Posts Tagged ‘proposal of marriage’

From the start of this blog, I’ve been putting my attention on the “Men On Strike” phenomenon – the “Escape From The Village,” the marriage strike, the reluctance of men to put themselves into the mink-lined man-trap of “Just Cupcake And Me And Baby Makes Three (until Cupcake kicks me out)” Society. I wasn’t exactly a voice in the wilderness, more like another voice in the choir – and the ‘choir’ keeps getting bigger and louder, and more and more men are paying attention.

A few days ago, CNS News published an alarmist, wringing-their-hands article about the growing extent of this “Escape” mind-set. They’re pointing trembling, panic-shivering fingers at the “civilizational catastrophe” that 70 percent of men, age 20 – 34, are not married.

Viewing this from the perspective of Traditional Conservative Churchly-ism, this is quite horrifying. These “Peter Pan men” are accused of living “in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future,” according to spokeswoman Janice Shaw Crouse (author of “Marriage Matters”) … who further asserts that these juvenile slackers “have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood…”

Yes, they’re leaving the marriage-go-round.


Has Janice Shaw Crouse considered why these “Peter Pan boys” are abandoning the “sacred” roles of “responsibility and self-sufficiency … associated with marriage and fatherhood”?

(Hear the hollow laughter!)

Crouse’s plaint is overwhelmingly concerned with the “bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come.” She gives absolutely no attention to the concerns, the worries, the fears, of the young men who are supposed to “man up” and marry these women; though after she’s gotten the bit in her teeth and ran with her sob-story for several paragraphs, she deigns to mention that feminism might have played a part.

But then she characterizes that “part” by feeding right back into the “evil evil men” syndrome, and declaring that “after decades of feminism … young men are now the ones who set the parameters for intimate relationships, and those increasingly do not include a wedding ring.” (So saith CNS News.)

And the rest of the article continues with the same man-shaming tone – that the problem with Society is that “Peter Pan boys don’t Man UP,” get married, and take their proper place on the Plantation. I’ve linked to the article above, and you’re welcome to explore it for yourself.

Excuse me, Sister Janice of the Order of Our Lady of Infinite Responsibility, but I have another explanation for the Lost Boys’ reluctance to join in the bonds of Holy Slavery, er, Matrimony.

Society used to take marriage seriously, and it was all about the marriage, not the Wedding.

Marriage was, indeed, a transition from “boy” (and “girl”) to adulthood. The partners in the wedding CONTRACT – and yes, even with the Separation of Church and State, it was a contract under civil law – agreed to conjoin their identities and combine their resources, “to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance …” (From the 1928 “Book Of Common Prayer” of the Episcopal (Anglican) Church – the vows my mother took when she married my father.) And the singer from the church choir would have sung “I Promise Thee” while the new Mister Newlywed slipped the gold ring onto the finger of his Blushing Bride. And they might have been intimidated by the breadth and solemnity of their vows – but well they should have been; marriage was supposed to be ‘forever.’

It isn’t that way any more – or, at least, not necessarily.


Nowadays, the Church has far less say about the state of Holy Matrimony that is supposed to follow from the Bridezilla Wedding and the Awesome Honeymoon. Once the Bride and groom (use, or lack, of capitalization intentional) sign the State’s wedding contract, they are subject to State law – which is to say, to the standards and requirements and prejudices and sexist bigotry of the State Family Courts. And guess what? Those Family Courts, certainly not in the USA, are not part of the judicial system established by the Constitution of the United States. They are increasingly revealed as a law unto themselves – with White Knight judges who will discard any prior arrangement, prenuptual agreement, or police-rendered evidence, to make sure that “Ms. I’m-Not-Haaaaaappy” is coddled and cared-for in the Divorce Decree.

It sure-as-hell wasn’t that way when my mother divorced her husband in 1953. I’ve got the divorce decree in my fire-proof strong-box. The modern Cupcake gets everything – the house, the kids, child support, debt relief, et cetera, ad nauseam.

Why is it a surprise that the Modern Millenial Man sees this for the one-sided, man-shaming, man-blaming, man-plundering deal that it is – and refuses to take part in it?

If the TradCons would like to have even a Hail Mary prayer of fixing this, they’d better put their lobbying dollars into de-fanging our Family Court system. I am not holding my breath.

Read Full Post »

A few weeks ago, my “adopted nephew” Charlie forwarded to me a video of his proposal-of-marriage to his long-time girlfriend, Rikki. (I borrow a name for her from Steely Dan, as reflected in the title of this piece. It may be inappropriate here; so?) Charlie’s choice of venue, together with the cooperation he got from the flight crew of the airliner that was carrying them (and Charlie’s parents) to a faraway holiday, made it a very special (and quite inescapable) event. But the fact of their engagement leaves me conflicted – because I well know, La Donna E Mobile (that song title is from Giuseppe Verdi), and I fear for Charlie as I might fear for any man who sells himself into the Marriage Racket.

Charlie’s parents, and grandparents, are Catholic. They believe utterly in “till death do us part.” Grandma Pat, the last “best friend” of my mother (who proclaimed me as her adopted son at the “celebration of life” I held for Mom when she sent West), had outlived her husband; same with Jack, Charlie’s grandfather, who married Pat and supported my “adoption” (if you can say such about a 48-year-old “orphan” as I was at Mom’s passing). Rikki’s parents are divorced, but she’s friendly with both of them and she seems really happy with Charlie (who is tall, slim, and takes after his Korean mom in the looks department – he could be quite the Player if he weren’t such a decent young man at the core. I’d be proud as a peacock to have such a son!)

What bothers me, of course, about Marriage American Style, is my perception that Charlie will be selling himself into de facto chattel slavery when he stands up before God and the State and plights his troth. That’s just the way the Marriage Racket works, nowadays. My hope, and a thin thread of hope it is in this Society, is that Rikki may choose to take the Catholic viewpoint and decide that her wedding vows, given to God in front of both families and God’s representative, are more important than any “feewings” or “second thoughts” or discontent she might feel in the coming years.

This evening … somehow … this perspective splashed peremptorily into my quiet pool of awareness, and I couldn’t ignore the tidal wave and ripples and sloshing. I found myself ranting at my own perception of Rikki – like this:

Rikki, I’ve seen you with Charlie for a good few years. Now you two are engaged to be married – and I congratulate you, girl; it seems to me that Charlie will be a good husband for you, and a good father for the children you’ll have together.

But I’m worried about YOU. About your commitment to Charlie, the putative father of the children of your marriage. Your children, certainly, by your carrying them to term; but Charlie’s too, as sperm-donor and breadwinner and fellow-nurturer, and most importantly as your husband – and as their Daddy.

Me, I never had a Daddy. Someone donated his sperm, but my Mom raised me without a Daddy. And – you know – it’s a miracle that I turned out as well as I did. And it’s a shame that I arranged my adulthood around my mother’s needs, instead of finding a woman to marry so we could raise our own children.

Here’s the thing that worries me more than anything, Rikki: That you might, some day, decide you don’t love Charlie any more. Or that you’re “not in love” with Charlie any more – a subtle difference, but a result that’s equally fatal to matrimonial contentment. And that you might decide that the children you and Charlie conceived together, didn’t need Charlie as a day-in/day-out presence. In short, I worry that you might follow the 50%-plus of American women who choose to divorce.

The thought of that is as cold, as painful, as horrible, as the thought of a knife twisted in my guts. And the thought of what happens to the children of such a severed relationship – is even more chilling, even more frightening, even more angering, because I’ve been there. (Actually, I’ve only been close. I never had Dad around at all. It must be worse for the child who is torn away from Dad.)

I do hope you’ve been paying attention to Charlie’s family … to Grandma Pat and Grandpa Jack, and their “October” marriage that keeps getting stronger … to your future parents-in-law, who work out their conflicts and whose bond stays strong … to your future sister-in-law and her husband, who have kept their own marriage strong and sweet even though they’ve had a lot of “separated time” due to the conflict of their careers. They all regard their pair-bond as being worth more, much more, than their single and separate freedom!

I would feel the same way, if I had ever gotten married.

Rikki, as you are going to be my “niece” I feel a need to be your “Dutch Uncle” in this matter. As I see it, there is only one valid reason for you to marry Charlie – and that is to raise a family, nurture the children (not “yours, Rikki” but “yours BOTH!!!”) and teach them to be upright, rational, capable and productive adults. In our species, the optimum circumstance is to have BOTH parents together, in one household,  loving each other (and the kids), till the kids are grown-up … and the grandkids, and maybe even some great-grandkids who can take this level of love and cooperation as a role-model for the future. In plain, “as long as we both shall live!!!”

Are you ready and willing, even eager, to share your life and your sexuality and your body and your children and your future with Charlie, as long as you both shall live, so help you God???

Rikki, if you AREN’T eager for that, and committed to that … if you don’t think it’s that important, or if “you could have a change of heart,” or if you’re saying “let’s see how it works out,” or you “can foresee a situation that would be a proper reason to divorce” …

PLEASE, for God’s sake and for yours and for Charlie’s, and for the sake of both families (including me but only parenthetically), and ESPECIALLY for the sake of the kids you might bring up otherwise …

If you aren’t ready for “forever” then get out now !!!

I want you both to succeed in living and loving together “till death do us part.” I hope you won’t accuse me of “trying to break things up”. Because – despite my fears and doubts, which are projections of what I would expect for myself in a matrimonial situation – I believe that you and Charlie could have a wonderful future together, a wonderful “forever” together, a future whose wonder and value and happiness would transcend anything you might reach alone!

I hope and I pray that you each, and you both, will work at making your marriage stronger and more satisfying.

From what I’ve seen of others’ marriages, it seems to me that the ones that last and stay happy are the ones where both partners take full responsibility, work to resolve problems, and hold their marriage and their family as more important than themselves. It’s a tall order and I hope Rikki will “woman up” to it.


A Few Good Links:

Philalethe’s Essays (on the NO MA’AM website) are an excellent grounding in the MGTOW rationale, and the behavior that drives men to MGTOW. A salient quote – “You can have as much freedom as you are willing to be responsible for, but no more.”

Is It Mentoring, Or Enabling? (The Spearhead, 11 Apr 2012) takes a critical look at how the “Big Brothers” program has changed from its origins.

Domestication of the human male (A Voice For Men, 13 Apr 2012) is a much more eloquent statement of what I tried to say in Female limitations, male obligations.

Read Full Post »