Monday, 27 July 2009

Men on Marriage Strike

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Marriage:strike.htm


Marriage strike is a term coined by some masculist authors to describe the idea that a substantial fraction of men avoid (or should avoid) marriage out of a conscious fear of financial devastation in the event of divorce.

Advocates of the marriage strike hold that the combination of laws permitting no-fault divorce , and prevailing conditions in divorce ourts that are substantially more likely to favor the wife over the husband in disputes over child custody, visitation rights, ownership of the family residence and other shared property, child support, and alimony, makes it possible for a woman to unilaterally divorce her husband while simultaneously depriving him of the right to see his offspring and financially crippling him. They argue that since the divorce rate is high, and since women are more likely than men to seek no-fault divorce, scenarios like the above are a likely outcome of marriage, and that many men, fearing such an outcome, choose not to marry. There has been a study showing that a range of 60 to 93 percent of no-fault divorces in the United States were initiated by women, usually against a man who works a blue-collar job for grounds cited "emotional unfulfillment."

Proponents of the marriage strike advise that men should consider cohabitation as a safer alternative to marriage, or that in the event of marriage, men should protect themselves through prenuptial agreements or marrying a woman from a more patriarchal culture.

White women are more prepared to marry outside their race if they get a better provider and protector.

White men are more prepared to to marry outside their race if they get a better kind of wife and mother.

I used to laugh at BNP activists when they said that they feared for the white race, and airily told them that they were confusing the extinction of white dominance with the extinction of the white race.

It seems I owe them an apology, for all men with any sense would reject promiscuous women infected by feminist ideology, if only from a sense of self-preservation. Since most white women are thus infected (and you do not need to be white to be thus infected http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2009/07/muslim-and-looking-for-love.html), it seems increasingly clear that feminism is in fact the time-bomb that will destroy Western civilisation and significantly reduce the numbers of the white race, because both men and women will be extremely keen to marry other races, for their own individual self-preservation.

Since most of my friends are white, I look upon this as a matter of some concern, however much they have been degraded by promiscuity, alcohol, drugs and the welfare state.

At least Muslim men with a Pakistani background can opt for a nice Pakistani girl of their own race. Not so the white urban proletariat whose means do not enable him to go bride shopping.

http://www.romancium.com/Shopping.htm

As Cato said: "If we allow them to be our equals, they will become our superiors." But no one has heard of Cato these days, and the Roman Empire did decline and fall ....

http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/lesson10.html

If the strong and rational willingly allow themselves to be ruled by the weaker and more unreasonable sex, then perhaps they deserve their fate?

1 comment:

Russell said...

I was married 25 years. She divorced me (without warning) because her own father encouraged her to do so - she was/is codependent with her father - she is currently supported by my alimony, child support and her own father. She refused marriage counseling and unilaterally divorced me taking my daughter, assets, part of pension, alimony, child support... over 25k in attorney's fees... I am living in a small inexpensive apartment. The author is correct about the reasons men are on marriage strike - everything in the story is true - take it from someone who's experienced it. I live with the court ordered outcome every day through no fault of my own except saying "I do." Never again.