A blog for Christian men "going their own way."

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

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. ;-)

16 comments:

anti-virus said...

Nice job, I hadn't noticed that term before but it is one program I will not be waiting for the patch or the upgrade. A completely different operating system is required. One that does not come bundled with the state and family court system virus.

Anonymous said...

My mother is a psycho nutcase. Just knowing that there are others out there like her is enough to convince me that marriage is a waste of time. Or worse, holds huge, unacceptable risks.

TMink said...

From the linked article: "There's no way to know WHAT kind of girl you have until you're committed and it's too late to avoid being destroyed."

I do not accept this statement. Now my first marriage was not pleasant, and I take responsibility in that I had no idea what to look for in a potential mate. I was attracted to my then wife, and I believed that was sufficient.

I am remarried, and happily so. In the time between 23 and 39, I learned enough to pick a better spouse.

The trick is to codify and distribute the data. That would be an actual Marriage 2.0, one in which both partners have the tools and maturity to make a good selection and then follow through with their intentions.

It is not just a male problem, but women certainly have societal and court benefits that men do not, so it behooves us to choose wisely.

Trey

slwerner said...

TMink - "The trick is to codify and distribute the data. That would be an actual Marriage 2.0, one in which both partners have the tools and maturity to make a good selection and then follow through with their intentions."

Trey,

I'm afraid your thinking of Marriage 3.0 here. You, and some others are essentially the beta-testers. however, it's wide release has been suspend indefinitely while the government courts investigate how they will be able to assert ultimate control over Marriage 3.0 - they way they tried to do with Marriage 2.0.

Might I suggest that, even though working copies are getting harder and harder to find these days, the original Marriage (you know, the one where it was between one man and one woman, rather than between two individuals and the state) would still be preferable.

Novaseeker said...

Marriage 2.0 is a fantastic term (first person I saw using it was Puma over at Lee Raconteur's now defunct anti-marriage forum), because it is catchy, current, and intuitively describes the core issue: marriage has changed, and what is now marriage is *different*.

Of course, marriage is what you make it, and to that extent I agree with Trey. But marriage is also a bundle of rights and obligations under the law, and that's where the difference lies between marriage 1.0 and marriage 2.0. The main differences are no-fault divorce and the results of that, in terms of overwhelming mother custody, the resulting fatherlessness plague, the creation of the largest debt collection apparatus in world history (largely used to pursue truly indigent men) and so on. That's where the term "marriage 2.0" has meaning -- the rules were changed, there is a new version of the rules, and, like any "game" involving rules, a substantial set of changes to the rules will literally change the game itself. And *that* is what has happened to marriage.

Anonymous said...

I'm reminded of this document:

How Did Government Get Involved in "Marriage?"

http://bit.ly/3JDpog

TMink said...

Wow, for once I am ahead of the curve! I always thought that huge mass behind me was a tsunami.

Trey

slwerner said...

TMink - ”For once I am ahead of the curve! I always thought that huge mass behind me was a tsunami.”
Before you get to over-confident, it looks like there may be yet another forming ahead of you, because…


as many men were already aware, modern women are also working on their own revised version of marriage:

”If high-revving women are sexually frustrated, let them have some sort of French arrangement where they have two men, the postfeminist model dad building shelves, cooking bouillabaise, and ignoring them in the home, and the occasional fun-loving boyfriend the kids never see.” - Sandra Tsing Loh

As frequently discussed on men’s blogs, women – who are more inclined towards serial monogamy rather than life-long monogamy – envision as their ideal a short-term arrangement wherein they have man (or several) just for sex, and another to be their helpmeet.

Novaseeker is running two posts related to the subject @


http://novaseeker.blogspot.com/2009/06/women-debunking-marriage-too.html & http://novaseeker.blogspot.com/2009/06/nattering-continues.html

slwerner said...

Can't forget our host, now can we..

Aniken also has a post up about women's changing views on marriage.


http://biblicalmanhood.blogspot.com/2009/06/my-response-to-question-posed.html

TMink said...

It is ok SLW, I am on mariage last one for me.

Trey

slwerner said...

TMink - "It is ok SLW, I am on mariage last one for me."

You have children, don't you?

I'm also happily married an planning to stay that way, so all of my many concerns wrt sexual relationships marriage, and all the unpleasant legal issues that go with them, is primarily for the sake of my children - although I also have a great deal of concern for all people who stand to be adversely affected, and for our culture and society as a whole.

To be frank, I have far fewer concerns wrt my daughters, than I do fort my son - the deck being so heavily stacked in the favor of women.

Puma said...

Marriage 2.0 is like the shapeshifter alien in sci-fi movies, which has killed the original crewmember 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 comandeers 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.

Jake said...

What, are you guys so helpless that you can't fashion a normal, Biblical marriage under difficult circumstances? If God wants you to get married (and he does want some people to do this) -- it doesn't matter if the chuuuuuurch makes it haaaaarrrrd to do it riiiiiiight. Do it right. Stop being ruled by fear and start being ruled by God's Love. o_O Stop assuming that everything is ruled by societal expectations (can't get out! can't get out! all gonna die!), and realize that there are some women out there genuinely striving to obey the Lord. Don't you remember? Everything belongs to you -- the whole world and life and death, the present and the future -- and you belong to Christ -- and Christ belongs to God. (1 Cor 3:22-23) You're invincible if you stay in the light. ^_^

Puma said...

Jakeb - you are only 22. This is a good thing because there is time for you to learn, to protect yourself, and having a meaningful life without becoming minced meat for the sausage factory.

Read the book "Taken into Custody" by Stephen Bakersville:

http://www.amazon.com/Taken-into-Custody-Fatherhood-Marriage/dp/1581825943

The life you save, may be your very own.

SavvyD said...

What this woman wants:
A real man who acts like a man and talks like a man.
Yep, that means most of the time he's going to wax rhapsodic about beer, engineering and airplanes cause he works in that field. Sometimes he'll talk about God. He might even be a little bit of a geek. If we have kids, we can hire a girl to help around the house occasionally so I can still keep everything nice and keep myself presentable. And sometimes he can take care of the kids and teach them to play sports and stuff. I support his hopes and dreams. wish me luck.

Daniel said...

I have found a great product cure for this problem or to learn this Marriage Savior System.  My friend recommended me to visit http://tinyurl.com/urmarriagesaved