Wimminz Takes Credit For Man’s Work

bq-5caf56bf51b0d

A wimminz named Katie Bouman has been constantly in the news for several days, touted as the groundbreaking genius who brought us the first image of a black hole. CNN reported that Bouman “led the creation of an algorithm,” which makes it sound like it was her personal project.

It turns out that Katie didn’t “lead” anything. She was just a bit player on the team. The individual who did nearly all the development work, on the software which allowed for the imaging, was a man named Andrew Chael.

When people started talking about this strange phenomenon, Chael got on twitter, to white knight for m’lady. He must have typed his denouncement of all us misogynists stream-of-consciousness, because in his defense, he confirmed the fact that he was, in fact, the “primary developer” of the software in question.

Screen Shot 2019-04-15 at 00.50.08

Thanks, Andrew, for telling us what we knew already.

What Am I Doing Here?

Screen Shot 2019-04-14 at 18.14.41

I started this blog five years ago. Being the uncreative man that I am, I simply named it after the post code I was in when I hit the ‘submit’ button on the WordPress form. For the first year (or so), I had comments turned off. I didn’t really care if anyone else commented, because the comment sections I had experienced had problems that outweighed their benefits.

I had a blog before that, entitled La Prensa. In those very old days, I translated (with permission) articles written by men like W.F. Price and AfOR into French and Spanish, and tried to spread manosphere memes into minority communities. That blog was taken down after a kook named Rob Fedders attempted to “out” me as a professor at Simon Fraser University. Fedders contacted various feminist organizations, and tried to get this poor fellow fired. This man, who I had never met, and who certainly didn’t author any of my articles, probably got a ton of shit, simply because an insane incel suspected he was me.

I encourage everyone here to remain anonymous for a reason.

There are other threads to those early years. If one looks at my first real article, he can draw a distinct line to all the latest ones, and he’ll find that if anything is consistent here, it is my disdain for mass culture. This could easily be typecast as an anti-celebrity blog… something like the antithesis of People or Entertainment Tonight. In this regard, I’m following in the tradition of Adorno and Horkheimer, who also hated popular culture.

Plato constructed a healthy critique of actors and comedians 2500 years ago, and I hate them for many of the reasons he did. They’re people who make their living pretending to be things that they aren’t. They’re entitled to a living at their trade, but in our society, they’ve assumed positions of unearned respect and authority. Undermining the trend of honoring the unworthy is probably the most valuable thing any of us can do.

Down below, Derek writes:

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

I’m glad Derek is here, and he’s welcome to refute me as much as he likes. If someone doesn’t like Derek (or me), they are welcome to decamp.

From the beginning, I saw my blog as not competing with behemoths like The Spearhead, Dalrock or Roissy. One might assume, at first, that huge communities like these are blessed with a diversity that is impossible on a small blog like mine. Spending some time in those places will disabuse one of that silly notion immediately.

Dalrock’s blog is far too large to function as an effective community of men. Most of us know that intuitively.

Comment sections are strange things. As participation in such a venue increases, the potential for true diversity is rapidly outweighed by a selection toward conformity. As Dalrock becomes more popular, he attracts more angry nutters, more social outcasts, more loony misfits, and more dullwitted parasites. All these people end up as (more-or-less) free riders, simply there to agree and amplify. Thus, a dogmatic ideology starts taking shape, and everyone begins parroting the same buzz-words, and shouting down sensible dissidents.

This is even more evident at Roissy, which is much larger than Dalrock. Roissy has a staggering number of readers who participate in his comment section. Roissy’s commenters are so numerous that they have effectively subdivided themselves into cliquish subgroups. If discussion is difficult on Dalrock, it’s absolutely impossible on Heartiste, where people are petrified into opposing camps, all shouting at one another.

From the beginning, I saw V5K 2C2 as a sort of digital neighborhood: something closer to a mailing list or a ‘zine. I always knew the dangers of getting too big, but I’m especially wary of this now, for a specific reason that I didn’t foresee back in the early days.

white_nationalists

A couple of years ago, I noted people like Cane Caldo and SirHamster injecting white nationalism into discussions on Dalrock. The larger any forum becomes, the more prone it is to this sort of idiotic groupthink. I don’t want a petrified comment section, with hundreds of people chanting mantras in unison. If there is a motivator for a comment section to go down to destruction, white nationalism is it.

Since I’m criticizing white nationalists, I’ll quickly lay out my reasons why…

1. White nationalists are depressives. They constantly promote a defeatist attitude and immediately bring the general mood of every discussion down. According to white nationalists, society is run by a small minority of omnipotent super geniuses (known as Jews). Since these Jews control everything, white nationalists will insist that a young brother’s only recourse is to go commit suicide, preferrably immediately after some pathetic display of ultraviolence.

The problem with this thesis is obvious: it’s premises are untrue.

Screen Shot 2019-04-10 at 22.03.47

Dispelling the myth of Jewish superintelligence, one YouTube video at a time.

The guy who recently shot up a synagogue was surely groomed by these losers. None of the people he murdered were millionaires, or had high positions in political or social life. None of his victims seem particularly intellectually accomplished. They were just regular Americans, who went to work every day, and who had a different religious background.

2. White nationalists are anti-intellectual. Idiots like David Duke and Paul Nehlen are held up as authorities, despite the fact that they’re transparent grifters who are doing nothing but living off donations given them by their disciples. Points are argued and forwarded not on their merits, but merely on ideological grounds. White nationalists are, in this regard, very similar to feminists, in that they have a set of general grievances, and any proposition needs to fit within the script to be accepted. Any question that deviates from their narrative is rejected, and the questioner is self-righteously shouted down.

3. White nationalists are feminists by another name. I’ve covered this aspect for years, but it bears repeating, because this is a personal annoyance of mine. Go talk to some of these idiots and you’ll get the idea. Their precious white wimminz are to be worshipped as though they were goddesses, despite the fact that these same white wimminz are raising up a generation of white thugs and hoez, who are far more likely to steal my wallet than to get a job. Massive misbehavior like widespread divorce, chronic unemployment and welfare, single mom sluttery and drug abuse is glossed over with the flimsiest of excuses.

White nationalists have a couple of go-to responses to any question. Usually, when I criticize them even mildly, I am called a “race-traitor,” which is a meaningless term, given that my people don’t even consider the average white nationalist to be white. They’ll then admit that some of the things I’m saying are true, but immediately tell me that all their problems are the fault of a Jewish conspiracy. This is a response that is precisely similar to what I get from black nationalists and feminists, who whine about “white privilege” and “patriarchy” respectively.

Occasionally, a white nationalist will talk about a real problem, like ANTIFA. As an aside, ANTIFA is probably the only group that’s goonier and more pathetic than white nationalists, given that they’re pseudoleftists who are “protesting” on behalf of huge corporations.

I don’t want ANTIFA running roughshod through my comment section either. Even so, ANTIFA has no presence on the manosphere, so they’re not really my concern.

Every time Dalrock throws his blog into moderation, I get 10-20 new applicants. The last time this happened was last weekend. I could have approved twenty new commenters, and one of them might have fit in. Four of them would have repeatedly told Earl he’s a faggot for worshipping Mary, and five others would have told Jason he’s a faggot for not fucking random skanks, and the other ten would have started proselytizing for Stormfront, unironically talking about what a great guy Hitler was, and how the south should have won the American civil war.

So, my role here is not only as one of the authors, it’s also editorial. My goal is to maintain focus, and enforce some minimal intellectual standards. Derek will continue writing articles here for as long as it amuses him, and while everyone can read, I’ll continue to be selective about who gets to have a voice.

Image Dump: 2019.04.14

bq-5cb34be95b4a5

Please keep in mind that not all women have vaginas, and not all people with vaginas are women…

Screen Shot 2019-04-14 at 10.28.54

I have no idea how I ended up at this stupid article, but I commend the author for achieving the absolute pinnacle of humblebrag achievement.

Iranian Angelina Jolie fan reports she’s had fifty surgeries to look like her idol…

46D644C500000578-5132349-Sahar_Tabar_22_from_Tehran_Iran_is_believed_to_have_had_50_surge-a-5_1512048175425

This is the most flattering photo of the bitch. There are many others. According to the Daily Fail, “Not everyone is impressed, and some followers have compared her to a ‘zombie’ and a ‘corpse’…”

There is no such thing as a good single mother.

sicon1

The new normal.

55468392_10157044049141445_596287983494103040_n

Once I thought about converting to Judaism

Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 16.21.29

Around the same time, I considered officially joining the L.D.S. church

Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 16.27.07

You may ask yourself… “How did I get here?”

frhekOb

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.

Brad Pitt Teaches Us About Wimminz

Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 09.20.17

Surprise, surprise! A wimminz is having second thoughts after frivolously divorcing her man! That never happens, does it?

In August of 2014, Brad Pitt stupidly married a Hollywood skank named Angelina Jolie. That was a serious mistake on his part.

In the summer of 2016, after only two years of marriage, Angelina Jolie announced that she was dumping the sexiest man alive. She immediately started libelling her husband, Brad Pitt, in the press, even as she was getting on Tinder in order to ride playa dick.

Of course, Brad needed to keep funneling money to skank-ho princess. Just last year, Jolie went to the press and complained that Pitt was a deadbeat dad.

Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 09.28.29

Pitt ponied up proof that he had paid something along the order of ten million dollars to his skank-ho slut, over the course of eighteen months.

Wouldn’t it be nice to be a uterus-American, and get paid eight figures for doing nothing?

Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 09.10.54

At some point, skank-ho Angelina realized that yes, he was the best that she could pull. What was her reaction to this epiphany? Was it to humbly approach her husband, and beg forgiveness for a year of frivolous court proceedings? Did she apologize for all the trouble she caused?

Of course she didn’t. She’s using the power of the feminist state to continue torturing him, in a vain attempt to convince Pitt that “it’s cheaper to keep her…”

Screen Shot 2019-04-13 at 09.36.20

Marrying a wimminz has the potential to derail your life. The minute your beautiful wife finds it advantageous, she will summon all the power of the feminist state to bankrupt you and destroy your reputation. It’s imperative that every serious brother go into such a bargain knowing all the facts.

If the sexiest man alive can’t keep a wimminz happy for two short years, what chance do you have?

Surplus Value?

marx_1

Groucho is here to teach you about Marxism

Capital has not invented surplus-labour. Wherever a part of society possesses the monopoly of the means of production, the laborer, free or not free, must add to the working-time necessary for his own maintenance an extra working-time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owners of the means of production…
(Marx: Capital Vol. 1)

It occurs to me that I’m using a technical term without defining it. That’s a mark of laziness that I’ll correct immediately.

Earlier I wrote about how playaz, hoez, and single dudes are thriving at the expense of married men, and I specifically called the extra produce of such married men surplus value. In order to understand what I mean by this term, I have to delve into some boring shit, like Karl Marx’s Critique of Political Economy, and his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. This is tedious but necessary work, and I’ll try and be as brief as I can.

Aristotle defined a human being as a “rational animal,” and Descartes defined a human being as a “thinking thing.” This became a big argument, with philosophical heavy-hitters taking either side. Marx transcended this dispute entirely, and defined human beings as homo faber. That’s a fancy latin word that means ‘man the maker.’ We are, in Marxist terms, builders of equipment. We are born with an instinctive drive to take natural products, add value to them, and derive use value from the produce.

Some of the things that human beings have developed have really cool uses.

Untitled

homo faber sent this machine to Venus, simply because he could

Of course, we might make things which don’t seem to be valuable. You know the old man who carves wooden rifles for the kids in your ‘hood? Remember how your mother did those cheeseball paint-by-number things? Your homosexual uncle, who writes bad poetry… when you think about it, it becomes obvious that it’s all the same process. We’re hard wired to do shit like this. Take a look around, and you’ll find surplus value is all around you.

Whether any of us wants to admit as much, the reality is that workers who are married men produce more than workers who are playaz, monks and wimminz. Married men are far more productive than married women, in fact.

It’s well known that married men make significantly more money than wimminz, either single or married. Feminists call this the “wage gap,” and they endlessly wail about it. Married men make far more money than single men do, also. Is making money correlated with productivity? In our society, I’d argue that it is.

Screen Shot 2019-04-12 at 20.47.58

(Vandenbroucke)

That entire paper is both interesting and accessible, and I’d encourage everyone here to skim through it. From its thesis, it’s easy to conclude a few things. Married men work harder than other classes of worker, for example. Married men tend to work longer hours. Married men tend to be better educated. Married men might be motivated to work a side-gig along with a regular job.

Married men tend to do these things because a skillful wife will motivate her husband to hustle for the extras. A skillful wife also keeps an efficient household, so her husband can concentrate on work, and he never has to worry about dishes or vacuuming. This is all obvious, but it doesn’t get to the root of what’s really going on, and in order to address the reasons why I don’t condemn marriage, we need a deeper look.

Nevertheless the grand structures of ancient Egypt are less due to the extent of its population than to the large proportion of it that was freely disposable. Just as the individual labourer can do more surplus-labour in proportion as his necessary labour-time is less, so with regard to the working population. The smaller the part of it which is required for the production of the necessary means of subsistence, so much the greater is the part that can be set to do other work.
(Marx: Capital Vol. 1)

When a man enters the factory and begins his workday, he creates, through his own genius, more value than his wage reflects. Some of that value is kept by his bosses (who don’t do any work themselves), and some of it is used by capital to reproduce the material conditions for the capitalist system to project itself temporally. The rest of it bleeds out into the social macrosphere.

Married men get paid more because they add more surplus value, not only to their bosses’ ledgers, but to society as a whole. Those of us who aren’t married are easy riders, who enjoy things like roads, bridges, antibiotics and cheap vegetables, without fully paying into the system which produced them. Who produced them? In large part it was married men.

marx

Karl Marx: Husband to Jenny

If you like living in an advanced, industrial society, with good things on offer, then you ought to respect the men who get up early to go to their factory jobs every morning. They are providing all of these benefits, and they’re doing it because some semblance of social sanity still exists. A world without marriage is a global ghetto, where everyone is a bastard, no one knows who his father is, and where life is brutal, miserable, and short.

Saving Civilization From Itself

Monarch_Butterfly_Danaus_plexippus_Mating_Vertical_1800px
(re)productive capital

In my previous post, Does Marriage Keep Society Afloat?, I argued that it is essential to marry and have children to stem off a global financial downturn. The concept is simple: without a large tax base, the population gets top heavy and expenses exceed resources available. Costs go up leading to fewer and fewer marriages and pregnancies, creating a self-feeding, self-fulfilling downward spiral.

In the comment section, I explored a few unsatisfactory ways to address the problem. Sigma Frame discusses a few others. I ended with the only sensible alternative:

“The only way out of this, without significant side effects, is to support marriage and increase family sizes. This requires abolishing abortion and defeating feminism. I’ve stated this before and I’ll say it again and again. The refusal to marry and have children (e.g. MGTOW) is actively harmful and contributes to the self-feeding destructive downward cycle. I don’t care what the excuses are for not marrying and having children. Make it work. Otherwise wave the white flag and embrace feminism.”

Brother Ballista took issue with this:

Ramsey wants men to embrace feminism by getting married and having children. Therein lies the problem as Ramsey sees it – the weak men just aren’t playing along to make feminism work.

With all due respect, Brother Ballista is wrong. Marriage and family are not feminist concepts. They are the foundations of functioning society and must be embraced. They need to be taken back from the feminists, so to speak.

Defeating feminism is required to fully support marriage and increase family sizes. It’s an absurd strawman to say that this means men should marry feminists and have their babies. Of course they shouldn’t.* It’s also absurd to say that my statement only applies to men. Those men and women who refuse to marry and have children might as well throw in the towel.

Brother Earl is a perfect example of what I’m suggesting. He is a front line soldier with skin in the game. He is doing all he can to make it work. He is not making excuses. He is not compromising. He is constantly railing against what matters most: abortion, divorce, sexual immorality, and contraception. He is always seeking a wife and if he finds one, he will be making babies in no time.

He also can’t do it on his own. He needs others to support him. He needs unmarried men to join him in these areas. He needs women to take marriage seriously and permanently. He needs happily married people to have more children, not stop at the magical two or three. He needs priests and pastors to explicitly push this and a church that will fight for it.

But make no mistake: if we don’t increase good marriages and the number of children in those marriages, feminism will win. None of the excuses, soapboxing, moaning and complaining will mean a thing if we don’t do this.

Feminists might breed themselves out of existence by refusing to reproduce, but who is going to replace them if the anti-feminists also refuse to reproduce? Where are the future anti-feminists going to come from? Feminism only needs to indoctrinate the children. Our counter is marriage and family. It’s the only one we have. We must find ways to do it and stop making excuses for not doing it.‡

When the Brothers scoff at having more children, their anti-feminist stances become meaningless. Words and actions must go together. When they recommend against a proper marriage, they fight against the very tool required to solve the problem. Avoiding marriage and family is counterproductive, no matter how well-intentioned.

It is entirely possible for a man to wife up a (hopefully repentant) feminist or single mother. Many do, as is their right as a man. Doing so is, of course, quite risky, but a man who chooses to do so needs our support, not our criticism.

† Not all men are marriage material, due to whatever personal flaws they might have. Such men should obviously not get married without making themselves marriage-worthy, but they can still do their part in the meantime by supporting those who are marriage-worthy.

‡ It is entirely possible that the entire system will have to burn to the ground before it can be resurrected. This is not ideal. We should avoid this outcome if at all possible by trying to fix the system as soon as possible, rather than waiting for some undetermined future, and possibly imaginary, inflection point.

Creative Commons LicenseArticle text and photos by Derek L. Ramsey is licensed under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 License.