Puma on Marriage 2.0

[Puma left a comment on Marriage 2.0 that I thought was worthy of reprinting ...]

Marriage 2.0 is like the shapeshifter alien in sci-fi movies, which has killed the original crew member and took his shape.

This is why it is so difficult to warn men about the dangers of marriage; because they say: "What are you talking about? That is Scotty. He is not a bad guy. My family has known him for years!" ... not realizing that Scotty is dead, and in his place is this beast that is getting ready to devour everyone else on the ship.

The same tactic is used by the HIV virus when it commandeers human white blood cells, by replacing their DNA with its own. That cell is no longer a human cell, but a virus factory that then infects many other cells. The body can't defend it, because your other white blood cells still think it's one of them, and won't attack it, or try to stop it.

That's why we need some kind of marker to call it out. Calling it Marriage 2.0 can be that marker. Without it, when Joe Public sees our anti-marriage rants, he thinks we are a bunch of Anarchists insulting the choices of all their ancestors (i.e. getting married). Whereas in reality we are warning them about the beast that has taken its place.

[Excellent words from Puma. I liked how he equated Marriage 2.0 to a shape shifter. I suppose other runner ups would be carnictis sordidcus of Skull Island or Carcharodon megalodon.]

My Response to the Question Posed

Novaseeker has linked to this article, lifted some relevant quotes from it and asked his readers to ponder on what the quotes say about the women of Generation X or thereabouts.

Well, I already have a response. It comes courtesy of another writer, and it's a rather nice response given that it appears, of all places, in the British MSM. Click here for your pleasure. Yes, ladies, we are getting wise to what many of you are all about.

Endgame is nearing. It's almost as if Neil Lyndon channeled Daniel Plainview. I can image the latter declaring, "Stop your crying, you sniveling yuppie females, stop that nonsense. You're just the by-product of Nanny Statism, secularism, and consumerism. They should have put you on some old reruns of Days of Our Lives from the eighties, given all the drama you exude. Where were you when women were screaming for their rights and putting traditional men down? Sucking your pacifier? The good will's been had. There's nothing you can do about it. It's gone. It's had. You loose."

Just my two cents worth.

EDIT: In fairness, some female journalists see through the nonsense, too.

Marriage 2.0

After reading a post on MarkyMark's blog, I have become aware of a term that has entered the vernacular of a few MRAs. It's called "Marriage 2.0." Basically, it serves as an umbrella designation for everything that is wrong with marriage today in terms of what it offers (or fails to offer) men. For examples, see here, here, and here. I like it. It separates the wheat from the chaff. Already, I am thinking of examples of how to use it ...

"Churches are trying to shame men into Marriage 2.0."

"Marriage 2.0 is not a part of manhood."

"Just how do men benefit from Marriage 2.0 anyway?"

"God ordained marriage, but I doubt he ordained Marriage 2.0."

The above are just a few possible examples of what I might say. You have been forwarned. ;-)

Mother Worship (The Primal Roots of Chivalry)

Novaseeker has recently posted an excellent piece on why chivalry needs to come to an end. In thinking about chivalry myself, I wonder if men's rights activists need to look more at how men are affected by their mothers in this regard. No one challenges the truism that the "hand that rocks the cradle rules the world," so why aren't people who are interested in men's issues discussing the ramifications of what this means?

I'm certain there will be plenty of men that deny that they are under the control of their mothers. There is a stigma attached to men who are. They are called "momma's boys." However, watch what happens to a man if you insult his mother. You may accuse me of waxing Freudian, but we are stupid to deny that there is a special bond between a mother and her son. Even if the bond is dysfunctional and characterized by abuse and neglect, the influence is still there.

Here are some inarguable facts: The mother is the primary caregiver for a boy the moment he comes into the world. This typically lasts well into middle school years. If there is no strong male figure around, this can last into young adulthood. Let's be more specific about the primary caregiver role. Human beings are born with a need for physical intimacy, quite apart from any latter considerations about sexual development. A man's first experience with physical intimacy comes from his mother when he is an infant. She additionally provides food, dress, clothing, warmth, and relief from psychological distress to her baby son. Finally, she is the first contact he has with the opposite sex. A very young boy may refer to grown women as "mommies" before he learns better.

I will not linger on restating the obvious of developmental psychology, here. True, boys grow into men, and usually make a significant psychological break from their childish idealization of their mothers. They may talk of marrying their mothers at age 3, but not at age 13. But let's not kid ourselves. A man's relationship with his mother usually has an impact on how he relates to women.

We hear the term "momma's boy" bandied about. Unfortunately, it may be misused against grown men who have a healthy relationship with their mothers and who are merely trying to honor their mother as the Bible commands. I think of envious wives and girlfriends who resent the affection a man may have for his mother. Unfortunately, in some cases, the only woman that may truly care for a man is his mother, and I think it is by virtue of the fact that he is her child. Women often give to their own children the unconditional love they seem incapable of giving to men their own age.

Yet, there is perhaps some men who truly haven't quite cut the apron strings. To many people, these men seem admirable and responsible. But in actuality they have simply transferred their childish idealization of their mother to women in general. A gynocentric culture may reinforce
this childish idealization of women by men. This may lie at the taproot of the chivalry we see.

I hear so many fellow men talking about how they can't live without women (whether it be due to the sex, the intimacy, or whatever). These men extrapolate from their own insecurities and assume that other men are equally beholden to women. It's truly galling and nauseating. Like male infants who haven't formed an identity separate from their mothers, these men refuse to form an identity independent of what women think of them. I think these men need to cut the apron strings in their minds.

Men need to stop treating women like Mesopotamian fertility goddesses. Women are not going to magically make the crops grow, put food on your table, make everything in your life fall into place, etc. We may feel naked in the face of the existential abyss. Indeed, we are. Running to the arms of the opposite sex is not going to make the abyss go away, however. Only God can touch the deepest longings, loneliness, fears, and vulnerabilities of the human heart.

Women are only human. They can be just as messed up as men are. In a gynocentrist society, they are oftentimes even more messed up than men. They are not the default solution to men's problems. In too many cases, women are the problem. The Bible tells us men how to treat women, especially the ones in our families. We can honor them, we can provide for them, sacrifice for them, and love them as Christ commands us. But please, men, stop worshipping them. If more men heeded this advice, we might make some progress in securing justice for both sexes.

Albert Mohler's Reading List For Men

Albert Mohler has compiled a list of books he recommends for reading during the summer. He says it is "intended especially for men, and it is written in the hope that men and older boys will find this list particularly helpful and interesting." So what is on the list? Except for one book, it's nothing but books about war. In other words, books that deal with killing and breaking things. Pretty dim view of masculinity, don't you think? Is that all men are about? Is that what they should primarily be about? Man as the aggressor? It's a caricature of manhood that feminists vilify and that conservatives idolize. Both groups really have no clue about what masculinity is about.

One more thing about war: You know, chemotherapy kills good cells as well as bad cells. It makes the body sick but it also saves lifes in the end. Nobody, however, recommends chemotherapy as a part of a daily health regimen. There is even less rationale for the wars we fight, and yet we embrace militarism as a culture. We celebrate state-sanctioned killing. We give the soldier high-fives instead of feeling sorry for putting him in a morally questionable position in the first place. We essentially equate war with manhood. War is not only the health of the state, it's the health of misandry. It's also the health of certain apostate expressions of religiosity that masquerade as "biblical Christianity."

Kid's Cereal for Feminists

It's interesting that Tom Neven of Boundless brought up a case about a lawsuit over a kid's cereal brand. I've been having my own thoughts about the issue of kid's cereal, and I conclude it's only a matter of time before academia and government address the controversy surrounding this consumer product. Specifically, I am concerned about cereal mascots. Toucan Sam, Tony the Tiger, Dig 'Em Frog, the Rice Krispies Elves, Silly Rabbit, Count Chocula, and other notables are clearly male (which is a social problem).

The obvious gender imbalance may affect the self-esteem of young girls. To correct this situation, a bill will be introduced in the House of Representatives by the Democratic members of the Women's Caucus, entitled the Lily Loopy Cereal Equality Act. A government agency will oversee the introduction of new brands of cereal on the market reflecting the aspirations of young female consumers. Some examples include ...

1. Gaia - Not your typical kids cereal. It contains puffs made from organically grown rice with a small packet of the natural sweetener Stevia, marketed under "fair trade" specifications. Also included is an educational booklet for young girls discussing the importance of the environment and possible careers in science.

2. PowerPuffs!! (with the two exclamation marks) - It features the PowerPuff Girls(tm) as the mascots. Commercials will feature young girls beating boys in some traditionally masculine pastime. "Every bowl's a bowl of Grrl Power!!!"

3. Bratz C3r3l - For the modern material girl and lipstick feminist. Cereal box features significantly more prizes than usual.

Of course, there will be no need to create brands of cereal targeted towards boys, because we live in a patriarchal culture and every brand of cereal is really a boy's cereal, anyway. Girls, on the other hand, will be encouraged to eat whatever brand they like.

Follow your nose.

A Little Dirty Truth About 2nd Wave Feminism

I found this interesting video, which discusses an incident that I heard about some time ago (I think Stephen Baskerville may have mentioned something about it, but I can't remember.). Anyway, in this video, Aaron Russo relates a story about his personal dealings with the Rockefellers and their role in spreading feminism.

Click here for the video.