An Article That Offended Me

Folks,

As you know, I ride motorcycles. I've always loved them, and I always will. Anyway, there's this picturesque, little town I ride through now & then: High Bridge, NJ. When I first moved to North Jersey a few years ago (it only seems like a few months ago-how time flies), a fellow rider took me on a ride along Rt. 513, which is Main Street through the town. When we stopped at the then local bar & grill, Planet High Bridge, I saw a photocopy of this article affixed to a roofed bulletin board across the street. While waiting for our food, I walked across the street, and read this article. It aroused strong reactions in me, though I didn't know why at the time.

This was right before I found NiceGuy's site. I was in the process of unplugging, but I didn't know what that meant yet. This article, at the end which I'll quote, offended and upset me, though I couldn't articulate WHY at the time. All I knew was that this piece bothered me, much the same way that other, similar articles, TV shows, and commercials bothered me. After I found NG's site, it all made sense. To my regular readers and those who are part of the MRA/MGTOW scene, this will make sense too. To those for whom my objections don't make sense, I'm not talking to you; go jump in a lake!

If you're so inclined, you can go here to read the whole thing. However, I'll only be copying and pasting the last two paragraphs of the piece, since that's the part that got under my skin. If you wish, you can click here to read the bottom of page three, the section I'm quoting and on which I shall comment. Thank you.


-------------------------

Norma Melendez-Galinsky likes High Bridge so much she has moved there twice. Looking for a good school district for her daughter, she and her husband first arrived from Brooklyn in 1995. ''It was farm-y, beautiful and open, and the street where we lived was just wonderful,'' said Ms. Melendez-Galinsky, a lawyer. But by 1998, her husband had tired of the commute to his teaching job in SoHo, and the family moved to a suburb closer to Manhattan.

If you look at the train schedule for the Raritan Valley Line, you'll see that High Bridge is at the END of the line. To view the actual timetable, go to page two; when you get to page 2, look for the part that says, "To Newark/Hoboken/New York" in the Monday-Friday section. Once there, you'll see that it takes almost TWO HOURS to get to NYC via the Raritan Valley Line, followed by the PATH train running between Newark and NYC. You're talking the better part of two hours, one way, just to GET to NYC! That doesn't factor in any subsequent transfers to the MTA to travel to your ultimate destination on Manhattan or one of the outer boroughs; that's just to GET to NYC. By the time you set foot at your end destination in NYC, you're talking TWO HOURS PLUS traveling time-two hours plus!

I know, because I rode the same route (as this woman's poor husband) to attend the International Motorcycle Show in NYC. I took the Raritan Valley Line to Newark, where I caught the PATH train to NYC; once in NYC, I had to take a subway or bus over to the Javits Center, where the motorcycle show was held. Doing this once was bad enough-and that was for a leisure trip! I cannot fathom doing this commute every freakin' day-sheesh. I can't blame the husband for wanting a shorter commute. I know I would've wanted a shorter commute if I had to do this EVERY FREAKIN' DAY.

Also, please note that they say HER daughter, not THEIR daughter! This is important, for it reflects the gender bias in society. Women are seen as having full rights, i.e. owning, the children; men have NO SAY WHATSOEVER when it comes to their kids. I just 'loved' that line-not!

But after three months, unhappy with the schools in their new town and missing the friendly neighbors she had had on Thomas Street in High Bridge, she wrote to all of the residents on the street letting them know she wanted to return and was looking to buy a house in the neighborhood. The next year, she was back living on Thomas Street.

Ah, all was once again right with the world! All was perfect once again! The little lady got what she wanted; she ended up back on the same street where she had lived previously. Never mind the fact that her poor husband, that hapless SOB, had to go back to that CRUSHING, two plus hour commute-and that was one way! That poor SOB spent over FOUR HOURS A DAY commuting-ouch. Hope that piece of ass was worth it, pal. Anyway, what he wanted didn't matter; the fact that he wanted to have a shorter commute (who can blame him?) matters not a whit. All that mattered was that the little woman got what she wanted; all that mattered was that Wifey was back on Thomas Street, and the HELL with him, his wants, his needs, and his desires. Guys, if you're dumb enough to get married, THIS is what you're signing up for...

BTW, isn't it interesting that we NEVER, ever, ever learn the husband's name in the piece? Isn't it interesting how he's mentioned almost as an afterthought? To me, it shows you where men rank in terms of priorities if they're dumb enough to get married. Long before I unplugged, long before I knew what MRA or MGTOW were, I saw this sort of thing; I saw how men are viewed and treated in marriage. You know what? That alone was enough to almost totally turn me off to marriage. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: though I'm not perfect, I'm a decent guy. As such, I deserve BETTER than this! If this is what marriage entails, then you can keep it, thank you very much.

THIS was the part of the article that really frosted me! This was the part that upset me in ways that I couldn't put into words when I originally read this piece as I passed through High Bridge, NJ years ago. Again, this was right before I found NG's site and the Mancoat forum, so I hadn't begun my deprogramming from feminism. Though I couldn't put my feelings into words at the time when I first read this a few years ago, I knew that the underlying train of thought and assumptions made offended me greatly. When I tried to share my feelings with my riding buddy, he just said that that's the way it is if you get married. I told him that, if that is what marriage entails for me as a man, then I do NOT want any! Being single himself (how else could he have multiple bikes in his stable?), he understood... ;)

BTW, I shouldn't have been surprised at the bias of the article. The article appears under the byline of Julia Lawlor, a woman. No wonder it's gynocentric in its focus! As a woman, this is how things ought to be as far as she's concerned! I've said it before, and I'll say it again: women talk too much, revealing more than they think. That's ok though, because they warn unsuspecting men about what they're REALLY like, and what marriage to them would be like. Keep it up, Ladies; we thank you for your service to men!

It was because of seeing stuff like this for years that turned me off to marriage. What Hubby wants doesn't matter; all that matters is what Wifey wants. That's the zeitgeist in society today; this is what men are in for should they say "I do". If you don't believe me, then go to the WE Channel's website, and watch some Bridezilla clips. You could also go to the HGTV channel's website, and watch some videos of the show, "House Hunters", and you'll see what I'm talking about. It's always about what Wifey wants; Hubby's there as some sort of afterthought-and to PAY for it all, of course. But, he's a MAN, so he doens't have any rights, right?

Back in the day, prior to feminism and the no fault divorce laws that they jammed down our throats, men & women received both benefits and burdens when they married. Back in the day, going from being a single person to married person involved meaningful tradeoffs, tradeoffs that both husband and wife had to make. Both men & women gave up something to get married, and both got something out of marriage. IOW, it was a fair trade for BOTH parties. Now, it's only the woman who derives any benefit from marriage; truth be told, she gets ALL the benefits nowadays. Men get no benefits from marriage; we have no rights, only responsibilities. Sorry, but I don't find that to be a fair & just tradeoff, so I'll avoid marriage, thank you very much. Besides, you strong, independent, empowered women don't need no stinkin' man, so it works out for everyone concerned, hehehe...

In closing, this article brought to the fore all my emotions concerning marriage. This article angered and upset me when I first read it on that motorcycle ride years ago. Soon thereafter, I found NiceGuy's site, and things started making sense; I finished unplugging from the matrix when I found his site and forum. Truth be told though, it was articles like THIS that provided the initial impetus to avoid marriage, and to unplug. Without realizing it, reading and seeing things like this prompted me to start unplugging, even before I knew what that meant. So, to the ladies out there, just keep it up; just keep up your man bashing. As you do, more and more men will do like I did; they too will realize that marriage offers NOTHING to them, and they too will avoid it. But that's ok; you're strong, independent, empowered women who don't NEED no stinkin' man! Hope your careers keep you warm at night, Ladies-ha! I'm out of here, and with that, I shall wish my readers a good day...

MarkyMark