'Bachelors know more about women than married men. If they didn't they'd be married, too.' ' H.L. Mencken.
A great sage predicted I'd take some serious abuse for what I wrote about marriage the other day. He was right, but for the benefit of our readers, I'm going to provide public refutation to some of the arguments and whines that were thrown my way en masse'if nothing else, their vaginations actually strengthened my overall position.
Burn the Heretic!
As I have noted in a previous article, Supine or Fall , whenever a man stands up for himself on gender issues, he is immediately accused by women of being unmanly. Why? It's because we stood up to them, and that's not right. That's not manly. We're supposed to let them walk on us. These women, and those lickspittle male orcs who hobble in their wake, would be wise to remember that the western world now embraces equality between the sexes (at least officially), and that no one should be de facto superior to anyone else. Walking on men, in theory, is not allowed.
Furthermore, it's a man's duty to define and defend himself, and I can think of no occasion when this is more true than in making personal life choices. Marriage can be life joy or it can be life sentence, but there's no room to make allowances for political correctness when thinking deeply about such eventualities. Why would any women be aghast at our pontificating over it? Should we not stop to smell a flower before picking it? I say stop and smell, inspect its structural base, and chemically analyze the ground around it before making a purchase. Perhaps some women became irate at me because they secretly realize that marriage does not offer men the advantages it once did, so their awareness causes them to go after heretics like myself who threaten to make this knowledge public.
I'll recall the case of Darren Blacksmith here. Darren wrote a 'just say no to marriage' piece and got kerosene poured all over him. His offense was such that he quit the business. Luckily, this would never be my response. I'm incorrigible. Harassing me only produces more words. It'll take more than a few china dolls to deter me from tackling this subject, and if I keep hearing from them, Part III will be even better than Part II!
As much as I hate the word 'nuance,' with its outraged tobacco-addicted, post-modernist French professor connotations, I think that the nuance of my argument was lost on some of my critics. Emotions run so scarlet on marriage that many a female reader did not understand the point that I was trying to make. Marriage certainly can be a very good thing and it is, on the aggregate, beneficial for society, but in this day and age, PRESUMPTION must be against it. Our default position should be''it's not a good move.' That does not mean it isn't a good move for everybody in every situation. There are over three billion women on this planet, and many of them could make excellent wives, but you should be vigilant, and nowhere is this more true than in the 'ber-spoiled United States . Men have too much to lose if things don't work out. Think of my friend Robert  and the trauma that he went through. Western independent females, as a rule, do not make the best wives. They're too 'me' oriented for that line of work. One must be very careful indeed. Sit and observe closely before making any decisions.
Who's Fault Is This Predicament?
Is it the fault of free marketeers like myself clamoring for government to get more of its vile fingers into our private lives? Hell no! Ask the individuals who keep voting for political figures who brag about increasing taxes and adding to the burden with which government sabotages our lives. Many of those who automatically look to the state to provide solutions are the same ones who complain about the decline of marriage today. If they didn't elect redistributionist judges and politicians, men would not fear marriage the way we do. It shouldn't be, 'if you can't marry a man, marry the government.' Let's change it to 'solve problems amongst yourselves.' I think that's an ideal solution. If the divorce courts end their war on men, then we will once again become more friendly regarding matrimonial vows. Until then, it's best to harken back to the wisdom of Benjamin Disraeli: 'Every woman should marry'and no man.'
An Elite Club:
Women of the sistahood view marriage as being an elite club and want nothing more than full-time membership. They, whether they deny it or not, admire their friends who are married, and this admiration can sometimes even be transferred onto their friend's husbands. Women who are married, even if it's to users who care nothing about them, are higher on the social plane than women who are single. This is implicit acknowledgment of the sweet deal many women receive through marriage. Personally, I do not begrudge them their social hierarchies and care little about affairs apart from my own, but these same women then try to fit guys like me into their social parameters, which is absurd.
Male Diversity Verboten:
This attempt to coerce men into accepting their worldview is quite disturbing but also rather comical. Ironically, it indirectly benefits fellows like me as the fact that I've been married before makes me seem far more legitimate than most of my friends. I am a man who could be amenable to their terms and line of reasoning, or non-reasoning as the case may be. After all, I made the vow once and bought rings twice, so I must be on their wavelength. Am I not? Not.[i] Yet, my friends, like the infamous Dianabol, are knocked out of the box repeatedly because they've never been married before. Why should he be part of the caste of untouchables? They'd say because he's a 40 year old perpetual bachelor. Therefore, he must be a loser. I even heard a girl say this very thing about him the other day. She assumed that since he was never married before that there must be something wrong with him. Why did she not assume that there may be something very right about him? Dianabol is a prince of man. He exercises five days a week and drinks for four on the weekends. He works constantly, makes serious coin, and has an apartment that looks like it came out of 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.'[ii] Dianabol's a profoundly educated man with a high thrill-seeking personality who strikes the great majority of girls as being the epitome of fun, but his uncomplicated (legally speaking only) past precludes him from some of their considerations. Guess what? It's their loss.
What's In It For Me?
I found out yesterday that I'm not supposed to be asking this question about marriage. It appears that many women believe our default position should be 'why ask why' on the topic (rather than 'why me'). One girl even called me selfish for putting forth the proposition! Shouldn't I be selfish about my own interests? Maybe I'm not supposed to have any interests. Perhaps my having interests is really a plot to dehumanize women. It seems that the message sent is, 'you will marry a chick the size of Toronto and you'll like it!' Ah, no. I think I'll pass. I don't want her, you can have her, Toronto 's too big, and socialistic, for me.
Contrary to what many a woman may say, I believe that 'What's in it for me?' is the central question one should ask before signing one's life away. If you derive no benefit, then run, don't walk. Again, of course, there's the nuance thing, as it's situational. My life certainly is worth signing away in a fight against Hitler or Pol Pot, but I refuse to fall down upon my sword in a scrape for Calphalon pots or Lancome makeup.
Well, you've heard what I have to say about the matter, but never forget the triumphant words of Zsa Zsa Gabor before making your own decision, 'A man is incomplete until he is married. Then he is finished.'
[i] Of course, I say that now but got engaged a second time at Christmas. I suppose if the right youthful Laotian national comes along next year, I may have to eat my above words. I'm just letting you know in advance due to a history of snap decisions on my part.
[ii] His ex-girlfriend decorated it!