single for 7 years so married a rock. Nothing to add.
This week’s issue of The Spectator is a pretty dismal effort. I’m almost wondering if the editorial board has been subverted by SJWs. The leading piece is titled, The Rise of Marriage for one. The title is misleading as every example of some lonely narcissistic nutjob marrying themselves or an inanimate object is a woman. Apparently us men have dignity in the face of abject failure, so the next time someone accuses you of living in your mother’s basement while playing videogames all day, just turn around and say, “Yeah? So What? At least I didn’t marry a rock.”
Apart from the nuttiness, there are some serious flaws with this article. The writer, Ariane Sherine, makes several assumptions that just don’t stand up to even cursory examination. Particularly for someone experienced in the manosphere. Perhaps the ordinary reader would be so blindsided by the examples of women marrying snakes in a Hindu festival, (2000 guests apparently), that they would take on face value the sneaky bits that Sherine wove into her imaginary tale.
Because this article is all about the feel-goods. It’s about telling the girls that even though it appears that you’re a total loser for marrying yourself, you’re actually not because it’s all the fault of, you guessed it, the men. She doesn’t come right out and say that but she may as well have.
In previous generations, we single ladies approaching or embracing middle age would have been called ‘spinsters’ and pitied by society at large. Now, societal expectations are evolving fast. Single women are not only challenging the prejudices against us: we are also creating our own support networks to replace traditional marriage, making fulfilling and self-sustaining arrangements with siblings, friends and flatmates, with whom we can share the intimate details of our lives. Single women may be technically alone, but we are not lonely.
As soon as I read the highlighted line I knew what I was in for. Your every day, run-of-the-mill, garden variety, you go girrrl! You can have it all!! (Except for the marriage to a guy bit …) And as for them not being lonely, well, I suppose a rock is comforting.
Only a handful of women are holding these eccentric ceremonies. But they are representative of a much wider group of women who have found fulfilment and stopped looking for a man. Sologamists are everywhere, even if that’s not how they describe themselves — you probably know a few.
So why aren’t they getting hitched? Perhaps the issue resides with their potential mates. For while it is true that marriage rates have declined in every category of earners, the decline is far starker among middle- and lower-income groups.
See? I told you it was the men’s fault. She then goes into a detailed examination of all the financial hurdles that face a woman if she cannot find a suitable breadwinner to look after her. After making such a big deal of it she then utters the immortal line:
The tendency of women not to marry low-earning men is not superficial or an indication that they are gold-diggers.
You’re shitting me. Really? Of course not because that would be, like, superficial, man.
What’s really interesting is what isn’t said. On the one hand she acknowledges that women are doing much better in the economy than before, yet on the other hand she simply blames the lack of suitable breadwinners on men losing manufacturing jobs. No examination is given whatsoever to the two main causes of men losing out in the workplace. Either they have lost out to women or they have lost out to globalism and their jobs being outsourced overseas.
This woman champions her fellow females pushing past the barriers and “prejudices” that lay before them, yet still wants the girls to find the guy who will look after them:
Although women want to wed, they only want to marry a successful man with a secure job — and they will put off marriage until they find such a man, or until the man they are with is at that stage.
Apparently women really do want it all. They want the jobs and all of the ludicrous favoritism that they enjoy so as to be able to compete, but they also want a man to look after them financially even though they took his job, and if they don’t get this then they’ll just go out and marry a fucking boulder. But it gets better.
And so, if women can only ‘have most of it’, why shouldn’t that include ‘the big day’? Sologamists get to feel like a princess, surrounded by friends and family, and enact every non-legally-binding part of a wedding ceremony, including the photos and promises. They get the memories without the man, and the celebration with no fear of future acrimony. With 42 per cent of UK marriages currently ending in divorce, some might say self-marriage, or no marriage at all, is a more sensible option than conventional wedlock.
It’s now an established fact that over 70% of divorces are initiated by women. The reason for that is simple – the financial incentives. Women can dump the Beta chump who they shacked up with but he still has to provide for her for the rest of her days. Remove the financial incentive for women to divorce and watch those divorce rates plummet.
And that is because, dear reader, that women are not actually these special and unique princesses that sit upon some lofty throne where all is special and pure and wholesome. They’re people who are susceptible to the same weaknesses as the rest of us, with one of the big ones being simple greed. They want to “have it all” don’t they? Sounds like greed to me. Sounds like gold-digging even.
Sounds like the sort of behavior that would propel someone to publicly marry themselves. All I can say is, the more women who do this the better. If that’s not a clear sign to stay away, I don’t know what is. You can’t get any more help than that, boys. After that you’re on your own.