Priorities in Marriage & Why Marriages Fail

[TonyTenner]

Is it really the options causing it or is it the present social construct. Your parents had a much more conducive construct. That construct was building a civilization. It’s conducive to life as it’s needed IF one is trying to build a civilization.
So what is this present construct trying to do?

I agree, their situation, common amongst their generation, now looks unique. Even the physical location of where they live - on a farm in the middle of nowhere, building a family - is an ever-dwindling scenario as more and more people rush to the cities. Maybe that's the answer - go somewhere remote.

 

[TonyTenner]

Perhaps going somewhere remote but there’s an important question for you in my post.
“What is this present construct trying to do?”

I'll let you go first tackling that one...

 

[BeExcellent]

Interesting read. Obviously I am new here. There’s all kinds of stuff in there. I’ve been kind of lurking around for a while.
I’m curious about this post though...



See, I’m of the opinion that even committing to a woman, let’s say a marriage, in itself, shifts a lot of things from the man to the woman.

take @BeExcellent and her numerous marriages despite her grandmother’s philosophy. I read a post a few days back where she loves players. This makes much more sense. My question would be, did she marry players? Or did she marry good men (by weird social standards) and keep bouncing back to players?

Welcome. To clear things up about my relationship history, I have been married once, for 15 years, to the owner of a very popular nightclub in a city well known for nightlife. I have 3 children from the marriage. I have been in two LTRs in the 6.5 years since my divorce, one for 18 months then a break, then one for 3 years. My full story about what happened in my marriage is in my Unicorn thread if you want to look it up through search. I am not looking to remarry although I might consider it with the right man...

My father was very much like @TonyTenner ‘s dad. A man’s man to the core who required his wife to be his helper and who led no matter what, end of story. I was raised knowing what a real man is and there are too few in existence now.

It’s why I stick around here. To encourage men to be the men they are capable of being and it’s also what I impart to my son (my father’s way of being).

Cheers

 

[BeExcellent]

I remember reading your post in the player thread. It was indicative of a great many things.
I have no reason to know much about you but thank you. You spoke well of the present climate with subtle but revealing nuances.

there was nothing degrading in my post towards you or any other woman. It completely applies, everything I said.

No offense taken. Just thought I’d clear up the facts a bit. No worries

Cheers

 

[BeExcellent]

For what it’s worth I think the endgame of feminism is to usurp the natural order of things where the male leads and the female defers. I think it is to undermine the basic building block of human society which is the family, under the pretense of oppression.

And I think it is very, Very dangerous for society, very destabilizing.

If you think about it, in a way men who refuse to marry promote the end goal (demise of the nuclear family). It’s insidious and destructive on many fronts.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

The current wants to control each person. It eants each individual to only care about self.

Is it really the options causing it or is it the present social construct. Your parents had a much more conducive construct. That construct was building a civilization. It’s conducive to life as it’s needed IF one is trying to build a civilization.
So what is this present construct trying to do?

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Feminism has no endgame dude. Its a result of the lack of masculinity.
Had masculinity been present throughout feminism would not have manifested.
Go read more you need more education. Being right is irrelevant here...its as factual as light casting a 2 pm shadow.

Wow.... Your really ignoring the systematic erosion of masculinity which is a part of this occurence. It's embedded into the systems, the courts, cultural and society.

If man kept acting in accordance to the old ideals his masculinity would get eroded.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

False that makes 0 sense. Masculinity and femininity cores do not change.

Omg. If women arent rewarding the old ideals and mannerisms it will drain a man to keep doing it. In general women are standing in a more masculine space. Do you think they ate up that ground to get a more masculine man to force them to be feminine? No. They want to control men and be more dominant.

 

[BeExcellent]

Pretty close and I concur. So we can agree that it is to disassemble the natural order of things. To create something that is unnatural at its base.

So what is it’s purpose? Who and why? I don’t believe for a second that it’s for the betterment of women. Women are just, as a majority, the most mailable and moldable. This is the natural order of the feminine energy. They will change to new clothes in a heartbeat because it’s part of belonging. They will talk and talk just for the purpose of communication. It’s social.

men do not think this way as a whole. Sure he may change to cooler clothing to pursue women but it’s not about belonging. Showing up to a company meeting in a boardroom in shorts and flip flops might be a bad idea. Men tend towards flawless professional. Masculine men that is.

Men are adjusting to women to gain reproductive rights that they will never get due to molding to the present social script. Or opting out completely.

so who and why? Operating on the premise that feminism isn’t the goal but merely a tool to a different endgame different than some form of optimized feministic utopia.

@ShePays gives a nice summary in another thread. Perhaps he can contribute here. I agree with him that it is a leftist and Marxist tool aimed at destabilizing the family unit.

It is a seductive narrative parading as empowerment for women, but it’s disingenuous and dangerous for women, for men and for the fabric of society at large.

It is not unlike the stirring of interracial tensions, which serves the same purpose.

It’s insidious and seeking to dismantle society...to create dependence and enable control for those who would seek control.

 

[TonyTenner]

Rollo, in one of his podcast's, said as societies progress they tend to default towards the feminine. We don't have many to go on - only our own has done that, and only in the last 50 years. So it will be interesting to see how societies in the Middle East progress. They're more ****ed up than ours, for very different reasons. As they correct, will they default to the feminine? We'll see.

 

[BeExcellent]

Omg. If women arent rewarding the old ideals and mannerisms it will drain a man to keep doing it. In general women are standing in a more masculine space. Do you think they ate up that ground to get a more masculine man to force them to be feminine? No. They want to control men and be more dominant.

I believe this is true. However it is misguided. That’s the bigger issue. Women have been pimped out and sold up the river and don’t even realize it.

Dominance is the purview of men. Strength, force. Influence is the purview of women. But failure to lead, failure to take influence into account and make the correct decision? That is where men fail. All the way back to Adam and Eve. A woman’s real power is her power to influence. It must be wielded wisely. A man’s power is to decide. He must decide correctly.

 

[TonyTenner]

To answer you both, the purpose of feminism/femarxism isn't to establish a new sexual paradigm, as much as it is to simply destabilize Western Civilization, so that is can be toppled and conquered. If a caliphate were established in its place, does anyone believe women would be more free than Western women were 200 years ago?

It's only a tool of psychological warfare: first take over the academy, the theatre, and the daily news distribution; then, society disintegrates into chaos, through whatever narrative you choose to impose upon your enemy..."men and women are the same"..."there are infinite human sexes"..."binary sexuality is a malleable, obsolete, and toxic social construct"..."masculinity is evil"..."boys can be girls and girls can be boys"..."fathers are unimportant"..."single mothers are heroes"..."the sex most fanatically wedded to infanticide as a fundamental right should be entrusted to the care and raising of all children"...

Who is pulling the strings? And what do they intend to replace Western Civilisation with?

 

[TonyTenner]

That's the 64 trillion dollar question. It's a huge complicated spider's web. But, the simple answer is that it's the Globalists, and that they intend to replace nation states with an irrevocable worldwide oligarchy, in which your vote will be merely symbolic, and in which truly peaceful protests(not like the "mostly peaceful'' riots America is currently experiencing) will be treated as acts of terrorism, and dealt with as was the 1989 Tiananmen Square student protest. And, these moronic, emotionally unstable, gender confused, indigent, homeless, drug-addicted, hordes of paid protesters, too clueless to even know what the Hell they're fighting for...those dumbassses will have helped usher in their own destruction, since they will be the first to go, because they will have served their sole useful purpose, and would only be useless eaters, in the Globalists's utopia....as will be about 95% of the current global human population. Good luck making that cut.

Still seems like you're suggesting there is an overarching plan, which means there must be people making those plans.

I've always thought it's because we don't have wars any more. Generation upon generation were conscripted to fight for Western civilisation, so they valued what we have - free speech etc. No surprise post-war 1950s is considered the pinnacle. Now that we don't have wars anymore - because we value human life more now that most of us realise there's no life after death - we've lost appreciation for what makes Western civilisation so great. We don't have to fight for anything. Which leads to boredom. Which leads to anarchy. Kind of like in a relationship. So society starts to tear itself down, by any mean, out of pure boredom. There is no overarching plan.

 

[TonyTenner]

I notice you spell 'civilization' with an 's'; so, I'm going to assume you aren't an American. America has been at war for the past 19 years, which is longer than we haven't been at war since WW2. That's point one.

Point two is that it's never all one thing, which is why I attempted to answer a complex question with a simple answer. Admittedly, my answer was dumbed down substantially, to make it palatable for a broad, uninitiated audience, but it's as deep as I care to get into the subject, for now. Suffice it to say that your conclusion of autophagy is not only simplistic but naive.

Point three:

https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tLP1TcwLTDIrSw3YPTirSwtylRISq3KTc3LLwMAdLQJGQ&q=yuri+bezmenov&oq=yuri+besmen&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j46j0l2.6425j0j9&client=ms-android-alcatel-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

The above is still only one piece of the puzzle, but it should be enough to start you down the rabbit hole. Watch that first step, Alice.

Ya I'm Irish. My point is simplistic but there's something to it. By war I meant self-preservation war. I agree with what you're saying, specifically the link between feminism and marxism. I just haven't seen a really conclusive answer on why and who, from anywhere. Yuri Bezmenov - never heard of him. Watching a youtube doc on him now, interesting.

 

[death_wish. .]

in my eyes the man should come before the kids because without him there wouldnt even be any , but women are hardwired to give af about nothing but themselves and the offspring

 

[TonyTenner]

BTW, one of my grandfathers was an Irish immigrant to to America, and was a financial supporter of the revolution(which happened about 20 years after he moved to America), and he would have lost his fuucking mind that Ireland re-attached itself to England(via the EU), and that it's England that's currently trying to disentangle itself.

Sadly, Ireland has bought into Regionalism, which is just incremental Globalism. The only "good" thing that might come to Ireland, through Brexit, is the re-acquisition of the Northern counties, and only because they want to remain in the EU. You've lost so much of your national identity so quickly that the reunification probably won't help reinvigorate it.

That's just my foreign observation. I'll be happily corrected, if I'm wrong.

Northern Ireland costs Westminister £7 billion a year to run. If they rejoined the Republic, we'd have to bear that cost - and we're already broke from 2008 financial collapse. I used to be more patriotic when I was younger. But as I've aged and met people who want a united Ireland, I've changed my mind. Those people tend to be colossal bores with an unhealthy hatred of the English. Yet our culture is dominated by the very best aspects of English culture such as football and music - and we're all the richer for it. In fact, i usually stir it with these people and say "The English civilised us. If it wasn't for them we'd still be swinging from the trees"

 

[TonyTenner]

They roped you guys into the EU by promising that the Irish economy would be even stronger than the roaring "Celtic Tiger" it already was, and then...

No need to be so self-deprecatIng. After all, who civilized the English? The Romans. And, who civilized the Romans? The Greeks...ad infinitum...

And, of course, who saved civilization?

The only alternative to patriotism and nationalism is regionalism and globalism, and those are bad roads. If you disagree, imagine a world where your currently favorite store became the only store on the planet, and attempt to rationalize how it wouldn't lose every attribute that makes it your current favorite...and THAT's Globalism...on a good day.

I agree that nationalism is a good thing and the best bulwark against globalism. I've long thought that birth rates falling through the floor in the West and sky-rocketing in Africa and the Middle East, combined with open borders, is going to eventually lead to many European countries ending up like the Lebanon - people with completely contradictory values living side by side. A tinderbox.

The reason why I take the piss out of the nationalists here is because they keep harping back to the violence of the 60's & 70's and glorifying it. The North is filled with enough people who want to remain part of Britain. Most of us have accepted that and it doesn't take from our national identity. There's good nationalism and bad nationalism and, after all these years, we're left with bad nationalism imo.