13 April 2013

I Am NOT A Hypocrite

Guys,

Some time ago, I mentioned the blog, Feminine Mystique.  Edita, the site's hostess, has called me a hypocrite more than once because I support traditional patriarchy while telling men to eschew marriage.  Though I understand why she says that, I disagree.  I don't believe I'm a hypocrite, and here's why...

I do think that traditional marriage and families are best; history has shown that, beyond a doubt, that patriarchy is best for men, women, and children.  Back when patriarchal families were the norm in America, the big problems in our schools were chewing gum, running in the hallways, and talking in class; now, they're rape, robbery, murder, extortion, drug use, etc.  What society would YOU prefer to live in?  I know, and I rest my case!

However, given the realities of Marriage 2.0 and all that goes with it, I cannot, in good conscience, recommend a man marry-not when he can LITERALLY have his life destroyed.  Even if he marries someone who seems to be a good, traditional girl, she could befriend a feminist, who fills her head with all sorts of garbage.  She could end up turning on her husband, and destroy him in a nasty divorce as a result.

I know that, if men and women don't marry, then they don't form families; if they don't form families, then they have given in to those who would destroy the family for their own, nefarious ends.  In a sense, folks who avoid marriage are handing our culture's enemies a victory.  I get that.

For me, it's analogous to the the impact of individual vs. collective response to an economic downturn.  When the economy is bad, it makes sense on an individual level to cut back; after all, since you don't know if you'll have your job next week, you hang on to money 'just in case'.  However, when that sensible, individual decision is multiplied by millions of people, the situation is made worse because 2/3 of our economic activity is dependent on consumer spending.  When millions of individual consumers stop spending, the economy gets worse.  What makes sense individually can be bad collectively.  For me, the conundrum of marriage is like that.

So, what's the answer?  I don't know.  I am, on one hand, thankful to see women, even non-religious ones, seeking a return to a patriarchal lifestyle; whenever I see that, I'll lend my support.  My sister in law is now home with my nieces, and I encourage her whenever I can.  However, after having spent a day in family court (when I was falsely accused back in the 1990s), I saw guys get DESTROYED; the judge ruled in favor of women all day long!  I saw the same thing in real life too; I've known guys who couldn't take proper care of themselves, simply because their child support payments were too onerous.  I guess, in closing, if one is going to marry, be VERY careful about it!  However, the safest way to prevent ruination of one's life is to avoid the institution in the first place.  Thank you, and good day...

MarkyMark
Posted by at

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course you're not a hypocrite,bro. She's a woman. She just hurls words with social stigma attached to them without having any conception of their significance.

"Hypocrite","racist","rapist","abuser","child molester". None of these words mean any particular thing to a woman. All she knows is that they are hurtful things to say and they cause people to shut up.

It is not hypocritical to advocate for a practice while acknowledging its dangers.

That is called "responsibility",a characteristic that is common in males. It means you're a healthy man.

Air travel is the safest kind of travel there is. It doesn't make the airlines hypocrites when they announce this fact, just because they keep life rafts and parachutes on board. They are sensible, for no airline could reasonably operate were every contingency not prepared and provided for.

When you support traditional marriage as the foundation of the family and society,but announce that it is dangerous and should be avoided just now,with the environment as it is,is similar to the cautionary warnings put out by airlines. Just because you say it is dangerous to do something RIGHT NOW is not to condemn the practice in every instance and circumstance,any more than an airline grounding a fleet because of an impending ice storm is closing down its business for good and declaring aviation in general to be unsafe. Edita is a woman. Her reasoning is stupid, sophomoric,shabby, and shallow. The 4 "S's" of female "logic".

A man would feel ashamed of presenting such a low,base,and specious argument,as it would reflect badly on his judgment and character.

13 April, 2013 16:23
Anonymous said...

"However, the safest way to prevent ruination of one's life is to avoid the institution in the first place."

One issue here is women don't see a man's life as having an intrinsic value on its own. The fact that you may be concerned about your own life, your own well-being, financial and otherwise is just unacceptable. You are their sacrificial lamb and your existence is to serve them. This is completely backwards from the bible, but that is where we are at.
The women these days don't like it that men have their own autonomy and that they are breaking free of the puppet strings they use to control.

I want to see women for once have no concern for their own life, for their own financial prosperity via a man and see how that settles.

13 April, 2013 17:42
Zorro said...

Unmaskingfeminism is right (and so is Howard Johnson!). Women refuse to believe a man has a life of his own outside of the bonds of a heterosexual relationship. Read Susan Patton's letter to The Princetonian (the one the fembots all screamed about and was recently reprinted in the Wall Street Journal). Even Patton seethes with female privilege and entitlement. Women of Princeton are just sooooooooooooooooooo fantastic that there are few men worthy of them. The woman is a f*cking monument to hypergamy-run-amok.

PS: If you read the WSJ article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324020504578394791283850654.html

...you will see that it actually has to tell its readers what Auschwitz was!!! Like readers of the WSJ might mistake the most notorious concentration camp of WW2 for "Auschwitz," the fast food restaurant in Buenos Aires, or maybe "Auschwitz" the great new dog food made with 100% ground gazelle meat.

Once a paper gains a female readership, its collective intelligence goes straight into the toilet.

13 April, 2013 20:47
just visiting said...

I want to see women for once have no concern for their own life, for their own financial prosperity via a man and see how that settles.

No thanks, there's enough baby mama's doing exactly that with thugs.

Female MRA rhetoric is exactly like feminism. Case in point,your words with one small change....

One issue here is men don't see a woman's life as having an intrinsic value on its own. The fact that you may be concerned about your own life, your own well-being, financial and otherwise is just unacceptable. You are their sacrificial lamb and your existence is to serve them.
The men these days don't like it that women have their own autonomy and that they are breaking free of the puppet strings they use to control.

Dang Laura. you could be Gloria Steinem. Just cut and paste from the play book. Literally.

13 April, 2013 21:19
MarkyMark said...

JV,

I think everyone sees a woman's life having value; the problem is that the same isn't true for men.

You're right about the baby mamas with thugs though.

As for women being concerned with a guy's finances, I can understand that and I get it; a guy has to uphold his end of the bargain, as it were. The problem under Marriage 2.0 is that a woman is NOT held to the same standard; she, unlike the man, is not held to her end of the bargain, e.g. keeping house, being faithful, satisfying her man, etc. How is it fair when men are held to their end of the social contract, yet women are not? THAT is what I object to, not the fact that women seek out certain things in a mate. It's the double standard to which I object.

Anyway, thanks for stopping by! Please come back again... :)

MarkyMark

13 April, 2013 23:20
just visiting said...

Agreed. Far too many women are not holding up their end. But the women have one thing that the earlier generations of indoctorined women didn't have. The internet. It may well be the game changer.

I also understand your stance on marriage. My take is different than yours in that I think that putting out a different message than what society and media are feeding women will engage them. I also think that if you change the culture the laws will follow.

Anyhow, thanks for letting me comment :)

14 April, 2013 00:10
Sophia said...

Double standards like the ones you mention (and more) are going to cause the collapse of Western society. Every life...male, female, intersexed, or trans...has value. This value is not measured by your amount of income, your looks, etc. Your value comes from being a thinking, feeling, living creature.

Why do people make things so complicated?

14 April, 2013 00:32
Jim said...

Marriage is for gays.

14 April, 2013 08:44
Anonymous said...

I'm confused. Please help a stupid "feminist" out. How is that like Miss Gloria?

14 April, 2013 08:52
MarkyMark said...

JV,

I'll let pretty much any comment go, just so long as it isn't gratuitously personal. I have a line that, while I cannot articulate it, when crossed will result in rejection of a comment. You're polite and respectful, so I'll publish your thoughts all day long...

I'm glad you understand where I'm coming from. As I've stated before, I am conflicted on this; what makes sense individually is bad on a societal level.

I think you may have something about changing the culture. The Muslims are literally changing the world, yet they're doing so without firing a shot. What are they doing? They're simply OUTREPRODUCING everyone; they're having more babies than the native populations that they're displacing in the Western world. They say that the future does belongs to those who show up for it, and you can't show up for it if you were never born in the first place...

MGTOW (men going their own way) have the same idea (change the culture), but our method is different.

MGTOW, which is what I am, are trying to affect changes in the culture, albeit in a different manner. Since society goes the way women do, we MGTOW are hoping that, by depriving women of what most of them want (marriage and family at the end of the day), that they'll get angry enough to pressure gov't officials to make changes that make marriage and family a more palatable proposition for men once again. The fact that we're seeing a spate of 'where are the good men?' stories is proof that we're having an effect.

This isn't a movement, per se. MGTOW is the collective result of millions of individual decisions made by men themselves. Since it's leaderless and directionless (i.e. no movement leader calling the shots), we cannot be infiltrated or taken over like the civil rights movement of fifty years ago was; what started out as an honorable movement with good aims was taken over by Marxist statists. MGTOW cannot suffer a similar fate, because we are NOT a movement in the traditional sense.

The Internet IS a game changer, big time. That's why there are covert moves in all Western governments to bring it under control; can't have any thoughts contrary to the Marxist, PC orthodoxy now, can we? Hopefully, these efforts will fail, so that more sensible souls can prevail. I do NOT want to live in some Marxist, PC utopia-ugghh! We have enough of it here already, and that's quite enough.

I have to get breakfast now, so I shall wish you a good day...

MarkyMark

14 April, 2013 08:55
Sombro said...

As i've said elsewhere, I'm convinced the worst thing in the world is trying to be the responsible adult man while your ability to do that is predicated on violating your own ethics.

14 April, 2013 15:11
Anonymous said...

" Every life...male, female, intersexed, or trans...has value."

Let's get something straight. There are TWO sexes of human beings. Exactly TWO. Not 3,not 4, not as many as you can imagine. Just two. There is no such thing as a "transsexual". Cutting off your penis and getting breast implants while ingesting female hormones is not "transcending" ANYTHING in the textbook sense. Every cell of a "trans" individual's body still has the original male or female chromosomes it was born with. 1000 years from now,when investigators find their bones in a field somewhere and do a blood workup from whatever DNA they can scavenge, regardless of what the individual's mental illness tells them about their sexual identity, the laboratory that examines their remains will tell the truth. TRUTH transcends political fiction,in a very REAL sense.

Therefore, a "transsexual" is not "over",is not "above",is not "beyond" sex at all. They are still, in the end, every bit as bound to the sex they were born with as those of us who are mentally well-adjusted.

"Intersexed",by which I understand you to mean "hermaphroditic" individuals are genetic mutants. There is no more significance in their mutation than those who are born with multiple heads or extra arms and legs. They are not a separate group of humans,or a sex of their own, they are an attempt at a man or woman that went wrong. Just like the Elephant Man.

Note that I am NOT saying that either "transsexuals" (mentally-ill self mutilators) or "intersexed" individuals (genetic mistakes) are not human or deserve to be relegated to a lower status in society than the rest of us,based on their illness or deformity. Far from it. But in the case of the "transsexual",to credit their delusions is to succumb to them yourself. They have an excuse. They are mentally-ill and cannot help imagining themselves as a member of the opposite sex. You have no excuse whatever. In the case of the hermaphrodite,to call them a sex of their own is to do an injustice to science itself. They are no more a sex than the deformed children of victims of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi gas attacks are a new taxonomy of human being. The idea is fucking ludicrous.

14 April, 2013 18:36
Anonymous said...

"I'm confused. Please help a stupid "feminist" out. How is that like Miss Gloria?"

It's not. While the arguments you use can be made to appear to be a feminist formulation by swapping the sexes,and in a specious,sophomoric manner, appears to be entirely accurate, just visiting forgets or perhaps entirely refuses to acknowledge that the original feminist arguments were themselves the product of projection.

Hence, a woman who was afraid (both for her career and maybe for her physical safety,such is the nature of their prejudice against men) of all the competent male competitors she faced would retort,over and over, "You're afraid of strong,independent,empowered women!" Of course this wasn't the case. Nobody is afraid of any type of woman in a financial or physical sense. Not even other women. Everyone is afraid of strong men,even other men. The 70's feminist was attributing her fears to the men around her,who were actually put of by the woman's insufferable bitchiness and schoolmarm-like demeanor.

Hence, projection.

Therefore,logically, if the arguments were originally false because they were projections of women's fears applied to men, when the same arguments are turned against women, there is a high likelihood (but not a concrete certainty), that they are now CORRECT.

Just Visting's comment is actually closer to the argumentation of feminists here,because it is predicated on specious reasoning that appears outwardly to be correct,but quickly falls apart when the structural underpinnings of the argument are examined with any real scrutiny.

Not that I accuse Just Visiting of harboring any feminist sentiments or sympathy for the same.I believe we are above that here.

That the arguments used by female mra's are similar to feminist arguments should not be surprising at all,given the amount of overlap we've observed in women. If both arguments are generated by a woman, they will necessarily be similar,for true individuality in women is almost entirely absent. Secondly, women argue on the basis of things that are important mainly or entirely to women. The only thing that dissuades them from undertaking a certain action is how it will affect their marriage prospects,social standing, will it make them more attractive to the opposite sex, or the same sex,in cases of homosexuals.

If they attempted to argue other women into supporting their positions based on abstract notions of justice,utilitarianism,morality,ethics, and such,it would be as if another man you were in conversation with suddenly broke out into cadences of Ancient Egyptian words and phrases. It wouldn't be very convincing because you'd have no idea what he was talking about.

The important thing to remember is that if the original feminist arguments were projection when applied to men,and I'll leave you to seek out the mountains of evidence for that position and weigh the matter in your own mind, when applied to women it is likely that they are an accurate description of the facts,and even if they aren't,it's unlikely that any other form of argumentation will arrest their fruit fly-like attention spans.

14 April, 2013 19:08
Sophia said...

The fact that you read my comment and chose to single out this tiny portion of it speaks volumes. Thank you for proving that people enjoy making things more complicated than they have to be.

By the way, who says that a man who elects to like as a woman or a woman who is more comfortable as a man, is "transcending" anything at all? The Latin prefix "trans" is usually used to mean "across" or "opposite from"...therefore Transexual = Across Sexes.

You are correct that intersexed people are not a sex unto themselves. After all, there are too many variations to classify them as such. Some are even genetic chimeras, so you could technically say they are "two in one". I simply included them (as well as transsexuals) because it is a designation that has been, and still is, used to discriminate against our fellow humans...much like how certain groups discriminate against typical women and men.

Do you understand now?

14 April, 2013 21:59
Anonymous said...

"therefore Transexual = Across Sexes."

Lol. Proves my point quite well. To be "across the sexes" is to straddle both of them, or in other words, to "transcend" the sex you were born into.

It's impossible.

I feel for these people,I really do,but they are delusional.I'm not interested in furthering any kind of discrimination against them, but I refuse to delude myself into believing something is true, when I can logically prove that it is false. I'm not interested in abusing my sanity by practicing doublethink for the sake of political correctness when my reward for doing so is to be spat upon and called an oppressor anyway.

I'll take your indignation at me for being an "insensitive asshole" instead. Because honestly, I don't really give a fuck what you believe about me.

Hell, with a snazzy little ad campaign and a few celebrities pimping my cause I could probably have your conformist little ass duckspeaking my praises too.

15 April, 2013 02:09
Anonymous said...

Thanks for rebuttal to sophie anon.

I get so weary of those who promote the deviants on a pro-mens site.

Next up is the men raype speech.

%98 of the population is NORMAL, we do not have to be force to 'swallow the sin' of the deviant %2,no matter how much they insist we have to.

It should still be in the DVM manual.
(Unlike oppositional disorder syndrome)

So a big 1 finger salute to the enforcers of the Agenda and Narrative spewers.

What part of NO do you do not understand?

15 April, 2013 07:46
Doc said...

Remember calling someone something; racist, hypocrite, etc... it the left's way of trying to shut you up about something that they cannot argue in favor of for appearing to be too self-serving. So instead they call you a name - of course in this case it's the Feminazi's but that is the same thing - they both are pushing failed agenda's that cannot stand up to scrutiny.

And I tend to agree that while marriage as it was was a good deal for men, today as it stands it certainly isn't. It's like with everything - something that was a good idea has been warped and destroyed by the left, be it marriage, taxes, or education - it really doesn't matter. At the heart all of those groups are about destroying what works so they can insert their idea of utopia - which cannot work, for a simple reason, it is so lopsided that people will not play that game.

So marriage has become so lopsided and against men that you would have to be insane to enter into it. Instead it is much better to use things to benefit yourself - I am the living example of that, I can see the crumbling and use it to my advantage. Be it young women, or the government it doesn't matter - I will use it to my advantage while it falls. Hopefully, I hurry it along while enjoying it.

So while I love women, I do not make the mistake of ever giving them power over me or allowing them to mean more than pleasure to me. To do more, buys into their destructive influence - so enjoy them and everything they have to offer, but NEVER go down the road they want you to - that way lies destruction.

15 April, 2013 19:31
Sophia said...

I would still argue that they are not "transcending" anything...to do so would mean to "go beyond" and usually imparts some sort of superior connotation. A man who lives as a woman, or a woman who lives as a man has not become superior. They have simply chosen to live as they feel they should. I feel badly for them, to be born into what seems to be the wrong sex. I myself have an unmistakably female body, but am masculine in my thinking, reasoning and emotions. I however, like my body, so have no issues.

I don't feel that you *should* be condemned for your views. I may not agree with them, but we have our right to Freedom of Speech. Disagreeing with what is PC is nothing like yelling "fire!"in a crowded theater...it should not be treated as such. Everyone is free to have their own opinions, you and I included.

As for any "indignation", I have no idea were I come off as such. Certainly it was not my intent to, as I presented my argument as rationally as possible given the topic. I also never called you an "insensitive asshole". That is crude, shameful language unbefitting our discussion, and I'd appreciate you not putting any further words in my mouth.

Why should you care what I think? I'm a random stranger on the internet. Our paths will most likely never cross, and neither of us will have to converse with the other outside of these comments. I was simply having a discussion...you are free to blow off responding at any time. It happens on blogs all the time, and I'll not lose any sleep over this myself.

I did chuckle at your last paragraph though. Do you truly think I'd swallow Feminist propaganda like that? You have no idea how much I loathe this modern wave of it, and it's blatant double speak, female superiority over equality, and harsh standards that you men are held to. I do not have a "comformist little ass" at all...I'm for true equality, and I think for myself. Hell, I'm not even a Christian, unlike 82% of Americans. Also..."duckspeaking"? What in the world is THAT? I've never heard that particular colloquialism before...

Anyway, respond if you wish...or don't. It's entirely up to you. I will say that, despite the tone you've taken with me, I do hope you have a good day.

16 April, 2013 01:04
Sophia said...

Personally, I always have trouble with the "N". Lol

16 April, 2013 01:06
Sophia said...

"I can see the crumbling..."

Hence why I will also never marry or have children. It is too risky in this age of Feminist thought. I'd be afraid for my sons, and afraid of my daughters.

Luckily, my boyfriend of 7.5 years also doesn't want marriage or children...and I live alone, so the government cannot force us into "common law". It's better for both of us this way.

It is wise to not have destructive people how power over you, at least we agree on that much.

16 April, 2013 01:12
Mrs. Anna T said...

I don't think you are a hypocrite. After reading even a few posts on your blog, it's clear that you're in favor of marriage, but don't see how it would work out in the modern world.

While I DO believe it's possible (although harder) to marry, and marry well, today, I understand your point of view.

The secret to finding a good life partner is to A) get your priorities straight, and B) FILTER. And that's not being picky; when I say priorities I don't mean "they must look in such and such way" or "must share my hobbies" but the big stuff. My husband and I discussed homeschooling our future kids on our third date. Some may think it's crazy, but I say it's important to get that stuff clear and straight early on in the relationship, to avoid wasting time on something clearly unsuitable.

16 April, 2013 01:39
Roy said...

MM if you are a hypocrite than our Singaporean government are pure white lilies.
This Edita POS is, IMHO, just indulging in her usual spate of hamsterbation and solipsism.
I have supported your writings, I will continue to support your writings; alas rather sporadically these days :(

16 April, 2013 08:55
Mrs. Anna T said...

Off-topic post... you don't have to publish this if you don't want to, but I thought you'd enjoy this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qghZ2ao7GKM&feature=youtu.be

http://www.simplesolarhomesteading.com/

I saw some videos by this guy, and was impressed not only by his lovely sustainable little home, but also by his character: strong, independent, free-thinking, self-reliant (reminds me of my husband). Incidentally, he is also single (though he said he does have a girlfriend who visits him on weekends). The problem is that most women (more than men, IMHO) are very hung up on social status and want a man who will be a slave to the system, get up to his ears in debt/mortgage, and have the big house and all the Nice Things. Most women aren't willing to rough it a little in order to live debt-free and independently... overlooking the fact that living this way is a direct investment in the future of their children, economically and in the way of building character.

That is why Real Men, men who are self-sustainable and appreciate their independence, freedom, peace of mind and lack of debt, often (sadly) choose to remain single.

17 April, 2013 05:28
Anonymous said...

Arianna Pattek, a racist, man-hating feminist bitch
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums2/tabid/369/forumid/232/threadid/6149/scope/posts/Default.aspx

In the above link, you will find evidence of her committing the CRIME of discrimination based on a man's race.

I have included her personal email, the email of her academic advisor, link to her Facebook account, link to her two blogs, and her pictures as well.

I suggest you men write to her through her email, Facebook, and blogs, and tell her that you are reporting her for the CRIME of discrimination against men.

American women are really evil bitches.

17 April, 2013 23:38
Rmaxd said...

This is what a MHRA looks like ...


http://thisiswhymgtow.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/is-kristina-hansen-even-mra.html#comment-form

18 April, 2013 15:02
dannyfrom504 said...

never getting married. EVER. it's just too big a risk.

19 April, 2013 15:20
Anonsquared said...

I just heard a guy go on and on about how his marriage to a foreign woman was only about her getting a greencard and then getting overrun by her for the rest of the marriage once she learned how to speak English. It's not only about chosing wisely, marriage is also about treating the other partner well at all times. If you can't treat someone well, then please do not marry.

23 April, 2013 23:58

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)