Thursday, June 21, 2007

On Polygamy II


Welcome Dear Readers!

Today we carry on with our discussion of Polygamy.

Please keep in mind that this is a hypothetical analysis; as Kumogakure cannot recommend that any man get married to any number of women in this day and age.

We left off last time with a brief historical survey of this institution. We found that this ancient tradition was to be found in many cultures around the globe, yesterday and today. In addition, I touched on why I am opposed to polyandry (one woman with many husbands), and that polygyny (one man with multiple wives), monogamy, and celibacy are all valid paths for human beings to pursue. I do not hold that monogamy is in any way superior to the other two.

I have been asked by a kind reader what should be done if the number of men and women were very similar. Wouldn't polygyny increase the competition amongst marriageable bachelors? Would it then lead to widespread abuses and civil strife?

In answering this question, I would like to say again that polygamy is a tool for the wise ruler to keep in his toolbox. Polygamy should be skillfully employed where and when it is needed, and implemented when and where it is practical to do so. Polygamous unions must also be considered marriage contracts, fully enforceable and upheld by the State's Police Power.

Note: Please see my edit on the first post on this series, On Polygamy. I have recanted on my previous assertion that the State was not authorized to regulate marriage law via its Police Powers.

Marriage, in any form, should not be entered into, or dissolved lightly, as is the case today.

I believe that there should be a definite limit to the number of women that a man can have in his household.

If we look to the teachings of three religions, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism, we find reasonable restraints to the practice.

According to the Jewish site Simple to Remember:

If we go back to the Book of Deuteronomy where the idea that Jews would one day want a king is first discussed, Moses warns that the king should not have too many horses or too many wives (Deut. 17:17). The great Torah commentator Rashi tells us that this means no more than 18, and that King David had only six.

The Torah placed limits on the number of wives and wealth the king could have so that he would stay focused on his responsibilities and not be distracted and corrupted by materialism and power.


The referenced Bible verse, Deuteronomy 17:17, tells us that:

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.


Moving to the Koran, we are told that:

Sura (4:3) - "Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess."


Four wives is a reasonable number. The command to treat them equally, is also very important. However, it should be noted that "what your right hand possesses," or slave girls, is not acceptable in any way, shape or form.

Kumogakure is ABSOLUTELY NOT supportive, in any way, of human slavery [1][2]; something that Islam, as a political-religious entity, seems to be very good at promoting. Feminists, take note.

And now, the Buddhist position:

In Buddhism, marriage is regarded as entirely a personal, individual concern and not as a religious duty.

Marriage is a social convention, an institution created by man for the well-being and happiness of man, to differentiate human society from animal life and to maintain order and harmony in the process of procreation. Even though the Buddhist texts are silent on the subject of monogamy or polygamy, the Buddhist laity is advised to limit themselves to one wife. The Buddha did not lay rules on married life but gave necessary advice on how to live a happy married life
.

While the laity is advised to have only one wife, in Buddhist countries such as China and Thailand, polygamy was accepted and practiced.

And in the case of Buddhist (and Shinto) Japan:

"The position a wife holds towards a concubine is the same as that of a lord to his vassal. The Emperor has twelve imperial concubines. The princes may have eight concubines. Officers of the highest class may have five mistresses. A Samurai may have two handmaids. All below this are ordinary married men."


All of these sources have a similar message; that limits to the number of wives a man can have are prudent and reasonable. I would proscribe the maximum number of allowable wives to three.

Personally speaking, I think two is enough, 'cause three's company; four and up is a crowd!

So now that we have limits on the number of wives, which helps to prevent the elite minority of men from having a top heavy number of wives, let's turn our attention to the ratio of men and women in the United States.

According to the U.S. Census:

The female population is projected to continue to outnumber the male population, going from a numerical difference of 5.3 million in 2000 (143.7 million females and 138.4 million males) to 6.9 million (213.4 million females and 206.5 million males) by mid-century. (See Table 2 [Excel].)


In addition, the Census tells us that:

Of the four regions around the country, the Northeast had the lowest male to female ratio, in other words, the highest number of females to males, while the West approached near parity between the sexes with a 99.6 to 100 male-female ratio.


You can also see a map of male-female distribution in the United States here.

According to National Atlas:

The female population outnumbered the male population in most counties in 2000.

At the county level, the female population outnumbered the male population in most counties. Of the 3,141 counties and equivalent areas, the number of counties with a greater female population was 2,305 representing 73 percent of all counties and equivalent areas. About 42 percent or 1,315 counties and equivalent areas had male-female ratios below the U.S. male-female ratio of 96.3.

The counties with low male-female ratios were concentrated in the Northeast and South. Most States in these regions predominantly had counties with low male-female ratios, except for a few counties in upstate New York and the Florida panhandle. The female population exceeded the male population in all counties in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Delaware. The female population also exceeded the male population in most counties in Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

In contrast, counties with high male-female ratios were primarily in the West. All counties in Nevada, Alaska, and Hawaii had male-female ratios above 100. Other States with the majority of their counties with high male-female ratios were Idaho, Oregon, and Colorado.


The important information, in this case, is that the male-female ratio varies greatly depending on the age group and the region of the country under consideration. In addition, there are currently more men in the younger age brackets than women.

If polygamy were allowed, with specific conditions and limitations, I do not believe that this would lead to increased numbers of frustrated bachelors who are unable to marry. There are many potential reasons for a population to have large numbers of unmarried men, such as war, educational pursuits, incarceration, or abstinence from marriage altogether. Monogamy does not insure a happy, healthily married population of men, as was the case in staunchly monogamous Rome.

In our era, feminism, alone and unaided, has done a pretty good job of killing male desire for marriage in this nation.

If Polygamy were skillfully advocated, what would probably occur would be similar to what would happen under my "free marketplace of love" philosophy:

Some people will never marry for various reasons; i.e. Eternal Bachelorhood, desire for Celibacy, physical/mental disability, and so forth.

Most people will choose a monogamous marriage. The man may not want the responsibility that having more than one wife entails, the woman may not wish to agree to such a marriage, etc etc.

Some people will seek out polygamous marriage. Consenting adults, free from duress or coercion, will choose to enter into such an arrangement for religious, logical, or practical reasons.

Marriage contracts, similar to the agreements made between Islamic and Jewish couples, or possibly secular prenuptial agreements (that will be strictly enforced by the law courts, in this hypothetical scenario), will ensure that the happy couple agrees, in advance, to all aspects of their married life, including polygyny.

If the woman does not agree to be a party to a polygamous marriage, she can include a clause to that effect. If the man insists on maintaining the option of taking another wife, then that right will need to be included in the marriage contract.

If negotiations break down, then the parties can go their separate ways. In this way, no one is forced into any such relationship against their will.

No pressure, no funny business, everything is out in the open, the parties are of sound mind and legal age to agree to terms, and everyone gets what they want.

I'll stop here for now.

Next time, I will explain which groups of our society can benefit the most from polygamous unions, and explain why polygyny should be a legal and viable option for Men.

Also, be sure to check out Angry Harry's Polygamy Pros and Cons!

Kumo 9000.

22 comments:

julie said...

Kumo,

The answer to your readers requested question is very simple. There is a religious sect in America (can't remember the name) where they have males with many wives. They have a problem with giving birth to males and females so they kick out the young males when they are teenagers so that the older men can have more younger wives.

The sad part is that these teenage males know nothing about technology nor the western world outside their environment which is sheltered away from normal society. There is a small charity group that I saw on a documentary that tries to pick them up, unbrainwash them and help them live as normal lives as possible. They place them with families like a foster care system. We have a similar sect here in NZ but I am not sure if they are doing the many wives for each man thing? I don't think so. Although we have had our fair share of sects that are communial. Everyone having sex with everyone. I know one young mum who was a part of this as a young girl. She is not yet over what happened to her as they thought it OK to have sex with children also. Dads and Mums had sex with their own children to show them how it was done apparently.

Anyhow, the only practical reason I can think of for a man having many wives would be to make an army or if they had lost most of their tribe (people) in a freak natural disaster and are in dire staits need to reproduce. In past history and not so far back in Africa this was the norm. If you need many sons to fight against your enemy it would be sensible for a man to breed with many women.

This was the case back in my family tree. They fougt and then lost. Came back home and bred until they had another army and fought again. Apparently lost again and did the same thing all over again.

Maybe if the future does become completely socailist and with the world already well populated they may consider only allowing or a better term USE certain human beings for breeding.

Other than that I can think of the East wealthy Arabs who buy young women for wives from overseas countries like India where the parents are so poor they will sell their children. That to me is GREED. Plain and simple. Or even selfishness.

However, concubines or having a girlfriend on the side is accepted behaviour in France and prior to feminism it was not unusual for a man to have a woman on the side. And wives (not sure how many) were Ok with this because it mean't the man was happy and also he still took care of his wife and family so no-one missed out. But then married women at the time were not educated with the wonderful pleasures of sex so they had a different outlook to sex than women today.

You sure are cheeky Kumo to attempt this. lol

I am open minded but with all due respect if men can have sex with many women then women can have sex with many men. Some couples are all for this. In fact it is quite big. However, personally i have not met many (only one or two so far) personally who like to share their wives.

The men I know say, "A man gives, a woman recieves" For them that is significant and they are very hurt if their women receives sperm from another man.

Anyhow, just my thoughts.

julie said...

Kumo, just want to add my lastest saying.

"When all minds think alike - no-one is thinking." lol

tba said...

"When all minds think alike - no-one is thinking."

that OR-- if they are thinking like me-- everyone is mighty smart ;-)

Kumogakure said...

lol @ TBA -_^

Jules,

I believe you are thinking about the Mormons. While there are weirdos who are all into that kind of stuff, a lot of that sort of thing goes on because polygamy is illegal.

If polygamy were legal, then the activities that go on in such unions would be subject to public, as well are regulatory, scrutiny.

In my scenario, I make it clear that only legal, consenting adults are able to enter into these unions, that the government would have the power to enforce pre-marital contracts that the parties can negotiate whether or not polygamy is permissable.

All that cultish behavior takes place because (a small number of) fundamentalist mormons have to practice polygamy in secret. There is none of the social monitoring that normally takes place in monogamous marriage, that keeps the parties "honest".

Prosecutors in the Western US states, where most polygamous marriages take place, have a "gentlemen's agreement" not to prosecute people for polygamy, which breeds an environment for outrageous abuses to take place.

And remember... although such incidents are rare, horrible events take place in monogamous families as well. While marriage eliminates a significant amount of intra familial problems, monogamous marriage, as well as the polygamous, is far from perfect.

And... I may be cheeky... but I'm only saying what most men have thought about from time to time.

C'mon guys...

Who wouldn't like to have multiple hot wives takin care of biznass???

^ ^

julie said...

TBA,
you make me laugh. Cool. But wouldn't it be boring if we all thought the same way? No matter how smart YOU are. lol

So Kumo, are we are now getting down to it. Is this a fantasy? lol

Yea, i wouldn't mind having a few younger males to look after me either. Sounds like fun. But as I have always persisted right throughout my life. "It is dangerous. People get HURT."

And I don't believe these people who agree with this in their lives come out scott free of pain either. What happens if you prefer one over the other? Ah, then trouble will come. IMO.

You will have to share yourself equally with this. Although if you have the money you could be a Hue Heffner. lol (not sure how to spell his name but you know who I mean. Playboy mansion.

tba said...

And... I may be cheeky... but I'm only saying what most men have thought about from time to time.

C'mon guys...

Who wouldn't like to have multiple hot wives takin care of biznass???


not me. I've NEVER fantasized about multiple wives. One headache is enough. Now I'm sure every man has fantasized about threesomes, but even THAT doesn't appeal to me as much anymore. SEX IS VERY SEXIST! After doing all the work to attract the woman- and in addition to doing all the work to MAINTAIN the relationship- the man has to do ALL the work in sex. A woman just lays there AND it's all about "pleasing her/them". I'd rather just watch the two women. Still get the pleasure with no work involved.

If I were to marry many women They ALL would have to have the same birthday and the wedding anniversary day would have to be the same also (less dates to remember).

Besides, I think only the alpha males and/or rich guys would be the ones taking advantage of polygamy. I doubt in the Middle East that polygamy (rather than monogamy) is the norm.

tba said...

But wouldn't it be boring if we all thought the same way? No matter how smart YOU are. lol

Probably, yeah. but I'm glad you recognize my brilliance.
Are you pondering what I'm pondering?? Yeessss, I SHOULD succeed Rob as ruler of the U.N.!!!!!

Kumogakure said...

Hahaha!

While this whole thang is speculation on my part, I also think it could be used to great benefit, done skillfully. That means taking the concept and minimizing the flaws in it as much as possible.

I do think in certain communities, it can make a difference. I plan on exploring this in the next installment.

If its not done right, I think that polygamy can hurt people. And to agree with TBA, it is a lot of work, and a lot of responsibility on the man's part.

But at the same time, I think we can all agree that our monogamous culture is experiencing a high level of pain and dissatisfaction as a whole.

Monogamy is no guarantee of a happy and stable homelife.

Perhaps this is why the idea never caught on in the Greco/Roman culture... having mistresses and concubines are a lot easier. But at the same time, enforced monogamy, especially when the man's sexual needs aren't being met, can seriously break up a lot of otherwise stable homes.

And really, this is what it's all about. A man can have his extra nookie, but there are responsibilities that come along with that. Polygamous cultures (not repressed expressions of it, such as Mormonism) have very low rates of prostitution, Adultery (on the part of the married man), single mothers, the whole nine.

And let's be real... I know quite a few brothas (in real life) that truly are NOT one women men. They have to tell lies, and do dirty activities in order to be true to their natures; whereas if we lived in a society where polygamy, as I have described it, was an option, (and if anti male laws weren't in existence), they wouldn't have to swear off marriage entirely. They could, with some work on their part, have more than one woman in their lives, build a household, and be "respectable" to boot.

No whoring around... they could indeed be family men.

So, polygamy, if done skillfully, and if matched up with the proper environments where such a system can be implemented effectively, is a tool.

One that I think could solve some pressing issues, especially in the black American community.

As for me, I think I could manage a multi woman household, but...

My young wife, while agreeing to the idea in practice, has informed me that extra wives are not in the picture. Something to do with Domestic violence and forcing me to commit ritualized suicide (her family is a traditional Samurai family) ...

julie said...

TBA,
lol, it looks like we might make our own UN and I bet it will be better than the one already in place. You know that nothing is impossible and you and some others here do have great minds.

But please don't think of women as a headache. We never went on strike when males were running the world. lol And we are capable of making all your dreams come true, you know. Not that I am offering and not that you are wanting but a good woman does make a man complete.

Kumo,

You are such a hard case! lol, and you are naughty to put this to you young wife. Take my word for it. Please do not let your wife find out of your infidelity. It is not a nice thing to have to take on board as a woman. You may think that western women and other cultured women are into all this sex stuff but real, good women don't like to share their men. It just makes us insecure and if we are not outspoken, we hide how we feel. Not all women physical and verbally assault men. You will destroy what your wife has to offer.

As a women I would say we prefer that you NOT allow us to catch you out.

Kumogakure said...

Julie said,

"You are such a hard case! lol, and you are naughty to put this to you young wife. Take my word for it. Please do not let your wife find out of your infidelity."

I've been known to be a little stubborn yeah!

No no, don't misunderstand me. I am a man of my word. I have never been unfaithful to my misses, and I have no plans to be either.

She's a good girl. This is a philosophical argument that we have had numerous times, and she will well aware of my positions on a lot of controversial topics!

She's my greatest critic! ^ ^

tba said...

It is not that I am brilliant (i can't speak for other), it is just that I have spent COUNTLESS hours thinking about things. That is why I seem super-smart

Now, if I were head of the U.N. I would IMMEDIATELY dissolve the institution. The U.N. was one of the dumbest ideas ever and NO good comes from it. I would also abolish the World Bank, IMF, the Europen Union, and ALL other intergovernmental organization.

But please don't think of women as a headache. We never went on strike when males were running the world. lol And we are capable of making all your dreams come true, you know. Not that I am offering and not that you are wanting but a good woman does make a man complete.

Sorry Julie, but women ARE headaches- ESPECIALLY NOW. A big part of that is simply due to biological differences (and thus men can a headache for women as well). But now it is eevn DEEPER than just biology; women aren't just headaches, they are just downright cruel, self-centered beings. I don't need to go into that because we can recount the myriad examples on all of these blogs (including yours) on how women are cruel and self-centered.

And women HAVE gone on strike. They are on strike against femininity- and they are only hurting THEMSELVES.

I have to disagree with the idea of women completing men. The only men who believe that idea are men who watch waaay too much TV. That is the message they send and so they come to believe it. A woman CANNOT complete a man. A man MUST be complete first before marrying a woman. Why can't a woman complete a man? She has NOTHING to offer a man. The only thing that she can claim to offer a man is sex and child- and thanx to feminism, men don't need to get married for that anyway.

But on the flip side, men have EVERYTHING to offer women. It is women who need men to complete them. Now predictably, you're thinking "but a woman needs to be complete first before marrying too. It isn't just men". That's how is SHOULD be- but it isn't. It isn't men who daydream about marriage, it's women. It isn't men who try to analyze every word a person says to see if that peron likes him, it is women. It is not men who are in despair of a woman shortage, it is women crying about a man shortage. It is not middle-aged men who are rich and successful who despair of having never been mrried, it is women. And there is no "Groom" magazine, but there is a "Bride" magazine. THe stores aren't stacked with magazines telling men how to attract women, but there are many for women. Men have Playboy (which is about sex and living the bachelor life), but there is no comparable magazine for women living the bachelorette life.

If you still don't believe me that it is WOMEN who need men to complete them and not the other way around then think about what each sex looks for in their partners. In general, if a woman looks good and has a pleasing persoanality then that is fine. For women, the man has to be taller, make more women (hopefully richer), must be unpredictable, and a host of other "requirements".

I was thinking about this yesterday and it finally hit me: Men want to control nature BUT women want to control men. Man's whole purpose is to manipulate nature (and procreate). That is why men are the scientists, inventors, mathmeticians, and philosophers. And all of men's seemingly peculiar behaviors come down to that. A woman's whole purpose is to catch and control men AND procreate.

If men didn't have a sex drive we would have NOTHING to do with women Think back to childhood. It was guys saying "no girls allowed" when creating their forts. And it was guys who said girls have "cooties". And it was the girls who wanted to participate in what guys did. But this lasts until puberty.

So if it wasn't for the sex drive men would have NOTHING to do with women. But that would mean that we would be extinct as a species and NATURE isn't having none of that. If somehow men overcome their sexdrive nature has a backup- women. Women were given a STRONG desire to CONTROL men in case men overcame their sex drive. And that is why women try to shame men if they are bachelors. A single woman is praised but a single man is AABSOLUTELY frowned upon. So women try to shame men into marriage.

Of this isn't true in every case but that is the NORM.

tba said...

to edit my third to last sentence, men DON'T CARE if a woman is single, but women hate a man that can live without her.

julie said...

It is nice to have abit of fun now and then in all this chaos. lol

Kumo, It is neat that you have a good relationship with your wife. I think this sort of talk can be harmless if everyone understands this.

TBA,

I don't have the same outlook on women as the MRA does. To be entirely honest relationships between men and women is not supposed to be rosy all the time. It can be hard work also. But the good times are great. And the bad times are bad. I think myself that when you break up you go through stages and when you get to the last stage you can look at things with clear sight. Time seems to be the biggest healer in many situations that i have witnessed. Everyone has good points and bad points. I prefer to hear both sides but as we can't do that often we have to understand that we don't get the full story.

I have had alot of fun with males yet I know some that are every little bit as the women MRA describe. Yet I am aware women are what men say, not all though. It is our system that we need to fight, our policies and those in charge that are destroying societies. To me men and women complement each other. Neither side in my eyes is all take nor all give. i don't think men and women would get into relationships if there was no payoff and I don't believe it all comes down to sex and money. But that is just my life experiences.

tba said...

Theoretically I agree with all that you've said, Julie. But we can't live in the theoretical world. We have to live in what is reality today. And the reality is, for men the risk is just TOO HIGH. I used to think "well, ok. as long as the marriage reaches the 15th year it is impossible for the wife to "cash out" in a divorce". Well that illusion has been SHATTERED. I know personally and have met many women who've been married to men for 20-35 years and then divorced the husband. And this has become a trend in America. The hell with that. I don't trust a woman's honor to NOT divorce me on a whim out of sheer boredom or the inability to handle tough times (one lady I've known since I was little divorced her husband after their youngest son has 2 kids out of wedlock. Why she did that, I still do not know).

I haven't sworn off marriage entirely, but I can live the rest of my life a bachelor. In order to change my mind I have very specific requirements of her that she MUST neet and they all relate to character. Only one woman I've met met them all and she is happily married. Two others have met most of them but one dated my best friend for years and the other I am NOT attracted to at all.

julie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kumogakure said...

"Men want to control nature BUT women want to control men. Man's whole purpose is to manipulate nature (and procreate). That is why men are the scientists, inventors, mathmeticians, and philosophers. And all of men's seemingly peculiar behaviors come down to that. A woman's whole purpose is to catch and control men AND procreate."

TBA,

That is brilliant!

You have summed up the nature of most men and women in one brief paragraph.

Rock on!

One of my teachers from Japan told me once that every invention of man is something that increases his control over nature.

For example, we have telephones so can throw our voices, cars to take the burden off our feet, and of course, cameras to increase the range of our all seeing eyes.

And the Bible tells us that a woman first desires her husband:

"16 To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you ."

Another interesting quote from Otto Weininger:

http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/sexcharh.html#nwsu

"Woman is neither high-minded nor low-minded, strong-minded nor weak-minded. She is the opposite of all these. Mind cannot be predicated of her at all; she is mindless. That, however, does not imply weak-mindedness in the ordinary sense of the term, the absence of the capacity to "get her bearings" in ordinary everyday life. Cunning, calculation, "cleverness," are much more usual and constant in the woman than in the man, if there be a personal selfish end in view. A woman is never so stupid as a man can be.


But has woman no meaning at all? Has she no general purpose in the scheme of the world? Has she not a destiny; and, in spite of all her senselessness and emptiness, a significance in the universe?


Has she a mission, or is her existence an accident and an absurdity?


In order to understand her meaning, it is necessary to start from a phenomenon which, although old and well recognized, has never received its proper meed of consideration.It is from nothing more nor less than the phenomenon of match-making from which we may be able to infer most correctly the real nature of woman.

Its analysis shows it to be the force which brings together and helps forward two people in their knowledge of one another, which helps them to a sexual union, whether in the form of marriage or not. This desire to bring about an understanding between two people is possessed by all women from their earliest childhood; the very youngest girls are always ready to act as messengers for their sisters' lovers. And if the instinct of match-making can be indulged in only after the particular woman in question has brought about her own consummation in marriage, it is none the less present before that time, and the only things which are at work against it are her jealousy of her contemporaries, and her anxiety about their chances with regard to her lover, until she has finally secured him by reason of her money, her social position, and so forth.

As soon as women have got rid of their own case by their own marriage, they hasten to help the sons and daughters of their acquaintances to marry. The fact that older women, in whom the desire for sexual satisfaction has died out, are such match- makers is so fully recognised that the idea has wrongly spread that they are the only real match-makers."

Together, these impulses and desires make the world go round, and have carried us out of the caves and into the high rises of modern life.

TBA said,

"We have to live in what is reality today. And the reality is, for men the risk is just TOO HIGH. I used to think "well, ok. as long as the marriage reaches the 15th year it is impossible for the wife to "cash out" in a divorce". Well that illusion has been SHATTERED. I know personally and have met many women who've been married to men for 20-35 years and then divorced the husband. And this has become a trend in America."

Yep!

Actually, it seems that regardless of age, women today are more divorce prone than the fellas.

Especially after Menopause, today's woman is a lot less likely to stay in the marriage.

So I have to agree that marriage is definitely a risky proposition, and Western women are the riskiest of all.

Jewels said,

"Kumo, It is neat that you have a good relationship with your wife. I think this sort of talk can be harmless if everyone understands this."

Thanks! Yes she knows all about my MRAism. As a matter of fact, she really pushes me to write, as she believes that feminism is a very destructive force.

We talk about most everything, including Polygamy. She likes it as an ideal, but... :P

"I don't have the same outlook on women as the MRA does. To be entirely honest relationships between men and women is not supposed to be rosy all the time. It can be hard work also. But the good times are great. And the bad times are bad. I think myself that when you break up you go through stages and when you get to the last stage you can look at things with clear sight."

Agreed. Relationships are difficult by nature, and they take effort. In my case, that's why I was always so picky about who I had on my team. Basic compatability is crucial.

Loyalty, devotion, intellegence, a good sense of humor... all of these things are key.

"It is our system that we need to fight, our policies and those in charge that are destroying societies. To me men and women complement each other. Neither side in my eyes is all take nor all give. i don't think men and women would get into relationships if there was no payoff and I don't believe it all comes down to sex and money. But that is just my life experiences."

Nice points!

The system is responsible for weakening the ties between the sexes. Even though women, sadly, have mostly bought into the party line, there will come a day when they get on their knees and beg for forgiveness. They will understand how they have been deceived.

Western Women don't realize how good they have it, compared to women in some places in the world (see my Human Slavery links for very good examples of this).

But Karma is real. Women will understand their folly, and will suffer for it.

But yes, we must never lose sight of the fact that woman is a part of man, she is his rib, his mate and his companion.

It's a damn shame things have come to this!

tba said...

A moment of silence for the end of the Eternal Bachelor blog.







Dang, I understand him leving but I wish he would have left his archives online. I've been meaning to read all of his posts from the beginning. Now I won't get the chnce. May he live long and prosper as a bachelor.

Kumogakure said...

WHAT???????????????????

Say it aint so!

Ah well.

Change happens to all of us. But hopefully he will find that fire, and come back.

Mr. D, I salute you!!

julie said...

TBA,
That's nice of you.

Kumo, it is interesting that you refered to that particular part of the bible. (Genesis)

"16 To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you ."

I was told by an older women when in my 20's that we were cursed and refered to that saying. lol
But seriously it had felt like that made sense. But then my husband was 1 year older than me. Wait till 30, I was told. He will settle down then. Nope, didn't happen. But, notice the word, "CRAVE" That is why no matter what women's refuges do they cannot stop the women from returning to their men. Sure they say that women lose self esteem and that is the same for men but there has to be more to it than that.

It's definately a curse, I tell you!! Hahaha. Stupid Eve. lol But then it is a good curse when you think that marriages CAN last a lifetime.

julie said...

Oh oh. TBA and Kumo,

What I have said in my last comment is not in anyway a reflection on the general public of men or women. Nor of my stand to balance the genders. This sort of talk is outside of what is a human right.

You don't live in my country so you don't know that there are other cultures that exist. Other outliers from feminism and masculism that is mainstream.

This is part of what makes it difficult for some of the good men and women to take sides. They are just trying to help both men and women. Not everyone has moved into the ways of the 20th century.

You may be aware Kumo by being involved in gun groups that some men have a very strong view on what a man is and what women are and so forth. Their women often are thinking along the same lines. That is their culture. New Zealand is not as feminised as some say. There are many areas in NZ and many men and women who wouldn't have a clue what feminism even is. Yet they can hold a conversation on other history topics and relevant information for today.

Anything I say that may be against MRA beliefs is not a stand for feminism. It is just my own knowledge through life experiences.

I hope you understand this.

Anonymous said...

Hi Kumo,
I've come late, but here I am. (I asked the question about polygamy on your "Against Claritus" posting). I must say, you've made a believer out of me! Very good work, and thank you. I think the only problem I had before with the whole idea is whether or not any existing wives had the right to "veto" any additional wives or choices of wives by the husband (since they will all be part of the same household and all) but you've addressed that very well. Yes, I believe that it can be beneficial in many circumstances if all parties are on board.
To TBA, let my share my experience with you about mates complimenting each other. (I'm a woman, btw.) I have observed some of my girlfriends over the years latching onto a man that had a good job, wanted kids or would take care of theirs, yadda yadda yadda. I vowed I would NEVER be like that. I didn't want kids. I didn't want to be married. I didn't want to have to depend on anyone else for my livelihood. I worked hard and started putting all my ducks in a row, and guess what. Mr. Right, who I honestly never looked for, showed up. And guess what happened. As I fell in love with him, all of a sudden, I could see the white picket fence and the babies running around. (Those female hormones sure are a bitch.) Thankfully, I never forgot my earlier work ethic, and I carry it to this day. We don't fight. We both work hard, and we make time for each other as well as let the other do their own thing from time to time. So, while a man makes a better husband when he doesn't have to "complete himself", I beleive it ESSENTIAL (as well as possible) for women to do the same thing before a relationship or marriage. Unfortuntely, not many do, and the divorce courts are packed with the wreckage.

Kumogakure said...

Anon 7:10am,

Welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here.

Thanks for the kind words. I really think that Polygamy, done correctly, can be of great usefullness, especially in the fight to save Western culture.

In my next Polygamy post, I will talk about who would benefit from such a system, and why it would be a good policy tool to allow, and in some cases, encourage polygamous marriage, hypothetically of course.

Until feminism is smashed, and accountablitiy and fairness restored to our law courts, I cannot, in good faith, recommend any man to get married today.

If only I were Emperor! ^ ^

Peace.