Maybe I'm preaching to the choir, but…

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

My idea of a spouse in a traditional marriage was always – a new member of your primary family, closer than your parents or siblings. This implied that no matter what happens – spouses suppose to stay loyal to each other even more than you’re loyal to your immediate family – parents, siblings. Through thick and thin, for the sake of having children. This was my understanding of a traditional marriage – something I’ve seen all around me growing up.

But social engineers of 20th and 21th century used innate female features to demolish this view of the family and replace the image of a husband – as closest family member for life – with an image of a husband – as a stepping stone on the road to success. And it worked.

So the traditional marriage – is where spouses are lifelong immediate family, and the new-age marriage – is where spouses are only temporary extended family.

Alright, this is an alternative view on husbands, and it can work and be valid. If you have an abusive unemployed husband – maybe you should have a freedom to replace it with another one. And maybe to argue to the contrary smells of oppression.

Okay, but then a husband should also have a liberty to replace a s~~~ty good-for-nothing old fat wife with a different one – young, skinny, fertile, and independent.

Two should be able to play this game in equal capacity – both men and women. And maybe it’s a good model for 21st century relationship – be together while it works and jump ship when it no longer beneficial for both parties. I am all for it.

The problem with that – is that gynocentric laws are geared to make it super easy to do if you are a woman, but very hard and punitive if you are a man. That’s why the whole marriage institution is failing.

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[AshcroftParticipant 59]

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

It used to be the EXTENDED family, in the form of a clan, tied to a land, that was normal for a family structure, and that usually worked.

Very good point! Before the industrial revolution, people were mainly on their own with a farm when it comes to earning a living or making ends meet. 90% of the people lived like that. A farm always consisted of many people which are needed to keep everything in order and make agriculture work. Those have been family members. That’s an other reason why families had many children. Otherwise the work simply could not been done. The family was more tied to daily needs like food, earning a living by selling dairy than to how the wife feels about the relationship or stuff like that. Marriage was more so an institution to simply make living and surviving work.
Today our culture lives of feelings and emotions. And emotions are good, when you are enjoying your hobby. But diametric when it comes to marriages. We overvalue how somebody is feeling. Feelings come and go, and every time I hear a wemen cry “I didn’t feel anything for him.” I want to shake her and point her to the numerous women who came before her, who stuck through thick and thin with their husbands.
Wemen don’t want to fight or work anymore today. If they don’t feel like it, they leave. A couple of decades ago, THIS was different.
In my family women can’t understand wemen from today and their lack of effort these creatures put in relationships.

Russky wrote:

Alright, this is an alternative view on husbands, and it can work and be valid. If you have an abusive unemployed husband – maybe you should have a freedom to replace it with another one. And maybe to argue to the contrary smells of oppression.

In the past, most of the marriages were done where both parties were deep believers. They prayed that god might gift them a good harvest and a good marriage. The lives of people in our past have been deeply rooted in, at least in the west, the christian way of living. It is even written in the bible, that one of the only circumstances a women can leave her man is that when the man is physical abusive.

Sorry for speeling or gramatical mishaps. It is not my first language and it has been ages since I learned it in school.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

Ashcroft wrote:

Russky wrote:

Alright, this is an alternative view on husbands, and it can work and be valid. If you have an abusive unemployed husband – maybe you should have a freedom to replace it with another one. And maybe to argue to the contrary smells of oppression.

In the past, most of the marriages were done where both parties were deep believers. They prayed that god might gift them a good harvest and a good marriage. The lives of people in our past have been deeply rooted in, at least in the west, the christian way of living. It is even written in the bible, that one of the only circumstances a women can leave her man is that when the man is physical abusive.

This is truth, but not universal truth.
In USSR there was no religion, but traditional families still worked.
People lived in cities, but marriages were still strong
Because spouses related to each other like real true members of immediate family.

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

I would consider also, when it comes to the love/romance/eros type, there is an addiction that happens to the chemical processes.  When they wear off, the relationship can end.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[AshcroftParticipant 59]

Russky wrote:

In USSR there was no religion, but traditional families still worked.

In the eastern part of Germany this thinking still rings true today with the 50+ generation.

Russky wrote:

People lived in cities, but marriages were still strong

Speaking of the UDSSR, we can pull parallels to the eastern part of Germany as Russia was seen as their big role model in every aspect of
life. I unfortunately have to disagree with you here. You and me might feel like families were strong, but the numbers tell a different story.
And because we had this unique situation of the wall in one country, we can easily compare two systems.
In the western were less divorces than in the eastern part, throughout the decades. You can look up the statistics.
I don’t know why they paint such a rosy picture of the families in the GDR.
It might be true that people have watched out more for their neighbor due to the limitations that the system put on the people,
but as I said the statistics don’t lie unfortunately.

Here is the source: Scheidung in Ost- und Westdeutschland Der Einfluss der Frauenerwerbstätigkeit auf die Ehestabilität

Sorry for speeling or gramatical mishaps. It is not my first language and it has been ages since I learned it in school.

[kizellParticipant 368]

Even religious girls want certain aspects to marriage that are uninviting.

Man proposing with nice ring

Big wedding centered around her

A honeymoon (honestly no man on earth cares much for this)

Big nice house man must break his back for

Providing everything she wants under threat of the state

And if you have kids, your f~~~ed.  The only way to save most marriage is to become a spineless beta

It is the religious girls most of all who want their life value to increase upon marriage to keep up with the Jones ‘ s with no regard for the limitations of their spouse.

[FermatParticipant 3478]

Feminism has not ruined marriages. Marriage itself was never designed to last for thousands and thousands of yeas. That’s why its failing. It was designed to fit a particular mold of society. Now that society has changed and it hasn’t, it’s failing.

I have discovered a truly remarkable list of reasons why women are not necessary for a happy life, but alas this margin is too small to contain it.

[kizellParticipant 368]

But at the end of the day, marriage is just flat meaningless now for a man.  Nothing more than a social stigma……A taboo

There was a time in history when marriage was important social compact that laid the foundation for exploding civilizations and cities.

But that was before the state got involved in the process of feeding and housing single mothers and their children.   The state is the real “daddy” now.  Women are less reliant on men thanks to state intervention.   The road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say.

[HitmanParticipant]

marriage is an out-dated institution originally for royalty..the common people had ” common law marriage ” no contracts.   marriage became a money maker to all involved, except the man.( in rare cases ) ..

[CallidusParticipant 16]

Canadian SportsFan wrote:

BadKan wrote:

Frisbee wrote:

What I mean by this is that the man and woman that follow the traditional religious marriage are the ones that have been together and happy the longest

Again, if by “together and happy the longest” you mean “together and the woman is happy the longest”, again, sure.

I f~~~ing wish I could find this study I found that stated long term marriages are utterly dependant on the woman’s happiness, and that her happiness is more important to consider if the marriage is going to last. I found it f~~~ing cringe worthy at the time, but look at very old men who’ve been married for a long time. They’re completely f~~~ing spineless and put their wives first in everything in the name of love, like a good husband is supposed to do.

So I know this is a old thread, but I decided to get back on this site and this was the first link that popped up so I decided to check in and see what people said. That’s when I saw this and laughed, since it is very relatable to what happened to me recently.

Well, I just got back from visiting my dad’s side of the family in NC, which ironically the whole reason I was there is because my dad got married. While there though, I discovered that my grandpa-in-law (step-grandpa? I don’t know) is skipping his retirement and continuing to work in order to get insurance for my grandma, who needs to get a injection every 8 weeks, which is $13,000 a pop. I’m also pretty sure that my grandma has dementia, and when I was there she was picking fights and just being a straight bitch. Anyways, because of my grandma’s dementia, now my grandpa hates my sister with a passion because my grandma was able to convince him that my sister was mistreating and abusing my grandma, which isn’t true. My grandpa believes everything that his wife says and is even alienating people from the family. All because of what Canadian Sports Fan said, that they “put their wives first in everything in the name of love, like a good husband is supposed to do.” And this really saddens me, because I loved both of them, but I’m pretty sure that my grandma told him some lie about me, and now he’s mad at me too for something that I didn’t do. But his wife told him that I did it, so it must be true.

[Author]

Posts