The reasons that marriage 'worked' not too long ago were:
1) People married at the age of 20, and usually died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children.
What exact time period is "not too long ago"? Are we talking like 1950s or like 1800s or 1300s or cavemen? Because these life expectancies are pretty damn 1300s, and I think we all know what a utopia we lived in then.
The wife retained her beauty 15 years into the marriage, and the lack of processed junk food kept her slim even after that. This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban feminist norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after having had 10 or more prior sexual relationships, who then promptly emerges from her svelte chrysalis in an event that can best be described as a fatocalypse.
Women who've had a large number of kids in rapid succession in pre-industrial societies are known for their perfect bodies. The 1300s were just crawling with bikini babes.
Ah yes, the fatocalypse, the moment when
Also please note that men don't have bodies. That would be gay.
And anyway, what does this have to do with the breakdown of marriage? If 90% of divorces are caused by slutty bitches, clearly the woman's decline in appearance doesn't cause divorce. Is it just that a marriage ought to be considered "broken down" if the wife isn't hot? Is a beta male who's married to a fat chick not really married because it doesn't count unless you get a high-quality woman?
2) It was entirely normal for 10-20% of young men to die or be crippled on the battlefield, or in occupational accidents. Hence, there were always significantly more women than able-bodied men in the 20-40 age group, ensuring that not all women could marry. Widows were common and visible, and vulnerable to poverty and crime. For these reasons, women who were married to able-bodied men knew how fortunate they were relative to other women who had to resort to tedious jobs just to survive, and treated their marriage with corresponding respect.
That sounds... great. I don't want to use any shaming language like "misogyny," but it sure sounds wonderful to be married to someone who treats you with respect because she knows she might die in the gutter without you.
It's kind of sad that this guy thinks he has so little to offer women that they'd only stay with him because of outside incentives. The idea that it might actually be nice to be married to a guy just isn't on the table here.
3) Prior to the invention of contraception, female promiscuity carried the huge risk of pregnancy, and the resultant poverty and low social status. It was virtually impossible for any women to have more than 2-3 sexual partners in her lifetime without being a prostitute, itself an occupation of the lowest social status.
And that sucked. For everyone, since every woman "lost" to single motherhood and/or prostitution is a woman who isn't available for distribution to deserving betas.
I guess this is just another way in which women ought to be terrified into faithful marriage, just like in all the storybooks where the handsome prince sweeps the princess up in his arms and whispers in her ear, "You don't have to like it, baby, but if you don't give me what I want I'll leave you out on the street to starve."
4) Divorce carried both social stigma and financial losses for a woman. Her prospects for remarriage were slim. Religious institutions, extended clans, and broader societal forces were pressures to keep a woman committed to her marriage, and the notion of leaving simply out of boredom was out of the question.
These aren't reasons marriage "worked." These are reasons marriage was relatively inescapable. That's really, really, really different from a marriage "working." I know you think that all you want is a warm hole who can't leave the house, but I'd hope you'd feel differently if you experienced just how unhappy a marriage can get.
For one thing, the wedding itself has gone from a solemn event attended only by close family and friends, to an extravaganza of conspicuous consumption for the enjoyment of women but financed by the hapless man.
It's not good to do all your sociology research by watching "Bridezillas."
. In India, for example, it is normal even today for either the bride's father to pay for the wedding, or for the bride's family to give custody of all wedding jewelry to the groom's family. The reason for this was so that the groom's family effectively had a 'security bond' against irresponsible behavior on the part of the bride, such as her leaving the man at the (Indian equivalent of the) altar, or fleeing the marital home at the first sign of distress (also a common female psychological response).
FUCK YEAH DOWRY.
And for the millionth time, this guy doesn't want a marriage, he wants a goddamn Woman Cage. If a woman is fleeing your house in distress, maybe she has a really, really good reason.
Divorce lawyers, like any other professional group, will seek conditions that are good for business. [...] When they collude with rage-filled 'feminists' who would gladly send innocent men to concentration camps if they could, the outcome is catastrophic.
I'm not entirely sure what the crazy man just mumbled, but I think it had something to do with how divorce lawyers want to send him to a concentration camp. I'm, uh, not sure I have the intellectual rigor to thoroughly refute his excellent point here.
The concept of 'no fault' divorce by itself may not be unfair. The concepts of asset division and alimony may also be fair in the event of serious wrongdoing by the husband. However, the combination of no-fault divorce plus asset division/alimony is incredibly unfair and prone to extortionary abuse. The notion that she can choose to leave the marriage, yet he is nonetheless required to pay her for years after that even if he did not want to destroy the union, is an injustice that should not occur in any advanced democracy.
This is the one part of the essay where I'll concede he sort of has a point in some cases. Divorce courts do sometimes unfairly favor the woman, based on the idea that she should be compensated for keeping the home and/or raising the children and thus freeing the man to earn more--even when this didn't actually occur. It's wrong when this happens. There. I agreed with something. I'm so reasonable.
I still don't think this proves that our entire society is headed toward Mancentration Camps.
Even if the woman chooses to leave on account of 'boredom', she is still given default custody of the children, which exposes the total hypocrisy of feminist claims that men and women should be treated equally. Furthermore, the man is required to pay 'child support' which is assessed at levels much higher than the direct costs of child care, with the woman facing no burden to prove the funds were spent on the child, and cannot be specified by any pre-nuptial agreement. The rationale is that 'the child should not see a drop in living standards due to divorce', but since the mother has custody of the child, this is a stealthy way in which feminists have ensured financial maintenence of the mother as well.
You forgot to put "feminist" in scare quotes; you're slowing down, buddy. I like the part here where he doesn't mention loving the children or planning to care for them, he just wants to make sure he doesn't owe child support.
What was once the bedrock of society, and a solemn tradition that benefited both men and women equally, has quietly mutated under the evil tinkering of feminists, divorce lawyers, and leftists, into a shockingly unequal arrangement, where the man is officially a second-class citizen who is subjected to a myriad of sadistic risks. [...] Needless to say, this is a violation of the US Constitution on many levels, and is incompatible with the values of any supposedly advanced democracy that prides itself on freedom and liberty.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the right of a man to never have to give up anything that's hiiis, waaahhh, be it money, child, or wholly owned domestic woman."
Anyone who believes that two-parent families are important to the continuance of an advanced civilization, should focus on the explosive growth in revenue earned by divorce lawyers, court supervisors, and feminist organizations over the past quarter-century.
One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong. Actually two of these things, considering how lucrative and sought-after the job of "court supervisor" is.
Simple logic of supply and demand tells us that the institution of monogamous marriage requires at least 80% male participation in order to be viable. When male participation drops below 80%, all women are in serious trouble, since there are now 100 women competing for every 80 men, compounded with the reality that women age out of fertility much quicker than men.
This assumes that 100% of women want to get married, that fertility is a prerequisite for marriage, and that women who are already happily married give a crap about the "market." And even with those assumptions the 80% number is still just pulled out of his ass.
It also ignores the fact that most people have some standards for marriage other than "human of the opposite sex." That is, there will always be far more pairings that don't happen because of incompatibility than because of numerics. I'm not waiting for a guy to come by who's available for marriage, I'm waiting for one that I want to spend my life with! Whether someone I wouldn't marry anyway is available or not means nothing to me.
(There's a link to a hilarious article about men on a "marriage strike" to protest this ridiculous manslaving institution, which must absolutely devastate all the women who were desperate to marry those guys.)
[...] thanks to 'feminism', these women are proving to be poor pilots of their mating lives who pursue alpha males until the age of 34-36 when her desirability drops precipitously and not even beta males she used to reject are interested in her. This stunning plunge in her prospects with men is known as the Wile E. Coyote moment, and women of yesteryear had many safety nets that protected them from this fate.
Dammit, one minute ago you were all "betas just want a woman, any woman, no matter if she even wants to be there," and now you're getting all picky. Because sure you said anyone, but you didn't mean old ladies, jeez.
And wow, Wile E. Coyote moment, you fucking charmer. Do you plan to never turn 35? (Do you realize that married women also turn 35?)
The 'feminist' media's attempt to normalize 'cougarhood' is evidence of gasping desperation to package failure as a desirable outcome, which will never become mainstream due to sheer biological realities.
A boner is a biological reality. Many, many boners are created each day on behalf of women over 35. Also, I'm pretty damn sure that MILF porn and wolf whistles of "wooo, cougar!" are not products of the feminist movement. Perhaps the "feminist" movement; those crazy bitches seem to be responsible for everything from spoiled milk to earthquakes.
A complex sexual past works against women even if the same works in favor of men, due to the natural sexual attraction triggers of each gender. A wise man once said, "A key that can open many locks is a valuable key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a useless lock."
That doesn't even make sense as an analogy. It doesn't make sense for locks, it doesn't make sense that locks would be like vaginas, and it doesn't make sense for vaginas. It is the perfect trifecta of meaninglessness.
Another way to put it would be: A complex sexual past means that a woman is more likely to be hot and confident as fuck in bed, and the same is true of men. A wise man once said, "A dog that eats rocks is contented, but a fish that eats kibble smells like cinnamon."
More coming soon because I just can't look away.