Yes it is. The rest of it is social and political.
To argue legal aspects of marriage is largely missing the point.
To argue the point now is like trying to arrange a World Cup tournament two days after Spain have already won it.
And yet, here they are, the feminists, back to attempt a reclaimer over an institution that they have fought for years to reject. And after they get what the wanted, they want the other thing back along with all of their superior rights.
Oh, you didn't know? Dr Smith is a self proclaimed feminist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf0W5v7Y6fQ
This interview is the most interesting one, we will come back to it later:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTSeCiSBduA
This is alongside other feminists of course, like Suzanne Venker. Her interview with Red Ice:
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/20 ... 130830.php
They all seem to be saying the same thing. That women want to marry and that
men don't. The reason for this is because men don't have legal rights in divorce and are portrayed badly in the media. Those are the only cited reasons.
Let's take a quick look at history shall we?
Marriage is generally considered to have originated from religion. Here is what the Bible says:
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee.
Genesis 3:16
Feminists, for a very long, time have been fighting this ideology. Stated by Ann Oakley (1974)
Not only is the division of labour by sex not universal, but there is no reason why it should be. Human cultures are diverse and endlessly variable. They owe their creation to human inventiveness rather than invincible biological forces.
Oakley argued scathingly against the biological ideas that women's role in society was biologically pre-determined and argued against John Bowlby's (1953) study where he found that juvenile delinquents were psychologically affected quite significantly if they did not have the attention of a mother during their early developmental stage. What he was saying here is that a child needed its mother.
Oakley disagreed. She cited the Mbuti Pygmies from Congo who had no sexual division of labour and shared equal responsibility for children and hunting along with other indigenous cultures such as the Aboringines of Tasmania whose women were responsible for seal hunting. Oakley argued that any commenters in relation to favouring women as child rearers or wives were basing their ideas from their own culture and therefore all arguments in its favour were bias.
Oakley wasn't the only feminist.
Delphy and Leonard (1992) said that the family is a patriarchal and hierarchical institution where men are the head of the household and women are exploited and used for their own advantages. They also claimed that women wanted to escape from this oppression but can't because of the way society is set up.
Purdy (1997) stated that the reason why women are held back in society is because they have the unfortunate disadvantage of being birth-givers and as such, called for a
baby strike. Only then, she felt, would men sit up, take notice and give women their equality.
Ortner (1974) whose work states that it's not the fault of women's biology that holds them back, it is the culture in which they are raised and in order for women to achieve equality, the culture must change.
Other feminists have argued that that women have been oppressed in the form of a sexual cartel. That the point of the woman's existence was for corporations. Basically put, men go out to work and come home where they are relived sexually by their wives so that they can go back out to work again the next day for their bosses. This theory can easily be seen as an attack on corporation but it must be noted that the assumption here is that men are using the women for sexual purposes only and have no regard for them whatsoever.
Of course, this was all in some form or another a response to going back into Victorian times.
Stated by Queen Victoria (yes, the Queen) and quoted in Hudson (1970):
Let woman be what God intended, a helpmate for a man, but with totally different duties and vocations
In 1859:
Married life is a woman's profession, and to this her life her training - that of dependence - is modelled.
In 1865:
No woman can or ought to know very much of the mass of meanness and wickedness and misery that is loose in the whole wide world. She could not learn it without losing the bloom and freshness which it is her mission in life to preserve.
So after a hundred years of trying to change a fundamental practice of human society (not saying it was a correct one), they have succeeded. They've got what they wanted.
Women have the right to work, the right to equal pay, the right to have sexual relationships outside of marriage, the right to have casual sexual encounters, the right to be sexually liberated, the right to be married if she wishes, the right to be unmarried if she wishes, the right to have children if she wishes, the right to change her mind about being married if she wishes (because after all, marriage is an oppression to
her), the right to divorce her oppressive husband, the right to divorce her uninspiring husband, the right to divorce her husband in favour of another man, the right to half of the assets that were gathered during marriage, the right to half of the financial standings that existed inside the marriage, the right to full custody of the children, the right to have her children supported after divorce and the right for her to have children that is not the stated father.
They have all their rights, but apparently, they're still not happy. Because, according to them, men aren't marrying. Men are the problem again.
But, men aren't the problem. Men still want to get married. Most guys are still brought up to the idea of marriage. They just can't find any women who would have them because they're so busy being liberated. Of course, men started asking questions and a pick up community was invented. This was really the reason why the PUA community was invented, this is the reason it got so big so fast not because of the absolutely disgusting populist view that the PUA Community was invented so that guys could get laid. No doubt; views spread by feminism and feminist agendas.
Asked by David DeAngelo in his Dating Course Seminar:
How many men are looking for a long term relationship or marriage?
Every single person attending the seminar put their hand went up.
....and MEN are on strike?!
Since when?
How fitting that after over 50 years of full on discourse, changes in law and complaints about the patriarchy system, they get every single law and cultural acceptance bent to their favour and they want to blame US for THEIR choices? WE are the focus of their problem? Have they forgotten how much they campaigned and how much they played the victim of 'oh I'm a woman and marriage oppresses me' nonsense? It's documented! Available in all textbooks from A-Level to degree level. Any
moderately educated person can get hold of all the research.
So what are they doing now? They are taking their classic victim mentality and applying it to us. But instead of taking any responsibility at all for their own perfectly logical predicament (as evidenced by the tenth minute of Helen Smith's Radio interview with Andrea), a predicament that they desired, they are now focusing their attention on us and trying and get us to do what they want again. Those two women's books are called 'Men on Strike' and 'The War Against Men'. No mention of a woman in the title. Because it's never their fault. It's always ours. Smith has stated in almost every interview that she want's men to speak up for their rights.
Why?
We already have all of our rights perfectly intact. We don't need anymore. What she wants is for men to fight for rights so it can benefit women. So that women have a better chance of marrying. That is, after she's done messing around with other men, trashing her body full of toxins and enjoying her liberated lifestyle awarded to her by feminism. And don't forget the divorce afterwards. That's what modern day marriage is all about. Oh. and God forbid a man not marry a woman after she has defaced the entire idea of marriage. That's not 'refusing to marry'. That's not 'going on strike'. That's just maintaining dignity - which is what marriage was supposed to be about when it was first invented.
Which leads me to this:
guys like us could WEAPONIZE this book...and that's what I plan to do should push come to shove.
That's fine. As long as you are OK with identifying as being a 'Man on Strike'. As long as you're OK playing the victim that she wants you to play.
You could easily use Oprah Winfrey:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y3DqRjqGoU
Register
Login
FAQ
Search
'
Nothing along the lines of seeing where they went wrong, and firming up their minds so that no one could ever manipulate them again.
![[ img ]](http://thiswastv.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/hyacinth-1.jpg?w=300&h=218)
