In 1959, the median age of marriage for women was 20.
Half of the women were married at 20 or earlier.
The 1950s were a time when there was a big problem with premarital sex and teenage pregnancy. Divorce rates had already hit 25%, compared to about 5% before 1910 or 50% today. It wasn’t that idyllic. “Dating” was already well on its way to replacing “courtship.”
But, it sure was a lot better than today.
Click below to go to YouTube.
Actually, divorce and teenage pregnancy are a big part of the plot of this movie. But, the kids got married in the end.
Here we are, twelve years after items like “The Misandry Bubble” told us most all we really need to know. In those twelve years, many, many men gained a much better understanding of the situation as it stands today.
Also, we have seen, to my surprise, after millions and millions of comments made directly to those women themselves, in the starkest and most direct language imaginable, that women still know nothing, or at least, will admit to nothing. Here is a typical example.
Basically, she says:
“Men aren’t interested in marriage because they saw some stuff on social media.”
“Women should just tell men what they want.”
Big surprise.
We know that women are capable of some level of understanding, because of examples like Dr. Helen Smith. But, this is very rare, and does not seem to have become more common in the last decade.
Thus, it falls upon men to make all the necessary changes — to the legal system, and to women’s behavior.
At the beginning of 2010, Imran Khan summed up where things stood regarding men and marriage. Drawing upon many sources of that time, and synthesizing them skillfully, the post has stood the test of time remarkably well. Here it is:
I recommend it to women especially, at least the brainier ones, as it will help you to understand what is happening to you.
But, I think that, in the end, women will not be much help. Men will fix the problem, on the broader scale, when they begin to punish women for bad behavior. This might mean tying them to a post and whipping them. It was what had to be done in the past, to keep societies from breaking apart.
It is troubling to think that this was written at the dawn of online dating. Things are so much worse now.
For those women who want to be part of the solution, and not just follow the herd of women into the flaming pits of hell (I mean in this temporal world, not some afterlife), the process is simple:
Get married young. Remain a virgin until marriage. Marry some real-world man that is interested in you — the best you can get, obviously, but it must be a real man in the real world who is interested in you, not an imaginary man, or a man who is “interested in you” but not interested in marrying you beforehand. Plan to have children early, and raise them during your twenties. Plan on being a stay-at-home Mom, and, given the state of things today, plan to homeschool. Plan to stay married indefinitely.
While this post has much insight, nevertheless I think there is something lacking, which is this: Marriage is not primarily a way to portion out women to men equitably. It is not a way for more men to get laid. It is primarily an institution for begetting and raising children. Especially in a state of advanced civilization, children require an enormous investment in education and training, not only of the academic kind, but in a wide variety of matters. And, civilizations that do not raise children, in a manner that sustains and advances the civilization (in other words, children are as well or better raised than their parents), will perish — not necessarily by demographic extinction, but by being overrun by some more successful civilization.
These days, the instructions for women are clear:
Do not destroy your family.
Raise your children well.
Most women do not accomplish this. So, you will have to do things differently than most women.
Today’s item is for these men who are ambivalent about marrying their long-term girlfriends.
I was one of those men. I married my wife after being together for six years, most of that time living together. I was also ambivalent about it. We recently celebrated our 20th wedding anniversary.
In those days (the 1990s), young men had a vague sense that marriage brought a lot of trouble but not a lot of advantages, while having a live-in girlfriend had a lot of advantages but not a lot of trouble. This is certainly even more true now, and rather than a vague sense, many young men have a much more precise understanding that marriage is a bad deal for most men. This has two basic aspects: 1) a legal structure that encourages divorce-raping good men; 2) women’s bad behavior, including (but not limited to) the fact that about 90% of divorces are effectively initiated by women’s bad behavior.
Things are, if anything, much worse today than twenty years ago. Also, my perspective is perhaps somewhat warped, because I actually have a very good wife. She is probably in the top 10% of wives in America today, which means that you would have a 90%+ chance of doing worse.
However …
As I’ve said, most of the good women are gone by Age 25. Although they may not be married, they are no longer single. They have already paired up with the man that (in the past) they eventually married. They have demonstrated the ability to pair bond and maintain a productive long-term relationship.
Guess what — you have one of those women.
Today, as I see it, about 50% of young women today basically do not meet the minimum requirements for marriage and family, when men meet them. Maybe they had the potential when they were 16 or 18, but not any more. They are unfit for marriage. They are not realistically fixable. If you marry one of these women, you will do worse than average, which, considering how bad the average woman is, should terrify you. These women are basically for the streets. Unfortunately, many men will marry women like this, even though they shouldn’t.
Of the remainder, about 20% — let’s say — are somewhat marginal. Barely adequate, Possibly fixable. They might work out, but it would probably be a struggle.
Then, there are the Top 30%. We men are going to have to take a stand somewhere, so let’s take a stand with the Top 30%. Someone should definitely marry these women, and make a go of it despite the perils. Don’t let them age out unmarried and childless.
Also, if you pass on this woman, you have to admit that the chances of finding another are somewhat slim, because, as I’ve said, the good women are gone quickly. The Top 30% of women are not the same as the Top 30% of the remaining single women that might be interested in you. It is more like the Top 5% of the leftovers.
Also, related to this, plan on having a family. Just plan on having 2-3 children, maybe 4-5. Plan on having 2-3 children within five years after your marriage. Don’t dilly dally. Even if it seems like “the timing isn’t right,” just do it anyway. Plan on homeschooling.
I would seriously consider getting a prenuptial agreement. This serves two functions. First, it might help ameliorate the very bad legal environment for men and marriage these days. Second, if your woman is strongly opposed, it suggests that she was always planning to divorce you anyway. or use her present legal advantages to manipulate and control you. It is a test of her character — among other things, a test of her willingness to follow your leadership. You might see a whole new side of your woman, and it might not be pretty. Maybe, you should just dump the bitch.
Remember, a prenup is irrelevant if you don’t get divorced. And, a good woman wasn’t planning on using the threat of divorce, or false domestic violence claims etc., to manipulate and control you. So, although a little hesitancy is to be expected, a good woman probably won’t have much opposition to a prenup agreement. The best women will understand that the present legal situation is a terrible cancer on the formation of successful families, and will understand that, in today’s environment, a prenup agreement is a good way for men and women both to attempt to construct a more productive legal framework.
I would also avoid getting a “marriage license.” You can get married without a “marriage license,” and people did for centuries. Heck, you can “get married” just living together! (Common law marriage.) So, do not sign any contracts with the government. No no no.
I suggest a small, quick wedding and a long honeymoon. Keep the cost under $5000. Get it done in a month or two if you can, with family and a few friends.
Recently, I’ve been thinking that all of feminism’s “advantages” (are they really?) come at the expense of children. These children grow up, and become a new generation of adults who are really not prepared to improve or even continue the beneficial institutions of the society. Children raised by single mothers, among their many problems, have a hard time forming families; or, if they do get married, they soon end up divorced. Basically, women are “sacrificing their children to Moloch,” not necessarily in a fatal way, but, by neglecting their care, they allow their children to be immersed in the environment of public schools, popular media and music, social media, etc. Corruption of the children is a basic Satanic strategy.
Today, a woman who Takes A Stand With the Family must accept that this means focusing a lot of time and effort on raising children well. This will mean homeschooling, or at least, finding a high quality alternative (private tutor, private school) that accomplishes an education comparable to homeschooling. I have a friend who is pulling his children out of a private, nominally Catholic school because it has gone woke-crazy. He is beginning to homeschool. But even setting aside these aberrations, in the best of situations, K-12 education (and college education continuing after that) these days tends to be very mediocre.
This is an interesting description of even the very tippy-top class of “well educated, well behaved” young people today. It is not very encouraging.
Some years ago, I taught a course in public writing at the Claremont colleges, the consortium of elite liberal arts institutions in Southern California. My students were juniors or seniors, mostly humanities or social science majors, almost all smart, a couple genuinely brilliant. All, needless to say, were expensively educated and impressively credentialed. I assumed that they’d arrive with a fairly good idea of how to make an argument with an academic context and that I would be teaching them how to apply those skills to a very different set of rhetorical occasions.
What I soon discovered was that none of them had much idea how to make an argument in any context. Nor were they particularly skilled at analysing the arguments of others. They didn’t know how to read; they didn’t know how to write; and they didn’t know how to think.
Is that what you want for your children?
To understand how this predicament came to pass, one needs to understand how students manage to get into places like Harvard or the Claremont colleges in the first place. It is not by learning how to read, write, or think. It is by jumping through the endless series of hoops that elite college admissions offices have developed over the decades to winnow down their skyscraper stacks of application folders.
To win a place at such a school, students most receive top grades in a broad range of AP courses, show evidence of participation in a dozen or more extracurricular activities—sports, arts, student government, et al.—demonstrate “leadership”, engage in “service”, and gather experiences, often through purpose-built programs, to write about on their personal essays, statements designed to convince the admissions officer of the existence of an actual human being beneath the credentials. To do all this, they will work without cease for years on end, sleeping little and foregoing the freedoms of adolescence.
This is not a system that’s designed to foster intellectual engagement. Students learn to skip and skim, not just their assigned readings, but everything. Everything is done at maximum speed and with the least possible effort. Curiosity and passion must be actively suppressed. Students become experts, not so much in subjects as in working the system. There is simply no time to do anything else.
Of course, colleges are no better, and often a lot worse. Here is this professor’s estimation of the tippy-top class of US universities today:
Is there any real learning still happening at American colleges and universities? Of course there is: in the interstices, the institutional cracks, where it can evade the surveillance of the diversity deanlets and the persecutions of the PC police. It survives behind the doors of the classrooms and in the quiet of the offices of the dwindling minority of true teachers who remember what it looks like and are committed, come what may, to keeping it alive. It persists inside the dorm rooms and the brains of the few recalcitrant students — the real campus subversives — who insist on being individuals, on thinking things through for themselves. May it live to see the end of this new dark age.
Whatever way you look at it, raising children even passably well these days means managing their environment and activities, and eliminating anything that is not Good, True and Beautiful — the food they eat, the music they are exposed to, the clothes they wear, the decoration and organization of the house they live in, and so on. This is basically a full-time project, implying a stay-at-home mother.
One way that Feminism leads to “child sacrifice” is: The children are never born. Careerist women have trouble getting married. Birth control and abortion prevent “unwanted” pregnancies. (Why are they unwanted?)
For the children that are born, many are born to single mothers who, even if they are somehow able to be full-time mothers, typically lack the masculine qualities (discipline, effort, focus) that build good character in both boys and girls.
Children with working mothers — including single mothers, married mothers and divorced mothers who are now basically single mothers — are abandoned to daycare, public schools (or private schools that are often not much better), and various afterschool engagements reflective of mainstream society. Too tired to pay much attention to the children even when she is home, in evenings or on the weekends, the working mother typically abandons them again to television, video games, social media and other easy ways to keep children quiet and out of the way. This is not the mom who works to plan a picnic in the park on Saturday, or who even has the patience to watch over a neighbor child who comes over to play. Typically, children are fed all kinds of bad food, beginning even from their first days with baby formula, resulting in the usual suite of health problems. A mother is too tired to watch over her children’s friends and acquaintances, seeking out good companions and quietly pushing away those that are bad influences.
Immersed in public schools/mainstream media/social media, any efforts by a working mother to somehow engage her children with things that are Good, True and Beautiful are commonly washed away in the deluge of mediocrity and filth that constitutes 90%+ of their children’s lives.
These children grow up, and become adults. Older adults, who were perhaps raised better, in the 1950s and 1960s, are today passing away, or their influence is waning. Parents hope that children will somehow “grow out of” the Woke nonsense, terrible music, video game and later porn addictions that they were immersed in during their whole childhoods. But, often this never happens.
The primary purpose of marriage is to create a context for raising children. There isn’t much need for it otherwise. Thus, divorce too comes at the expense of children. They are deprived of the infrastructure for their growth. The “freedom” enjoyed by the divorcing woman (women cause about 90% of divorces), comes at the cost of the children.
A woman today can become a Barren Whore, and maybe that is tolerable. If she stays unmarried and childless, she probably won’t cause too much damage. Maybe she will be a Good Employee and Good Citizen, and be of some benefit to herself and her society.
But, otherwise, I suggest that a woman should Take a Stand With the Family, with all that this entails.
Women talk a big talk, but in the end, 92% of White women in the recent past have gotten married. This does not even include those that wanted to get married, but didn’t (who we hear a lot about although their numbers are small).
Also, about 85% of women have had children. This does not include those women who wanted to have children, but didn’t (who we also hear a lot about). Between birth control, abortion, “morning after” pills, and adoption (which I assume counts as “not having children”), it is hard to imagine that there have been many women who really didn’t want to have children.
So, for younger women, who hear mostly the exact opposite of what women actually do, let me ask you this:
Are you one of the <8% of women who will never want to be married?
Are you one of the <15% of women who will never want to have children?
Maybe you are. But, I would say that, even with the present deluge of propaganda telling young women not to get married or have children (“strong and independent” = Barren Whores), 90%+ of women eventually wanted to get married and have children.
Are you one of the 95%+ of women under the age of 25 who wants to get laid regularly? But, you also don’t want to accumulate damage typical of Barren Whores?
Then, you might as well get married young, have babies, and not whore around before marriage.
After the children are out of the house, some time after Age 45, you can do all the career stuff you like.
Cornerstone 