A brief synopsis of Marriage 1.0, Marriage 2.0 and an RFC for Marriage 3.0. I found this comment on the Badger Hut About page.
Confidunce left the following comment:
People have gone from advocating “equality” to advocating for “sameness” because they think equality and sameness are the same thing. This has led to the masculinization of women and the feminization of men, thus leading to unhappy marriages, faithless women, etc.
To which Deti responded with:
Men and women are not the same. Equal before the law, yes. But they don’t think, behave or process information the same. They also don’t approach each other in the same way. The biological imperatives driving us are quite different. I did not get this until very recently.
Were pre-feminist marriages or LTRs “happy”? I suspect the answer is that like today, some were, some weren’t. I don’t advocate going back to the days when women could not vote, hold jobs, work in certain jobs, own property, etc. I do think that if men and women get married, the marriage works best and the participants happiest and most satisfied with the man and woman in their traditionally defined roles (man usually as breadwinner and provider/protector; woman rearing the children and caring for and making a home). I am NOT saying that a woman has to be barefoot, pregnant and unemployed to be a good wife. I am NOT saying she has to be a doormat. I am NOT saying the man has a right to beat his wife, or have sex with her against her will. What I am saying is that marriage works best when man and woman move into these roles. That is what is commonly called Marriage 1.0.
MARRIAGE 2.0 (Beta version)
I tend to agree with Athol Kay that what we have now is Marriage 2.0 in which men are at a decided disadvantage. To level the field, the man has to incorporate game into his life. Being a beta provider and bringing home a good paycheck ain’t gonna cut it with today’s woman. He has to lead her, insist on her subordination, and push back when need be. He has to lead her in sex. And he has to improve himself in his key weak areas and keep his market value high.
(In market value, the man has an advantage: a man’s market value declines far less rapidly and precipitously than a woman. His MV goes up and peaks in his 30s and 40s, then declines gradually as he ages. For a woman, on the other hand, her MV skyrockets from age 18 to about age 30; after which her market value plunges back to earth far and quickly. If a woman found herself widowed or divorced, she was (and is) quite unlikely to marry again. This is commonly known as “hitting the wall”. Marriage 1.0 protected women from this phenomenon.)
Staying the same will lead to wife’s loss of tingles, and that leads to misery, affairs, and divorce. When push comes to shove, he needs to demonstrate he can and will walk away if he’s not getting what he needs from his marriage; and then make good on the promise.
MARRIAGE 3.0 Alpha
We’re never going back to Marriage 1.0. If it can be done, Marriage 3.0 will probably look something like 2.0 with the following;
- mandatory paternity testing for all children born to a marriage on request of the putative father;
- elimination of alimony;
- proof that child support payments to custodial divorced parents are actually being used for child support, and
- more equitable property distribution in divorce (if wife gets house, wife takes over house payments and pays husband his share of the equity).
I suspect you, like I, would advocate a return to Marriage 1.0. I’d like that but it’s not likely to happen, at least not without other cultural or societal events or effects. Otherwise, the marriage rate will continue to decrease mostly because many men will decide (and have already decided) that marriage isn’t worth it and the costs and risks are too high relative to the benefits.
I say a man should show he can and will walk away from his marriage if he isn’t getting what he needs. This is showing the alpha traits women repeatedly keep saying (and showing) they want their men to have. Do you find this objectionable? He’s saying he won’t put up with her endless complaining. Is this objectionable?
It’s really no different from a woman deciding her husband is too beta, deciding she has no attraction for him anymore, and looking for sex elsewhere. This is played out millions of times in marriages.
I have told my wife straight out – if she ever cheats on me, or if I find she has ever cheated on me, I will drag her through the ugliest divorce she’s ever seen. And I will inform everyone I know of the reasons for the divorce. I love her. But I won’t tolerate being cheated on or cuckolded – not for one minute. And I’ll have paternity tests on the kids. And I will tell everyone I know that paternity tests are being done, and why they are being done.
Marriage 2.0 with paternity testing, no alimony and equitable property distribution is the only way to make marriage palatable and attractive to men. Without it, marriage as an institution will be dead, if it isn’t dead already.