Thursday, December 3, 2015

Marriage, Inc.

A while ago I wrote about Relationship, Inc. I figure now is a good time to write about the more evil complement of this known as Marriage, Inc.

There is a real trend out there in the land of the married. It's a sinister trend as many have already noted, so the purpose of this post is not to repeat what is mostly already known, but instead to shed light on the institution of marriage in a way that I haven't been able to articulate until now. I will draw close parallels between marriage and a cutthroat business, as you shall see.

If you've ever been around women, either through casual acquaintance or via relationships, you'll notice that they tend to want to get married, if not right away, then eventually. From my perspective this comes across as unnecessary because marriage does not guarantee that people will stay together. So it's not an insurance policy in terms of holding on to love or enhancing love. What it is much more likely to be is an insurance policy for financial and economic security, by way of guaranteed (spousal) support, just like people will seek out government jobs, not because they like those jobs, but because of the perks, like having a good pension. So the goal of the marriage-minded female is primarily, and generally speaking, life security, made possible by the legal stipulations and entitlements that are enforced by the state.

The deception is that women will insinuate that getting married is the ultimate expression of commitment and love, and will not admit that their desire is based upon security reasons, as mentioned. This deception can take a further twist when it is implied that unless you are willing to risk your assets and put part of your assets on the line for her then you are not truly in love. So in other words you must be willing to lose something (if you break up), especially if those things that you lose go to her. If you can walk away with your money and assets intact that is a no-deal since it means you're not really in love. And it doesn't matter that during the relationship you might have done a lot of things for her. True love is (according to her definition) signing up to support her even if you are gone. And anything less than that, such as being able to walk away without having to give her anything, is unacceptable.

The irony here is that any argument that suggests that women should be entitled to a man's money and assets must hinge on traditional gender roles where a man works and a woman stays home (and isn't supposed to work) and must therefore naturally depend on the man for support. But relying on this argument negates the modern day reality that most women can and do work, and are encouraged to do so. If women are to be truly emancipated then they can't invoke such double standards when it suits them.

Women who are hell-bent on achieving security in life are the ones you need to watch out for the most. They will say and do whatever they need to in order to ball and chain a man into servitude of their primal needs. Sexually speaking these women are total mercenaries, which can be at odds with their natural libido. For these women it is in their economic best interest to not enjoy sex very much, for this allows them to more easily invoke supply-side restrictions on sex for economic/resource gain. These women are always marriage minded because it creates the legal framework that helps them achieve their goal of 100% security in life. Don't be the poor sucker that falls for their charms. If you must pay for sex do it on a per-use basis via prostitutes which eliminates all the potential trappings.

I've always had a rule, and that is to always start off on a casual level with women, and if it progresses to being more, so be it. But this way I weed out most of the security-seekers who seek to ball and chain a man via the proxy of relationships and marriage. So far this strategy has worked well. However, if you're the type of guy who sings like a canary when a woman asks "what do you do?" then you are swimming in shark-infested waters, and you better watch out! Even the women who seem the nicest can likely be not so nice after all once the ring goes on their finger.

These nice women will start off nice but as they climb the ladder of certainty, starting from dating at the beginning, to engagement, to finally marriage, they will increasingly become less nice, and more domineering. Once the deal (marriage) is finalized they will revert to their true nasty colors.

In achieving marriage, women push you away from independence (from them) and toward enslavement (for them). And the fact that marriage is still so encouraged must hinge on the belief that not doing this means you just don't love her or care about commitment.

Women (not all) will treat marriage as a cutthroat business, with performance requirements, incentives (sex), and eliminating competitors (friends, family of husband, etc.) so that all the time and resources and affections of her husband belong to her. They run marriage like a cutthroat business basically. These women are ALL business when it comes to their marriage. And it is even worse than working for a cutthroat company, since even these companies give you weekends and evenings off (in addition to paying you), and they still expect you to have a life outside of work. However, in Marriage, Inc. you are working 7 days a week, for her.

To ensure that their husband's resources are all funneled into Marriage, Inc, the marriage CEOs (the women) will minimize or eliminate their husband's alliances (friends, family, etc.) and will at the same time increase and nurture their own network of family and friends and sources of support. In business terms you can think of this as eliminating the competition while expanding your business network.

The marriage CEO will also penny pinch as much as she can and will ruthlessly seek savings where ever she can. And she will do this while also spending a fair bit on luxury items that she personally enjoys. She is not too different from CEOs we hear about in the media which ship jobs overseas and cut employee benefits while enjoying inflated salaries. In their twisted minds, what's good for me is good for the company. And in women's minds, what's good for me is good for the marriage. It's the same twisted rationalization.

Even worse, in Marriage, Inc. you have to leave some of your earning potential behind if you leave. Part of your future earnings, upon leaving (separation or divorce), will be garnished by Marriage, Inc. Compare this to a regular company that you work for, in which once you leave you get to take all of your earning potential with you. Now, I'm not opposed to child support, and that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about financial support for the Marriage CEOs (the women) who are fully capable of making their own money.

Like I have said, be very cautious with women who are adamant about wanting security in life. They will eat everything they can to feather their nest, and Marriage, Inc. is the perfect institution for these women. These women are very cold and calculating and like a ruthless corporation view everything in terms of profit. In addition to "marriage CEO" another good name for these women is Calculatress because they're always calculating.

If you're not careful these women will bleed your ass dry, along with everything else that is within their web of influence. According to them everything must go into the marriage machine, which serves her own interests and that of her children, all courtesy of you, the workhorse (i.e. husband). This is natural selection at work, since the ancestral women who did this were best at ensuring the survival of future generations. However, given that we are supposed to live in a civil society now that doesn't cater to barbaric behaviour, there must be "strict moral sanctions" to curtail this tendency in women, because all natural instincts, in the absence of checks and balances, will ultimately be destructive. Modern society in a way has removed some of these natural checks and balances which were there when survival was more difficult.

I'm not saying women will necessarily go into a marriage thinking that they'll do all this (although some do I'm sure). But when marriage happens it's like a switch goes off in their heads and all of a sudden everything becomes crystal clear in terms of what they have to do to run the marriage like a business. They suddenly become the master CEO of Marriage, Inc., micro-managing everything they can. And with the laws surrounding marriage being what they are in favor of women, it is far too tempting for women not to indulge this nasty instinct they have. Only a truly strong and honest woman can overcome this and keep a sense of fair play.

Ultimately, Marriage, Inc. wouldn't be possible without the white knight instinct of men (also based on natural selection). A man who wishes to indulge his white knight instincts will pander to all the wishes of the marriage CEO because he wants to be a good husband (i.e. worker). That said, you will never know a man's true character until he gets the pussy, and then see how he behaves. Scoundrel men are the first to indulge their baser instincts (like greed, selfishness) which includes their white knight instinct where women are concerned.

Bottom line, resist your white knight instinct. Make a serious effort to view things as an outside observer would, keeping concepts of fairness in mind. You can have women in your life but my recommendation is don't marry. At most live together but be aware of what the laws say regarding common law living. Get legal advice if necessary. Don't get suckered.


Anonymous said...

One of your best articles. I do agree that women will fiercely eliminate competition, do horribly evil actions led by that "nasty instinct" that you mention. Actually most women are nothing more than that nasty instinct. That is their only self. Check out divorce corps on youtube. Everyman should be forced to watch that video before getting married on this day and age.

Anonymous said...

What a shame such a great post didn't get many comments.

Anonymous said...

Yikes, here's an interesting take of "don't get married in Canada".

Dave Foley of Kids in Hall fame, talks about his divorce experience.

TL;DR: he had to pay $15K in child support based on his income he made when had a hit show in the late 90s. Ouch.