Over in Oklahoma, 44-year-old first grade school teacher Tasha McCuan had sex with three different underage high school boys (link). The state charged her with three counts of second-degree rape. I’m sure she only had sex with them once each. True to form, the state then gave her the pass and dropped two of the three charges. For rape of three boys one boy she gets 5 years in prison and a $2,200 fine.

Around the same time as Tasha was getting it on with every boy at the high school, 36-year-old high school teacher Jason Argo was starting his 12-year prison sentence for one count of lewd battery and one count of child abuse, after receiving oral sex twice and having intercourse once with a high school student.

It turns out that Argo got off easy—12 years—because he had PTSD. On the other hand, McCuan got off easy—5 years—because she’s a woman.

One of the fundamental problems with feminism is its incoherent notion of equality. There is no consistent definition of feminism^[1] that agrees on who or what must be equal vs unequal, nor whether equality must be of opportunity or outcome. This is shown plainly in the women’s suffrage movement.

Women have had the right to vote ever since the passage of the 19th amendment to the United States Constitution in 1920. Voting is not about the individual, but about the group: the group with the most votes carries the day. If the opinions of men and women as a group were equally valid, then there would be no need for women to vote. Suffrage implies that there must be at least some issues upon which women’s opinions are unequal and (implied to be) superior to men’s. Let’s see what their notion of equality looks like.

Lewis Petrinovich and his team performed psychological research on hypothetical moral dilemmas. Trolley problems are not new, but this research took a twist by asking men and women to decide whether to save their own dog or a person. The results show a stunning gender disparity.

The research shows that women are dramatically more likely to let a person die than to let their dog die. Moreover, they show strong intuition that this is the morally right choice. Your sister is approximately 5 times more likely to let you die than you would let her die. If your best friend is a woman, she’s 4 times more likely than you to let you die than let her precious dog die. A woman is approximately 2 times more likely than you are to let an extended family member die.

Other research on gender differences in morality has led to additional interesting conclusions. When justice is carried out against wrongdoers, the brains of men are stimulated in the pleasure centers. For women the pain centers are stimulated. Women do not like when justice is served. Women are sensitive to context, while men are sensitive to principles. This helps explain why women are so frequently given a pass for their misbehavior.

The research shows that women are more empathetic than men, but they develop empathy over time in response to child development. This suggests that women who do not marry and raise a family fail to develop proper empathy to compensate for their lack of principles.^[2] Feminism produces hordes of voting women who shun families for career. Those who lack principles and empathy make natural incoherent feminist soldiers. They are the women who would leave you to die.

Those of us who are not feminists recognize that giving women the right to vote meant giving those with non-principled, context-based moral centers the right to shape our laws. The research shows that women are much more likely to value an animal over human life. For proof, look no farther than the abortion laws and statistics.

As you prepare your 100 year anniversary women’s suffrage celebrations for August 18, 2020, remember that those women voting are significantly more likely to let you die. Men, the next time you have to chose between saving your woman or your dog, remember the feminist mantra of equality and save the dog.^[3]

---

^[1] The best definition most consistent across all flavors of feminism is the promotion of gender inequality favoring women, that is, female supremacy.

^[2] A women’s empathy is more context-based, not principled. Recipients of that empathy will depend on the target and situation. It need not be rational or consistent. For example, women may support empathetic legislation that actively harms people. Or she’ll save the dog and the kids and leave you to die. Don’t expect her to die with you.

^[3] While I’m not serious, this is an excellent example of Dalrock’s Law of Feminism.

Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with Boxer’s regular use of the intentionally inflammatory slur cunt pass.^[1] This term reflects the tendency of society in general and the legal system specifically to give women a pass when they commit various felonies and other anti-societal behaviors.

Examples of the cunt pass are varied. They exist in and overlap legal and social realms. They include lighter (or no) criminal sanctions for infanticide, ignoring negative evidence against women in family courts, and excusing sexual crimes of adult females with male children. The cunt pass is in evidence in society when pastors refuse to condemn women who break up families through frivolous divorce, utilize the divorce threat point, or refuse to have sex with their spouses.

But what is the cunt pass? It can be defined as follows:

Women are independent and powerful. They have the right and ability to make any choice. When they misbehave, it is because they are weak or mentally ill—victims not to be held responsible. Men are ultimately to blame and must excuse their misbehavior.^[2]

Just as feminism—upon which the cunt pass is based—is logically incoherent, so to is this rationale. Women cannot be completely empowered and independent with their own choices while simultaneously not at fault for their misdeeds.

Oddly enough, there are many persons who deny that this bias exists, let alone that it is intentional. Many act like it is difficult to find the hard evidence to support it. The Department of Justice report “Homicides of Children and Youth” (October 2001) illustrates one critical application of the cunt pass.

The DoJ reports that women as a gender are disproportionately likely to kill children,^[3] especially those under the age of 6.^[4] What we find is that women tend to murder most vulnerable, those least likely to be able to resist. When the only meaningful difference between murdering young children, toddlers, infants, or the unborn (early, mid, or late stage) is the age of the child, then there is no in principle reason that a woman’s wanton death worship would end when a child pops out of the womb. The data confirms this. If abortion was outlawed, we would expect the subsequent murder rate of the unborn to be similar to the rates that women kill their birthed children now.

The report notes this critical point:

“Women who kill children are more likely to be labeled mentally ill than men who kill children and are somewhat more likely to commit suicide.” (DoJ, p9)

This is the cunt pass, front and center. For at least two decades we have known that women are much more likely than men to get an explicit or implicit “mental illness” pass for abusing or murdering their children. It is quite unusual for a government report to admit this in writing. The fact that the publication was done in the early days of the internet probably explains why it was allowed to stand. Yet even this admission by the DoJ is somewhat cagey. However, the report contains two more critical pieces of evidence:

“Homicides of young children may be seriously undercounted.” (DoJ, p2)

and

“Homicide is the only major cause of childhood death that has increased in incidence during the past 30 years” (DoJ, p2)

Think about this for a second. Women murder their children significantly more frequently than men. When they are accused of murdering their children, even the DoJ admits that they are excused much more frequently than men.^[5] Statistically, those murders become accidents. The result? A serious undercounting of the real homicide rate of children.

Yet, even giving women the cunt pass for murdering children is still not enough to hide the fact that since the end of the 1960’s—the sexual revolution when feminism took power—women killing children is the only major cause of childhood death that has increased in incidence. Over that time almost every nation on earth has been experiencing a secular period of quality of life improvements and an almost universal drop in all crimes.

It should be noted that the cunt pass is given to nearly every woman who has a pregnancy and a subsequent abortion. It is alleged that a woman should not be held accountable in any way for having sex and getting pregnant. Not only must she not be held responsible for her choices and that unwanted pregnancy, but it is the man’s fault for ejaculating. Every. Single. Time.

The Department of Justice has merely provided yet another data point that shows that feminism worships death. It has highlighted that the cunt pass is not only real, but an essential feature of feminism.

---

^[1] Though I’ve never used the term before and am unlikely to ever again, I will use it in here because it is considerably less inflammatory than the excused behavior. If the term is somewhat upsetting, then excusing the behavior should induce white-hot blind rage.

^[2] Dalrock’s Law of Feminism: “Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.”

^[3] “Although victims include approximately equal numbers of boys and girls, offenders include a disproportionate number of women.” (DoJ p9)

^[4] “In general, women kill much less frequently than men. However, one-quarter of the victims in killings by women are juveniles [..] Women overwhelmingly kill very young children (75 percent of their juvenile victims are under age 6) and members of their family (79 percent). Thus, women who kill are heavily concentrated in child maltreatment homicides and infanticides. ” (DoJ p9)

^[5] We have not even considered the cunt pass implicit in lighter sentencing for women.

There are many definitions of feminism. Those who despise feminism define it according to the hell that it is. Those who love feminism prefer fluffy, sweet-sounding definitions. Down below, new commenter Karen has generously provided her preferred definition of feminism:

The definition of equality as far as feminism goes is really simple: equal opportunity for all; not being stopped from trying because of gender. Treating everyone the same.

At first glance this appears to be a pretty tame definition. It is quite a bit less honest than Webster’s definition of feminism, but many feminists would probably agree with it.

Note that this definition is vague and contradictory. Equal opportunity for all is not the same as treating everyone the same. This is simple to demonstrate. If we were to treat everyone the same, then we would all be like Chinese culture: refusing to give up our seats to pregnant women. The reason I might yield my seat to another is because different people get treated differently. So let’s interpret treating everyone the same as a simple summary of giving everyone equal opportunity irrespective of their gender.†

There are many reasons that this is wrong.

#1: Equal opportunity is incoherent

The definition given is vague, especially not clearly defining ‘equal’. This is by design, because no specific, objective criterion can be established that leads to a coherent definition.

There are feminists called by the slur TERF: trans-exclusionary radical feminists. These oppose transgender rights, especially transwomen taking any rights afforded to women. They refuse to accept that transwomen are women. They argue that women cannot have equal opportunities if men are allowed to take their opportunities.

When a transwoman competes in a women-only sporting event, they have an unfair advantage because they are men competing against women. The opportunity is undeniably unequal. But by excluding transwomen you are not giving equal opportunities irrespective of gender. Thus, by the definition of feminism given above, excluding transwomen is also undeniably unequal. Both positions are undeniably unequal.

It’s a hopeless contradiction because men and women are not equal. Trying to equal that which is not equal leads to absurdities like feminists fighting feminists over which equality must be more equal. The concept of equality in feminism is self-refuting because it denies reality.

#2: Feminists seek equality of outcome

Having established that it is impossible to have equality of opportunity, we realize why feminists focus almost all of their efforts on equality of outcome.

Studies time and again show that the wage gap is real and that is predominately caused by choices made by women. The great irony was that when women achieved equality of opportunity, they used that opportunity to not close the wage gap. God forbid that we tell women what to do, so the only thing left to do is to try to force equality of outcome.

The Australian government attempted to help give women equal outcomes (that is, equal wages). They tried putting male names on female candidates’ resume. The result? Fewer interviews. It turns out that Australians are biased in favor of women, giving them unequal opportunities over men. In response to this, the Australian government insisted on new policies to increase the hiring chances of men over women. Wait, what’s that? They actually abandoned the practice because it didn’t lead to equal outcomes for women. They were perfectly fine with the anti-male unequal opportunity.

The feminist push for equality of outcome is not limited to women. As Karen noted, feminism was about ‘treating everyone the same’. Embracing this philosophy, the School Diversity Advisory Group in New York City found that minority children were underrepresented in the city’s gifted schools. The suggested solution? End equal opportunity admissions standards to force equality of outcome.

#3: Feminists seek inequality—of opportunity and outcome—favoring women

Feminists don’t stop with seeking equality of outcome. No, they have to be sure that women have greater opportunities and greater outcomes than men.

Last month, Hasbro embarrassed itself by announcing Ms. Monopoly, a board game that gives unequal opportunities to women.

The NYT article entitled “Where Boys Outperform Girls in Math: Rich, White and Suburban Districts” noted that girls academically outperform boys in almost every area.

When faced with this inequality, the NYT suggested that schools in America need to focus greater attention on creating more opportunities for boys to try to catch up or exceed girls’ outcomes. Wait, what’s that? They actually said that this was a problem that could be solved by raising girls scores, further increasing the gender disparity.

Feminists love abortion because their death worship favors women. Dave Chappelle pointed out their hypocrisy: if they can murder his child, he should be allowed to abandon it and not have to pay child support if the mother chooses to keep it. It’s logically consistent. Feminists despise it when anyone points out that women have unfair, unequal reproductive power and parental rights.

Another way feminists favor women is in divorce proceedings. By giving unequal rights to women, they can and do use divorce and custody of children as threat points in marriage. This feminist view of marriage is thus an antagonistic competition where power is given to the wife over her husband.

Feminists love #MeToo and Title IX enforcement, because it allows women to create post-hoc rationalized rape accusations to further control men and destroy their lives as punishment for being men. #BelieveAllwomen is yet another way to support this and give women unequal social rights and punitive powers.

#4: Feminists see opportunity as a zero-sum game

In theory, there are two ways to achieve equal opportunity: reduce the opportunity of men or increase the opportunity of women. In a zero-sum game these two are equivalent, so feminists would have to decrease the opportunities of men to increase the opportunities of women. However, feminists don’t actually care if opportunity isn’t a zero-sum game: they will reduce a man’s opportunity whether or not there is a corresponding increase the opportunities available to women in order to achieve relative equality. Many of the examples given above are like this (e.g. girl’s test scores).

This is important because the fluffy sweet-sounding definition ‘equality for all!!!’ is used as an excuse to reduce a man’s opportunity even if it doesn’t benefit women. Equality in this context just means harming men. This is where Dalrock’s Law of Feminism comes into play. Feminists demand that men change to their lives to give women more opportunity and better outcomes while simultaneously working to reduce his opportunities and outcomes. It is for this reason that many men are so hostile towards feminism, and their hostility is completely justified.

Conclusion

It turns out that the tame definition of feminism is actually insidious. Those gentle words are smooth lies. Those of us who hate feminism are often falsely vilified for ‘hating women’. Yet by fighting the irrationality of feminism, we fight the resulting tyranny and inequality. In doing so, we are probably the only people left who actually care about both men and women.

† This interpretation is actually illegitimate. Karen really did contradict herself. The full context is this: “Treating everyone the same. So a heavily pregnant woman would be treated the same as anyone else with a temporary disability or injury that makes them vulnerable in a jerky bus.” She really does think that treating people differently means treating them the same.

From the years 697BC to 643BC King Manasseh reigned as king of Judah. The Bible describes his reign as evil. Many have argued that he was the worst of all the kings in the southern kingdom. Among the list of his evil deeds is the devout worship of Moloch:

“He sacrificed his own son in the fire” [2 Kings 21:6]

Not only did he sacrifice his own son, but he perpetuated Moloch worship during his reign. The focal point of these deeds was in Jerusalem in the Valley of Ben Hinnom. God was so incensed by these abominations that he sent his prophet Jeremiah to condemn it:

“They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.” [Jeremiah 19:5-6]

By the time of Jesus, the Valley of Ben Hinnom was known by the name Gehenna†. Jesus talked about it often. But Gehenna is not the name that we use in English. We use “Hell”, the place of death. Hell, the most special kind of place, is named after those who murder their own children.

When Judah, under King Manasseh’s reign, murdered hundreds (or possibly thousands) of children, God was so ticked off that “Hell” now commemorates it. We’ve seen previously that feminism is a religion of death. One of its primary rituals is child sacrifice: abortion. In the last four decades nearly 2 billion babies have been sacrificed to Moloch in its name. It’s hard to truly comprehend a number that large. Those are video game numbers representing human lives.

If God lost his religion over the deaths of thousands, imagine how he views the deaths of billions. Feminism is truly hell. No, that’s not right. I think even Hell is personally disturbed and horrified by 2 billion murdered children. Feminism is worse than Hell. We just don’t have any other name to describe it.

† This small valley still exists in Jerusalem. You can go visit it.

For decades, the Girl Scouts of the USA has been pushing extreme feminism at the expense of our young girls. Not wanting to miss the chance to attack our enemies, Dalrock took a vicious stab (Archive; PDF) at feminist-driven scouting by attacking the American Heritage Girls.

“One of the astounding things modern Christians have done is twist Scripture into a gospel of girlpower.  Christian women are now taught that the Gospel is a message of high self esteem. From American Heritage Girls Girl Power and God’s Power:”

Wait, what? Is this the Christian-run American Heritage Girls, the same organization that was founded to give a countering alternative to the activist feminist Girl Scouts of the USA? I had a look at the AHG website to see what it had to say:

“Girl Power” on its own is a flawed movement. It places all its meaning in the human understanding of man and woman, embracing concepts of cultural feminism as the sole source of worth. But we know as Christians that humankind’s purpose doesn’t come from Earthly sources—it’s of God. Just as worth does not come from intelligence, appearance or wealth, nor does it come from the idea of feminine validation.

Apparently if there is one thing that we should condemn about scouting for girls, it is those organizations that oppose feminism and teach that we should have inner joy because every life has intrinsic worth.

Long time readers of this blog know that the majority of content focuses on directly attacking the causes and supporters of feminism. By contrast, blogs like Vox Day and Dalrock are really feminist blogs riddled with half-truths.

Dalrock, specifically, spends almost all his time vilifying anti-feminists. Given the choice between attacking a popular activist feminist organization or an anti-feminist organization whose worst crime is not being amazing at teaching theology, Dalrock chooses the latter. When faced with the choice to attack feminist thought policing or embrace it, Dalrock chooses the latter (Archive; PDF).

Pay attention and know who your friends and enemies are.

Twelve percent of women will develop invasive breast cancer during their lifetime. A quarter million new cases are diagnosed each year. Many will go through chemotherapy and/or have breasts removed. It will still kill around 40,000 women a year (~14% death rate).

Women who give birth in their teens through early twenties have the lowest risk of developing breast cancer. The more children they have—and the earlier they have them—the better. Paradoxically, women who give birth for the first time in their 30s actually have an increased risk.

Cancer risk goes up while on the pill. Cancer risk declines with breast feeding.

By promoting delayed (or no) marriage and having fewer (or no) children feminism literally harms women.

Feminists will often state that banning abortion would harm women’s health. About 700 women die each year as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications. This is two orders of magnitude less than the number of deaths due to breast cancer.

Consider a pro-family society where abortion is banned completely and men and women marry and start families in their teens and early twenties. Even a small percentage decrease in breast cancer due to this would result in significant health benefits to women.†

It is often best to cite the evidence presented by your enemies and use it against them. This limits your bias and increases the strength of your arguments. If you read some of the links above, you’ll notice the well-cited claim that abortion (probably) does not increase the cancer risk compared to all women (and those who have miscarriages).

This really tiptoes around the core issue: abortion means a woman does not have a full-term pregnancy and birth when she otherwise would have except for abortion. Thus the woman who aborts is voluntarily not receiving the protective benefits that come with giving birth and breast feeding—benefits that would have happened if not for the abortion.

She should be compared to the women who give birth, not all women in general and not women who have involuntary abortions (miscarriages). If this is done, it becomes plain that abortion intentionally increases her risk relative to what it would have been if she had not gotten an abortion.

Feminism truly is the Religion of Death.

---

† When a woman dies from breast cancer, it was the cancer that killed her. When a woman dies from complications due to pregnancy, it is not the pregnancy that killed her, but the various complications. So you can save lives directly be decreasing cancer, but you can’t directly increase or decrease pregnancy complications by changing the number of pregnancies. Other factors are at play that prevent direct, immediate causation.

America is governed by a religion of death. Moloch is god and abortion is the worship ritual. It is the primary religion of feminism.†

For nearly 50 years Christians have been fighting back against Roe v. Wade. The battle lines have been drawn with infanticide on the left and a nearly complete ban on the right. The stage is being set for a Supreme Court showdown. The result of this showdown could be a multi-generational inflection point even more important than the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement.

Consider the power of images. Pro-life supporters show pictures of aborted and unborn babies. They use memes. Some of us use images of our own children.

My adopted daughter has Bilateral Tibial Hemimelia, affecting about 1 in 2 million. In America, Doctors would have recommended that she be aborted. They would say that her deformities were grave and she would have a poor quality of life, that her genetic condition may indicate a weak heart, and that her medical treatments would be a financial and emotional drag on both family and society.

My daughter has above-average intelligence and is a natural leader. She can now walk, run, and do cart-wheels. Her heart is fine. She has never been a drag on us. She is a beautiful person, full of life. Her life has value.

Mark and Natalie Weaver’s daughter Sophia has Rett syndrome and various other problems. She is physically disfigured and has had 30 surgeries. Her life has value. Their daughter’s image was used in a tweet advocating coerced abortion and they were told that their daughter should die and be put her out of her misery. Natalie Weaver is an activist feminist, yet even she can see the destructiveness and hatred of the religion of death when it hits her personally, even if she misjudges the cause. Dehumanizing those with disabilities goes hand-in-hand with dehumanizing the unborn. The inevitable result is death.

Brother Boxer recently criticized me for insulting, lying, and being ineffectual:

“Why would I indulge someone with such a history of bad-faith arguments? Go do something to reclaim the Christianity of 100 years ago, rather than insulting and bearing false-witness against men on the internet.”

I took a couple weeks off to consider this. I regret that my behavior has not been Christ-like. I’m not sure if I can improve the quality of conversation or be more effective, despite my deep desire to do so. As such, I have been strongly considering giving up blogging entirely to avoid causing more harm than good. I’m not even sure if I should try to bring back Christianity. Perhaps mainstream Christianity should just be allowed to wither and die.

Regardless, there is one thing that Christians should be doing.

Throughout all of recorded history it is thought that as many as 1 billion people have died in wars. It is estimated that almost 2 billion persons have been aborted in the last four decades. Abortion is now humankind’s leading cause of death.

For all the arguments against Christianity—legitimate and illegitimate—abortion stands apart. It is the greatest evil humankind has ever wrought. If there is a problem of evil that Christianity needs to respond to, it is abortion. Moreover, abortion may not be the sole facilitator of feminism, but it is a major contributor. Thus, fighting abortion fights feminism and its fruits (e.g. frivorce). It won’t bring back historical Christianity, but it’s a necessary prerequisite.

---

† The ritual of frivolous divorce results in the death of marriage and family. Similarly, the rituals of promiscuity and contraception prevent the formation of marriage and family, the lifeblood of society. The ritual of censorship is the death of freedom.

After asserting that Christianity is full of hate and that God silently approves, Brother Boxer implored Brother Earl and myself to abandon Christianity.

“You guys should consider converting to something else. You really aren’t Christians, and the Christians don’t deserve you, anyway.”

A few Brothers took issue with Boxer’s categorization of Christianity as a hateful and evil religion with the approval of God. They claimed that many Christians are No True Christians.

While Boxer declined to give us a sensible alternative to Christianity, no alternative is needed.  In truth, Christianity is operating as designed. We most certainly should not abandon Christianity. In order to show and explain this, we have to examine the roots of the religion. Consider the following claims:

1. The Universe had a beginning and a Creator.
2. Life was designed.
3. Jesus really existed.
4. Jesus died and was resurrected.

The first and second are arguments of science, logic, and philosophy. The third and fourth are arguments of history. Together these arguments bypass the majority of the Jewish folk religion as irrelevant†, while showing the authority and significance of Jesus. In doing so Christianity is established as a religion with a concrete, Big Bang-like origin—not an arbitrary folk religion subject to the whims of its adherents or cultural shifts.

In order to answer “Why Christianity?” one must consider the words of Jesus, its founder.

“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

The way is ‘narrow’ in that following Jesus involves trials, suffering, and a strenuous effort to accept. Indeed, this was promised in spades.

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Perhaps suffering is the reason why there will be so few followers of Jesus. Yet, if you find suffering, you will find the followers of Jesus loving.

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

It’s a bitter pill that those who love must suffer. It may sound trite and clichéd, but the reason the followers of Jesus persist is because love is more powerful than suffering. While physics has four fundamental forces, Christianity has one: love.

But what about all of those who have corrupted the teachings? This is expected.

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

and

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

In summary, Jesus taught the following:

• The religion he was founding would never end.
• The religion would be corrupted, especially as time progressed.
• The religious faithful would be few.
• The religious would be characterized by (a) love and (b) suffering and persecution.

By virtue of his resurrection, Jesus had full authority to set the terms of his religion. Why then is anyone surprised that the religion he founded has turned out as expected?

When I look around I see the corruption, same as anyone else who cares to see. I also see the faithful few, characterized by their suffering and their love. Yet I won’t abandon ship—it isn’t sinking. I take the label of Christian because the Christ is my master, not because of what anyone else says or does. For better or worse, our actions—not labels—tell the story of who we are and where our allegiance lies. I’m okay with that.

† For sake of argument

It is unwise for a man or woman to enter marriage without understanding how marriage will impact their happiness. The majority of married life will be relatively unhappy. Most persons will need to be married for nearly 4 decades before they possibly get that spark back that they had at the beginning.

Many women are taught by the feminist society that they can (and should) divorce if they become unhaaaaaaaaaapy!! Accordingly, the highest divorce rates occur during those early years, as marital happiness steadily declines.

Without a doubt, raising children is a stressful, difficult experience.

Merely having a child results in an instantaneous drop in marital happiness. Interrupted sleep, poop, noise, and sickness are not conducive to sanity. It helps to have a stay at home mom, but if she works then finding a babysitter is stressful and costly.

It gets a little easier once the children enter school, although you’ll have a busy schedule with sports and other extra-curricular activities. Unfortunately this is only a temporary improvement. Kids become teenagers. Anyone who has ever met or been a teenager understands the horror of this.

It turns out that children are expensive and wives like spending money. So men work hard to provide their family, working to advance their careers. Husbands and fathers are abnormally driven and successful at this.

You’ll come home at the end of every stressful 10-hour day exhausted to find your wife exhausted from caring for your 3 noisy children. Dinner will need to be made, diapers changed, vacuuming done, laundry folded, lunches packed, and lawn mowed. Guess who has to do most of that so she can rest? Good luck if she’s pregnant.

But then you will get a call from work. Do you like that big pay raise you just got? Duty calls. You can say goodbye to having sex with her tonight. Maybe you can schedule it for next Wednesday.

You’ll find your groove, learning to work on less sleep and limited appreciation even as you get older and your body becomes less capable. Yet everything is okay, right?

Then the roof starts to leak and needs to be replaced. The AC unit just died. The car’s automatic transmission blew out (should have driven manual!). Jimmy needs surgery. The high school quarterback just got Susie pregnant. Now you got laid off and the wife has to go back to work.

The financial burdens will pile up and it will be rough.

When was the last time we even went to bed together, let alone had sex? I can’t even remem….zzzzzzzz.

Marriage is a truly terrible proposition. It consists of tons of work with future prospects that 50% will never make it to. Some have compared it to voluntary slavery. Perhaps that is accurate.

There is only one thing worse than being married…

…and that is being unmarried.

This post is tongue-in-cheek. Marriage can look pretty bad if it is presented that way. Depending on what you read and who you talk to, you might get the impression that marriage offers nothing to a man, that MGTOW is the way to happiness. Perhaps for some it is.

Life is hard but having someone at your side makes things just that much better.

We owe it to men to find a way to make marriage viable, to open up its benefits to more men. Part of that is informing them of the pitfalls, to help them choose more intelligently. This blog does an excellent job of that. Yet just as important is acknowledging the benefits and describing how to achieve them realistically. I will continue to do so.