Well knock the Booby over with a feather! Turns out, mainstream academia has figured out what most men have already learned… albeit for many, far too late in life: marriage is a “financial transaction”. Just in case you fellas missed it, here’s what our eminent mating experts have recently published in the Journal of Marriage and Family (yes, there really is such a journal):
Among other things, we learn that current eligible bachelors in the US only earn about two-thirds as much as eligible bachelorettes would prefer. Indeed, for this reason, and to quote: “Most American women hope to marry but current shortages of marriageable men–men with a stable job and a good income–make this increasingly difficult, especially in the current gig economy of unstable low-paying service jobs”.
How often have we heard one of our modern feminist shrews complain that “men these days” are too insecure to have a wife who earns more than they do? Yet, clearly it bothers them, too. It’s just that being womyn they’re free to be bothered when men earn less than they, but men are not. Huh? Oh, but of course! Too many fellas simply don’t make enough so that all of princess’s dreams can come true, and that’s that (see here)… explains everything.
Don’t sweat it, fellas.
While it may not be to your long-term advantage that your current earnings… well, suck, the fact is, you needn’t worry that it makes you “unmarriageable”. Anything that keeps you out of said “financial transaction” is to your advantage. What you should worry about instead is that poor earnings are detrimental to your financial independence.
Do work on that.
You need to start thinking about yourselves. Which brings us back to this “unmarriageable” thing:
The Booby’s very first post warned you that marriage (including common-law) is potentially a financial death trap, and is so by design. If marriage was simply about love and tenderness there would be no need to legally amalgamate your property, earnings, and assets, and there certainly wouldn’t be any need for alimony or divorce lawyers.
Fact is, marriage was, is, and always will be a financial transaction. The unspoken truth is that it’s a form of legalized prostitution with some implied commitments and responsibilities sprinkled on top. Of course, no one actually says that, but historically it was always understood on some level. That’s not to say that love can’t happen, but really, how much stock can one put in the judgement of any young person hurtling into a major life decision?
Thus, marriage is – or at least was – an imperfect solution to the human condition. We as men would exchange our earnings for sex with a sole partner. The deal being that we would provide for any children accrued along the way, along with the material needs of our wives, and in return our sexual needs were more or less addressed. At least theoretically the social problems arising from fatherlessness were solved, too.
Those days, for better or worse, are over.
The revolution – or, more accurately, the soft coup – of the 1960s (see here) put an end to the notion of a nuclear family consisting of two parents. “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” was the hostile refrain of the feminist movement, and was offered as justification for dismantling the traditional family.
Obviously, feminism succeeded in largely destroying the traditional family, but feminists conveniently chose to retain women’s access to men’s earnings in the form of alimony, child support, and the like (see here). Contradiction? Of course it is, but only if you truly believe the slogans. Sad truth is, the architects of revolutions are never truly concerned with the ideals they claim to espouse… just ask the 50 million workers and poor people who were exterminated by Lenin and Stalin after consolidating their revolution for the workers and poor people.
Obviously, it should come as no surprise to modern men that a political class spawned from hostile, divisive, and vengeful slogans, like “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” would produce a legal and political structure that is itself hostile, divisive, and vengeful (see here).
Of course men and women still need each other, at least if they want the best for their offspring:
However, feminism like all the ideologies of the 1960s was marketed to the “Me Generation”. The self was and remains first and foremost. All else: country, community, family, even one’s own children come second. The modern feminist is content to have daycare centres, Mexican quasi-slave labourers, or as is often the case, surprised grandparents raise their children so that they may pursue their careers and oftentimes illusory sense of fulfillment.
However flawed or ideal one sees the traditional family unit, it was nevertheless a give-and-take relationship. Men received perks in the form of being the head of a family that bore his name, and access to sex (at least in theory). In turn, the lion’s share of his earnings were consumed by the needs of the family. Children were financially provided for by fathers and received childcare from their mothers, who in return received financial security (at least in theory). In other words, it was always a financial transaction, regardless of what people said out loud.
The modern marriage remains every bit as much a financial transaction, but what has changed is that it is less and less, at least legally, a give-and-take relationship. To justify not needing men it was necessary that women become breadwinners. The obvious problem, of course, is that that left no one to provide childcare.
Both breadwinners and childcare are needed for the raising of children. However, in their lust to eject men from the equation feminists created a problem: no childcare, as evidenced by the post-60s explosion of children born to single parents. With a new political establishment firmly in the hands of the radical academic left, the demand repeatedly made – with varying degrees of success, depending on the country – is that government provide childcare. For free. As in, paid for with the tax dollars and earnings of, well, mostly men. So much for not needing men, but everyone can just ignore that.
Of course, another popular alternative is to unload the burden of childcare onto the grandparents. Statistics are hard to come by, since the political establishment doesn’t like to talk about it, but single parenthood has increasingly burdened the fatherless child’s grandparents. “Not needing a man” apparently doesn’t mean not needing mom and dad to assume the absent babysitting and financial obligations.
Of course, using the grandparents is a perfect solution for the Me Generation, and its equally self-consumed progeny. Who cares if mom and dad can’t retire, or if they can’t spend their retirements the way they dreamed? Princess wants a baby AND a career. Best of all grandparents will rarely, if ever, complain, let alone judge.
Well-off white women in the US also have the option of hiring a Latina nanny at slave labour wages, which is even more economical than minimum wage paying daycares, though less economical than unloading them on grandpa and grandma for free.
“But my girlfriend and I don’t want children. Why can’t we get married?” you ask.
Well, better question, why would you?
Marriage is an institution that was created for the explicit purpose of childrearing. If you still believe in “true love” and “romance” then grow the fuck up. Yes, some people find partners that they “fall in love” with, but long-term love is statistically rare, typically fleeting, and rarely lasts beyond a few years.
Let the Booby share some statistics with you.
In Western nations divorce rates are very high, and in some cases stratospheric. The USA and Canada, for example, have divorce rates of roughly 47% and 48%, respectively. Meanwhile, in Europe many countries dwarf even these lofty figures. Portugal and Luxembourg have divorce rates of roughly 71% and 66%, respectively (see here)!
In other words, if you come from a Western nation the best odds you can hope for is about a 50/50 chance of getting divorced should you venture into a marriage contract. Moreover, second and third marriages are even more likely to end in divorce than first.
Now there are caveats with statistics (as there always are with statistics). For example:
Baby Boomers – the generation that “saved the world” and championed so-called “equality” for men and women – have by far the highest divorce rate. Seems those progressive Baby Boomer men and women can’t stand each other, equally so. Even in their current senior citizen years the Me Generation is still divorcing in record numbers (see here).
However, the fact that divorce rates are lower for younger generations is misleading. For increasingly fewer are choosing to get married… at all. These generations grew up after the soft coup of the 1960s. Increasingly, men are more acutely aware of the fact that divorce, for them, can spell near-certain financial doom. Staying in a miserable, unhappy marriage is, unfortunately for too many modern men, the lesser evil compared to getting divorced. Which is also a big reason why fewer men are interested in marriage in the first place.
So there you have it, fellas. The same political/academic class that has spent the last 50+ years turning marriage into a financial straight jacket for you has now officially confirmed that “marriage is a financial transaction”. Love has nothing to do with this, at least not from a legal standpoint.
From day one the Booby has warned that no one who truly loves you would ever ask you to enter into a financial transaction that is designed to destroy you, especially since your princess-in-waiting supposedly needs you like a fish needs a bicycle. If she insists upon marriage nevertheless, she’s either 1) uneducated with regard to your post-1960s political/legal disadvantages, or 2) well… you can figure it out, you’re big boys now….
This isn’t all bad news, though. You can still pursue our female friends by all means. Have a fling. Have a relationship, even. However, understand that there is no longer any incentive for you to enter into marriage, or any kind of legally recognized cohabitation (and that includes common law). On the contrary, it is quite likely going to be to your detriment.
Now that’s something they won’t teach you in school, fellas. Not surprising, considering that your teachers hail from that same post-1960s political class that views you with hostility and contempt.