>
The denizens of the Happy Bachelors forum, always alert for possible threats to their Happy Bachelorhood, seem to have discovered a new one: Evil feminists “enslav[ing] men through forced marriage.”
That might sound a bit like the plot of an old episode of Futurama, but apparently the threat is all too real. Artbunker sounded the alarm in a recent posting:
What if women and manginias in power pass a law to make men marry with women?
Hear him out, guys:
[M]ore and more guys are truly waking up to the no marriage to Western Women concept. It’s a small but growing fact. We already know feminist have made it harder fro Eastern European women to come over here and probably in other countries as well.
If they can get laws passed for that how much longer till they start going after single men? How much longer till they want to make sure single women with kids are paired with single men for “the betterment of the children?” because the single man makes a good wage to support her and her family.
Why would this be necessary, you may ask. Aren’t there a lot of simps and manginias doing this already, of their own volition?
Sure there still a lot of simps and manginias that dont mind doing this already without a law sure. But we know these women really want guys who have the economic power to provide them the lifestyle they want. A lot of simps and manginias today cannot provide that for them .They want the guys with the big checks whom they know wont chose them.
Yes, all the fantastically wealthy movers and shakers who spend all their time trading stories about how evil women are on the MGTOW message boards of America.
Longshot39 suggested one (somewhat familiar) way to resist the jackbooted feminazi marriage thugs:
A man with any sense could still refuse to marry, at least in the traditional sense. Just get another MGTOW friend and marry them, like was said in another thread. Even if a person were required by law to live in the same house, having your friend as a roommate would still be a HUGE improvement over being forced to marry some womb turd with little thuglits.
To be sure, not everyone on the Happy Bachelors forum is convinced such a danger is imminent. The always logical spocksdisciple responded:
There won’t be forced marriage, as women want the earning power of the beta but ‘gina tingle factor of the thug/bad boy. Instead what the gov’t will do is simply start to garnish the wages of single men with selective taxation and “fees.”
And if any men resist the New Girl Order by not earning enough, well, naturally they’ll just be forced into labor camps:
These labor camps would come into existence under some economic pretext set up by gov’t. One such pretext is that unemployed or underemployed people(ie men) of a certain age range say 18-40, would be very useful to the government as labor for various federal projects. …
Of course women would be exempt because they’ll have some beta or stooge on standby for marriage and they would claim “gender oppression” should women be inducted into such camps. …
These camps would be run under the auspices of FEMA and would be painted to be “emergency support facilities”, note that some form of this type of forced and indentured labor already as come back in the form in prison chain gangs which were all but abolished by the 1950s-60s but made a comeback in the late 90s.
But hey, still beats being married — amirite, fellas?
All joking aside, I feel that one thing we can all agree upon here at Man Boobz is that the fine gentlemen at Happy Bachelors should not be marrying anyone any time soon, either voluntarily or as a result of evil feminist legislation. So I ask the women reading this post now to pledge publicly, in a comment below, that they personally will not marry anyone on the Happy Bachelors forum, even if they are required by law to do so.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>Also, aren't engagement rings a fairly recent invention? I remember reading somewhere that the 'tradition' of engagement rings was started by DeBeers. I've told my boyfriend that if ever wants to propose to me, I would much prefer a note slipped into the pages of a book of love poetry.
>The state can stay out of my goddamn love life. Marriage is an outdated economic unit IMHO; hence my happy unmarried cohabitation.Ever read John D'Emilio's "Capitalism and the Gay Identity"? It breaks down the oppressiveness of the institution nicely.http://platypus1917.org/wp-content/uploads/readings/demilio_captialismgayid.pdfOr Emma Goldman's take on it? That marriage is completely incompatible with love?http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_eg_anb_marriage_love.htmMethinks the MRAs are wishing feminists would want to marry them.
>Laws already exist, right here in America, which impose State-recognized marriage on citizens who are unwilling to designate themselves as married. Such laws are known as "Common Law Marriage" laws, and about one third of the states have them in some form. Live together with a girlfriend long enough, and in the State's mind you and she are considered married. Such laws are even more draconian in the UK.
>John: Only 12 states recognize common-law marriages. Seems that some states are phasing it out. In addition, the state does not impose it on the unwilling; in most cases, BOTH parties give consent. Read more here:http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html
>I think we should stop mocking these guys.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusionsStill, I hereby pledge (…) I will never marry, nor date, nor kiss, nor even look at one of these guys, nor any other so-called MRA, nor a "masculist", nor any of these ridiculous PUAs EVER.(Was that enough?)
>Jsckboots! The most feared footwear of wingnuts and misogynists alike: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/the_footwear_of_tyranny/
>Someone should edit that Wikipedia page so it starts out with something like:"Carl, we know you're reading this. Stop now."
>"Methinks the MRAs are wishing feminists would want to marry them."—switchintoglideDon't flatter yourself.
>Ummm – could you give us a direct link to each of these forum posts?
>They don't need marriage, the feminsts have already slid in palimony. Also, I read a while ago, NJ supreme court stated that you do NOT have to live together in order to get palimony.More greedy "empowered" women stealing from men. You go girl.Random Brother
>Methinks the MRAs are wishing feminists would want to marry them.Female chauvinism. Women are superior, men want our pussy regardless blah blah blahThis attitude is socially acceptable ladies and gentelmen
>specialshrink, I did give a direct link to each of the posts. I believe you have to be registered on the site to see the posts, though.
>There is nothing wrong with marriage if you are living with a good wife and children in a country which is supportive to family as a whole and which is not using biased law execution against husbands and fathers.Such a country is not necessarily a 3rd world country and women living there are not necessarily very poor and uneducated as feminists are telling us all the time.I always ask men, who are interested into marriage to take a deep look into the entire family laws of their country and to compare their legal situation with those overseas. It's not only about marriage, but also about possible divorce in the future including father's rights.A country which feminist laws make it possible for a cheating ex-wife to claim alimony over more than for 40 years or gives a cheating woman the right to claim child-support from her ex-husband despite he is not the biological father is not a good country for a man to sign a marriage contract.
>"Methinks the MRAs are wishing feminists would want to marry them." [me]Female chauvinism.Women are superior, men want our pussy regardless blah blah blahThis attitude is socially acceptable ladies and gentelmen -nicko81mYet another failed attempt at reading and understanding context. If you need a summary, I can give it to you: "there is no factual basis for this idea that feminists would force all men into marriage, in fact, the evidence is skewed quite to the contrary [see Emma Goldman]; people who have delusions about a group of people–one who obviously doesn't want to marry them–forcing them into marriage, could plausibly be desiring that outcome. This would explain the source of the delusion." This, of course, was said mostly in jest. I was using a writing device called humour. Look it up.You'll get there one day buddy. Until then, work on spelling the word "gentlemen" correctly. @wytchfinde555 I wasn't flattering myself–I was giving myself nightmares.
>Look magazine made in 1960 made an article about unmarried men that had psychological problems and I'm sure it apply to many guys in the manosphere.http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6564/==============================================A large number of those who reject marriage are fixated on a mother figure. These men live at home with their mothers until the death of the parent “releases” them—and then find it difficult to carve out a different kind of life.A second—and familiar—type is the man who is not so much antiwoman as antiresponsibility. Panicked at the thought of heading a household, he spends a lifetime evading marriage while believing he is seeking it.Some of the unmarried men in this category carry heavy psychological burdens. Raised with admonitions to “be a man—be independent,” some adult males become confused over the conflict between their determination to be truly self-reliant and the need to lean on a woman for love and comfort.A third troubled group consists of latent homosexuals. These fall into two classes—the “neuter” who practices no sexual activity of any kind, who is often found working in boys‘ schools and boys’ organizations, and the Don Juan, who is so threatened by his fears of his unacknowledged homosexuality that he engages in affairs with women to prove his masculinity.==============================================
>@ switchintoglideswitchintoglide said: "This, of course, was said mostly in jest. I was using a writing device called humour. Look it up."But humor is supposed to be funny.Random Brother.
>On a lighter note, a woman called "J" said on Dalrock's blog that she had a coworker that was on marriage strikehttp://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/marriage-strike/#comment-1851=============================================My co-worker was quite the omega and chronically smelled like urine. He had a lot of issues with women, their sense of entitlement, their lack of accountability, divorce, disease, abortion, etc. But the bottom line was that women weren’t interested in him. I think a lot of this marriage talk comes from men who are not in love relationships with women.=============================================
>@ avpd0nmmngWhy does the marriage rate continue to fall?Random Brother
>@richardYou don't need to get married to live with a woman, to love her, to have sex with her and to have children with her. Why do you think that the rate of out-of-wedlock birth is increasing as well as the cohabitation rate is rising ?
>In California, which is not considered a common-law marriage state, you can be ordered to pay "spousal support" (a.k.a. alimony) if you had a child together with a woman with whom you were not married. This "spousal" support is distinct from child support. If you cohabit with a woman with whom you had a child, then following a breakup you are liable to pay alimony in California, even though you weren't married and even though California is not a common-law marriage state. And so the notion that marriage obligations (in reality divorce obligations) can be imposed upon people who never intended to get married is merited and deserves serious treatment, not the mockery posed by David's post here. This post is not meant to examine the injustice, but to mock those who decry the injustice and specifically to perpetuate the injustice. The allegation of misogyny is thus the vehicle through which feminists attempt to silence male-friendly voices.
>Yeah, no worries about being forced to marry me. Fortunately I am Canadian, and will be sticking with "manginas" in any case.This stuff is like reverse homophobia — they're closeted hets, jesus. OMG the disgusting wimminz are going FORCE US TO MARRY THEM and have BABIES and will parade their REVOLTING LIFESTYLE DOWN THE STREETS WHERE ANYONE CAN SEE THEM!!!!!!!1And don't forget the recruiting. No one is safe.
>@ avav said: "You don't need to get married to live with a woman, to love her, to have sex with her and to have children with her. Why do you think that the rate of out-of-wedlock birth is increasing as well as the cohabitation rate is rising ?"I think the out of wedlock birth rate and cohabitation is increasing as marriage is seen as more and more of a joke (by both sexes) and that IMHO is not good. Random Brother
>Reality check here.I am married. To a feminist.Nobody has forced me to share any of my money or possessions with my wife, that I would not willingly share with her, without begrudging it or expecting anything in return. Because I love her.For example, even though I make 10x more than her, we don't have a joint bank account and I don't give her an allowance. She never demands money and rarely asks for it, and I can always say no.I pay most of the bills and the mortgage. This is *my choice*, no one is making me do it. She does lots of housework and all the cooking. This is a feminist we're talking about. You know, those scary, man-hating, lazy, gold-digging feminists you guys are always ranting about.If we got divorced, under the law she would be entitled to 50% of my stuff, or something like that. My solution to that problem is that I lived with her out of wedlock for like 10 years until I was really sure that we loved each other and were going to stay together. If we get divorced, it won't be because she has freaked out and wants my stuff. If she was after money she would have sought out someone much wealthier and more successful than I am. Of course, something awful could happen like she could suddenly turn into a different person, or cheat on me, but guess what? I'm the one who cheated on her, many years ago, and after that horrible experience we both decided not to do any of that crap anymore. Because we're adults, and we love each other. As for child support, well, I have no children. Again, my wife is a feminist. You know, the ones who force men to sire expensive children.I just care much more about having reasonable, sane relationships with people than I do about my modest wealth. Anyone who values those things in the other order is going to have crappy relationships, full stop.Not all marriages are like mine, and some divorces are awful. But if you think that those divorces are awful because of divorce laws, then you don't know anything about human relationships. I had two friends that got divorced recently. He had cheated on her. He and his wife amicably agreed on how to divide their stuff. There was no fighting about that, and no lawyers were involved in that discussion. And they're both happy with the outcome. Again, adults, trying to treat each other with as much respect as possible, given the circumstances.
>John Dias: You seem not to understand palimony, in California or anywhere else. Basically, palimony is a contract enforcement action. Meaning that if A never expressly or impliedly manifested intent to be bound to an agreement, or if B never expressly or impliedly manifested acceptance of the agreement, then the court would not find a contract to enforce. Again, it's not marriage-lite, where the obligations of marriage are forced upon someone who is not married; it's simply a contract action: enforcing someone's bargained-for promise.Speaking of promises, I solemnly swear never to marry an MRA or a MGTOW. It's hilarious that they think that would be something women would want, and wouldn't run screaming from, but no. I politely decline.
>Lydia said… … I hereby pledge (…) I will never marry, nor date, nor kiss, nor even look at one of these guys, nor any other so-called MRA, nor a "masculist", nor any of these ridiculous PUAs EVER. (Was that enough?) NO! This is not enough. You should better promise, that – despite you are a woman – you will never demand any money from MRAs etc. etc. and that you will never fabricate any false rape allegation against them.