Is Marriage A Feminist Conspiracy?

DSC01282

I’ve been enjoying the ongoing debate about marriage between Derek and Ballista. It’s important for men to discuss these things openly, and it’s difficult to open up dialogue on this subject in a society as thoroughly saturated with feminism as ours is today.

In the first place, I commend Ballista for being tactically proficient in his rebuttals to Derek. Rather than squawk out ten thousand words in the comment section here, he crafted some detailed responses and posted them on his own blog (linked in the sidebar). I’d encourage everyone to go read his latest article, as I’m going to be using it as an example of shoddy thinking and poor rhetoric immediately. In the process, I’ll be providing counterexamples to his stated thesis: that marriage is a conspiracy by feminists. It ought to be easy to demonstrate that not only is Ballista wrong, but that the opposite is, in fact, the case.

Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 15.26.32

Ballista writes:
In response to my previous post responding to this one, blogger Derek Ramsey continued and tripled-down on his feminist man-shaming and has made himself completely clear in doing so. The only thing I can say it’s absolutely astounding to find myself arguing Red Pill 101 on a manosphere site, especially stuff Dalrock and others have covered ad-infinitum.

That’s certainly a bombastic introduction. I’ve read all of Derek’s articles that have been posted to this blog carefully. Derek has not promoted feminism, and he hasn’t shamed men. Lately, he hasn’t even criticized me, even as I post lurid details of my latest immoral Tinder flings.

While it’s become obvious that blue-pill won’t ever turn into red-pill in Ramsey’s ridiculous assertions regarding my positions, I thought it might be enlightening to others to attempt to explain the role that marriage plays within feminism.

I have always argued, marriage and family are concepts created by God as a building block of society.

Both Derek and Ballista have promoted the ahistorical notion that marriage was created by their god. The obvious problem with this is the fact that marriage existed many thousands of years before the god of Protestant Christianity did.

Marriage predates Christianity.
Marriage predates Judaism.
Marriage predates western civilization.

Not only is Ballista and Derek’s god not the creator of marriage, it could easily be argued that Ballista and Derek’s god is the destroyer of it. Marriage was a much healthier institution in ancient Sumeria than it is in our society.

As a fun side-trip, let’s see what Ballista’s god has done to the concept of marriage…

Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 16.25.57

Not only did Ballista’s god have nothing to do with marriage, it’s plausible to assume that no other god did, either. There is lots of evidence to suggest that men and women were biologically designed to pair bond and raise children together. Human beings were probably doing this before we ever dreamt up religion. This makes sense, in the context of human childbirth, which is abnormally tedious and traumatic, compared with other species. It also stands to reason, given the fact that human beings are born almost totally helpless, and aren’t even able to run before three or four years old. If you’re down for some peer-reviewed articles, this volume is a good place to start.

Ballista spends a bit of time being overly eristic, so I am skipping ahead a few paragraphs to the point where he pretends to rebut one of Derek’s contentions.

Now if we take Ramsey’s suggestion that men just need to man up and marry those thots to fight feminism, it becomes ludicrous on the face of it.

Ballista is striking down a straw-man of his own creation, which doesn’t help him make any salient point. If anything, it makes his entire argument much weaker.

To review, Derek has never told any man to marry. What Derek has done is to accept the reality extant in human beings: We are hard-wired to couple up and raise families together.

My readers will note that even I don’t try to tell men not to marry. Doing so would be futile, and it’d likely make my audience less likely to take my advice. I know that most men are going to marry, because that’s what human males are born to do. I just try to encourage the young brothers to take a bit of time between falling in love, fucking, and signing on the line that says ‘chump.’

I or any other man can’t make marriage into what they want or what God wants, even if one finds the rare unicorn that is both actually fit for marriage and doesn’t believe the world revolves around her.

Ballista’s god wants marriage to look like this:

Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 16.25.26

In contrast, Derek seems to want marriage to look like this:

African-Americans

Since men are going to marry anyway, I tend to take Derek’s side in this squabble. I’d much rather live in a society full of families like this one.

The legal system has set itself up to unilaterally define the parameters of marriage and put the full force of itself against those who would violate those parameters. Anything reflecting God’s word is automatically considered “abusive” in the eyes of society and of the divorce courts. There is no amount of game or “keeping frame” or otherwise that will change or stop this. Notably, this leads to the issues of no-fault divorce, the Duluth Model, child support, alimony, and the like when the woman finds her man unfit or she gets bored or “unhaaaaappy” in the marriage. Ramsey or anyone else has no answers for the men they bid to walk into the meat grinder when these men get served with their divorce papers. They will be long gone when that happens, just like others will for those that think they can avoid feminist control and yet be married.

I’m not an expert on Derek’s blog. When I go over there I get an eyeful of technical articles that don’t seem to interest me. Maybe Derek is “walking men into the meat grinder” elsewhere, but I’ve never seen it. I know that he hasn’t written anything like that here. Moreover, Derek’s articles on my blog are inherently informed by all my articles on divorce, alimony, child support, and female misbehavior. If Ballista is implying that such articles don’t exist at V5K 2C2 (he seems to be) then he hasn’t read the archive.

As I just illustrated, there’s no such thing as a “good marriage”.

While Ballista accuses Derek of being a feminist, this blanket condemnation perfectly coheres with traditional feminist ideology. Don’t believe me? Just ask the sisterhood…

  • Andrea Dworkin wrote that marriage was an institutionalized form of rape.
  • Marlene Dixon wrote that marriage was inherently “oppressive.”
  • Simone de Beauvoir wrote that marriage ought to be outlawed.

So many feminists wrote logical equivalents to Ballista’s proposition, that it’s hard to believe he’s not trolling me.

Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 17.37.06

In sum, this is what a feminist society looks like:

Untitled

No fathers. No husbands. No marriage. Just skanks who fuck everyone, and who will breed with anyone, doing what skanks do, all in front of their bastard kids.

As for men that have red-pilled themselves, the words and the actions are going together. In addition to speaking out, they are avoiding entanglements with women that will lead them onto the plantation. They see feminism for what it is and how it affects society, and especially marriage. Sadly so few men do, and still function to uphold and perpetuate feminism.

Earlier in his article, Ballista talked about something he called the ‘solipsistic fallacy,’ and as though to prove his point, he immediately put his own solipsism on display.

The men who have “red-pilled themselves,” in Ballista’s analysis, will never be the majority. As we have already seen, men are hard wired to pair-bond and settle down with women. The fact that Ballista is bright and self-aware enough to see and appreciate the risks of marriage implies, to him, that every swinging dick will be able to gain the same clarity. That’s a huge mistake on his part.

It’s also a fact that most people enjoy being miserable. Freud explained this already, and in detail. Even if Ballista were able to convince the average Joe that marriage was a bad bargain, the same dummox would turn around and marry anyway, and he’d spend the rest of his life patting himself on the back for his meaningless sacrifice — while hating Ballista for telling him the truth.

That said, barring anything fantastic, this is the last thing I’m going to write on this particular issue.

I think this is a good place to end things, and I’m grateful to everyone involved for raising so many interesting points.

One final note: Ballista began his article praising Dalrock, and he subsequently wrote an article that looked like Dalrock could have written it. I enjoy Dalrock’s cheap theatrics; but, such things are only effective against the simple minded (works great on Tumblr feminists). Dalrock is a very shallow thinker, and his articles regularly fail to convince his critics of anything. Ballista clearly has the capacity for a much higher level of proficiency, and I expect to see rapid improvement at his blog, which I already enjoy reading.

Author: Boxer

Sinister All-Male Dancer. Secret King of all Gamma Males. Member of Frankfurt School. Your Fave Contrarian!

15 thoughts on “Is Marriage A Feminist Conspiracy?”

  1. The obvious problem with this is the fact that marriage existed many thousands of years before the god of Protestant Christianity did.

    I have to disagree with you here, Boxer…as God was the creator of marriage in Genesis.

    https://biblehub.com/genesis/2-24.htm

    I think your argument that Christianity or Western Civ created marriage is based on temporal time.

  2. What has happened to marriage currently is that the combination of the state and general churchianity has inverted it from how God set it up. You don’t ever seen anywhere in Scripture where the woman is the head and runs things while the man is the helpmate to submit. From the fall of man to the model of marriage as Christ and the church…God is consistent on who is the head and whole is the helpmate. The feminist mind think has infected many into thinking that’s how God set up marriage…but in fact it is either delusion, a lie, or rationalization. The patriarchal aspects of marriage from other places you have found, Boxer, is how marriage should always have been.

    What I do tend to agree with Ballista on when it comes to women is this mindset they think they are goddesses….which already means from the outset they’ll think they are the head and run things.

  3. “Not only is Ballista and Derek’s god not the creator of marriage, it could easily be argued that Ballista and Derek’s god is the destroyer of it.”

    Don’t conflate God with the lying clergy who do evil in God’s name. I can point to Scripture and before that, Mosaic Law as proof that the Christian god is pro-marriage. Pastorette Lesbo has signed up for an eternity of damnation and I can’t wait to enjoy the spectacle of God’s Pimp Hand.

    I’ll guess that picture is from the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship? After being pushed out by the SBC’s Conservative Resurgence, they spun off to marinate in female authority and Social Justice. Real justice has been long delayed for them… they do so much overt evil that I can’t even do an expose. They advertise their disobedience against Christ! In the name of the Hole-y Spirit, of course.

    Similarly, the absence of fathers isn’t because men are refusing to raise their kids. It’s because most of the men who step up get struck down. Just like the Jizzabel clergy disobeying God in God’s name, the baby mommas do every flavor of rebellion against husbands/fathers while complaining that men aren’t doing their “fair share” of “from each according to his ability, to each according to HER need”.

    I might as well join Lesbo’s church because “it’s what God wants” as start a family hoping that society will respect me more when I’m corralled in its marital barn. They will APPROVE of me more when I make their job of consuming me easier but that is not respect. Not marriage. Not Christianity.

  4. I have to disagree with you here, Boxer…as God was the creator of marriage in Genesis.

    Genesis was written in 500-600 BCE.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=zdM6jCetIeQC&pg=PR9#v=onepage&q&f=false

    This means that people were getting married many centuries before your god ever arrived on the scene.

    Don’t conflate God with the lying clergy who do evil in God’s name.

    Those wimminz and faggots have the real-world authority to tell me what the christian god is and is not. If your god is real, then he chose them and he speaks through them.

    You have no authority. Guys like you had the chance to resist these faggots, fifty years ago. You guys didn’t do shit, and now it’s over. Reverend bulldagger is in charge, and she will continue to call the plays.

  5. Genesis was written in 500-600 BCE.

    Ok…but what was the timeframe that Adam and Eve lived?

  6. @Boxer

    My blog is not organized around any topic in particular. It lacks focus and probably always will. By contrast, when I write here it is for a specific purpose and targeted. To wit:

    “Derek’s articles on my blog are inherently informed by all my articles on divorce, alimony, child support, and female misbehavior”

    I write as a counterpoint to your articles. I’m not refuting much; more providing another perspective.

  7. I would sue my parents if they did that to me as well lol
    Whatever our views on porn are, the parents had no right to do what they did and I hope that guy sues their asses off

  8. I just try to encourage the young brothers to take a bit of time between falling in love… and signing on the line that says ‘chump.’

    —-

    In a sense, we are all chumps. The guys that go out and partake of many exploits with 9’s and 10’s but avoiding marriage at all costs. The guys that get married, whether the marriage last forever or not. From an eternal perspective, Solomon pointed it that it was all vanity of vanities. I can agree that it can be prudent not to rush things… but in the end, whether you rush or not, you are ultimately solely only able to control your own actions, thoughts, and mindset with respect to marriage.

  9. My joke was about “poor” guy .. when he had $29k invested in porn .. I mean .. ain’t it free 🤣

  10. Lol! I see your point now haha 😂
    I think that guy had built up a collection via physical media like actual discs, which is kind of silly when any trip down to Pornhub is free to download

  11. I’ve been on the road and I only just had a chance to read Ballista’s article. He’s set up some interesting strawmen and really done a great job at misrepresenting my position.

  12. Lol! I see your point now haha 😂
    I think that guy had built up a collection via physical media like actual discs, which is kind of silly when any trip down to Pornhub is free to download

    That poor guy might have had really old ass copies of Deep Throat and Debbie Does Dallas. Those probably had serious sentimental value to a man who lives in his parents’ basement.

    Just a month after filing a police report, Charlie apparently began corresponding with his father via email. Telling him in part, “If you had a problem with my belongings, you should have stated that at the time and I would have gone elsewhere. Instead you choose to keep quiet and behave vindictively.”

    Charlie, apparently feeling the situation unresolved, reached back out to investigators — allegedly sending one officer 44 emails’ worth of movies he says were destroyed, listing many as valuable out-of-print films, writing, “Not Just Out of Print. But the entire studio making it dissolved, and that was 20 years ago.”

    LJL

  13. @earl and boxer: The timeline in the Bible that is commonly accepted as accurate is one which shows that Adam’s grandson was alive in Noah’s time (he old; Noah young). Given that passing information from generation to generation was done orally, through poetry, song, and common speech, one might presume that the basis for much of the Bible, certainly the first five books, was these oral histories passed from generation to generation. Adam’s grandson, and grandson’s cohorts, had access to the actual people that the creation story was about. Their oral histories would have informed the folks of Noah’s generation. So we can make a reasoned speculation that at least some in Noah’s party that survived the flood would have carried that story in oral form into the civilization that developed after the flood.

    Boxer, I think it is you who states from time to time that every civilization has its own creation story. That is most likely true and is consistent with the idea of the original creation story being passed from generation to generation orally – in poetry, song, and common speech forms. It also makes sense that this story would diverge from the original facts a bit more with each successive generation. Sort of like the game where you have 20 people seated next to each other. Someone whispers something into the ear of the first person, who turns to the second person and repeats the information, who turns to the third person and repeats the information – repeated until the twentieth person is informed. Then the twentieth person states what they were told. Invariably, what comes out of the mouth of the twentieth person bears little resemblance to what was whisperd into the ear of the first person.

    Point being, God gave the law to Moses at Mt Sinai in approximately 500 – 600 B.C. But the non-law stuff that Moses wrote could well have simply been him putting down in writing the creation story (and other stuff) that had been passed, up until that point, only orally. The fact that every civilization has their own creation story suggests that the world’s knowledge of Adam and Eve and the creation story pre-dates Moses’ encounter with God at Mt. Sinai. What Moses did by writing things down was to codify the “official” version of the creation story.

    We choose to believe that the writers of the Bible were inspired by God. That “inspiration” could have taken the form of God dictating to the writer every word they wrote down. Or, that “inspiration” could have taken the form of God moving in the writer’s spirit as he surveys the varios stories from the oral tradition; “this, not that; that not this” indicated from God (how?), and on in this manner until the Bible we have now was complete.

    I don’t think it is wise to believe that folk’s knowledge of the Bible story did not exist until Moses wrote it down. Because we know how people are (hungry for reasons why), and because we know that people could have been talking to each other about the creation story from the time of the creation story, I think it is reasonable to assume that the creation story (and other Biblical stories; some researchers believe that Job was written before Moses existed) was known to people from the beginning.

Shout!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.