by the way....for 100,000 years we have been programmed this is what we SHOULD do for the survival of the group.

Today, all that you are doing is buying your ticket on the titanic......having babies makes you the 21st century equivalent of 'cannot fodder' in WWI....and millions of guys died as 'cannon fodder' in WWI....and if you do not know what I mean by that then google it...

So, this is my long winded way of saying....do not blame a woman for being a woman...they have always been self interested, they have 100,000 years of being told their role in life is to do whatever it takes to get babies......only now they have such laws behind them that they can ruin a man by their choice....don't forget...men used to get much more ruined fighting and dying in wars by they way...

If you want to have a woman like the 'old days' move to Russia, China or Brasil.....the family laws there are still the old way.....as in kick the bitch out and get a new one....and in china there is the one child policy.......and their legal systems are so chaotic that they cannot make anyone do anything.....

But if you want to live in the west....just do not get married and do not have kids with the woman you love......

I hope this 'less emotional' and 'more logical' rendering is also 'persuasive'...I do not propose to you that you do not get married or not have babies with the woman you love from 'bitterness'....it is merely the inevitable result of the last 100 years that women have risen to complete power once the babies arrive.....

Man, tell this dude to to get off the sauce... writing while drunk is no bueno!

I guess he's trying, but he misses a whole world of the ideas that have created this mess.

It's just a regular guy trying to make sense of the world he lives in. He does have some good points.

I get it. He does... poor guy...

Andrea Dworkin has been reincarnated with a dick. And it is up his arse.

"Women are given dolls at a young aged and taught to 'play mummy'."

Oh and it is so wicked. They should have been given toy tractors.

Your damn right! She needs a Bulldozer and a Dumptruck 3rd birthday to teach her what work really is. The 4th birthday, we throw in the shovel and send her to trench the yard.

Something wrong with that?!?

Andrea Dworkin is feminism incarnate other feminit wimin think like her but some have a pretty face and weigh about 200kg less

no matter what they look like odds on they will sort youse out in the Family Court sooner or later

if youse sign their peonage contract your gambling with disaster

Interesting article.

This can be rectified with tube-child clinics. Technology has provided a alternative and by en large replaced labour that was once the task of horses, oxen, mules, donkeys and so technology will inevitably provide a alternative for natural pregnancy (tube-child clinics).

And that doesn't make it right or reasonable. Since we can clearly identify the problem that makes it a lot easier to solve it.

The current situation in the west where women have a monopoly on reproduction and offspring can't last.