Rob Case said...
There is absolutely no logic to the claim that married women have a right to their working husband's assets and income.
By luck rather than good management, I'm still a bachelor at 47, and have been retired now for 2 years. I own my own house and am financially secure. I came by my money just like most other guys - I held down a regular job. The difference is, as a bachelor, my earnings didn't get spent on dresses, shoes, jewellery, exotic vacations, hair-do's, ridiculous education, cute children's clothes, high-end furniture, extravagant housing and god knows how many other extravagances that bedevil the poor struggling married guy my age.
By the time I got to 45, I still had the cash a wife would have blown. I didn't have the debt she would have buried me under.
I know I'm not just one of a small percentage of guys who do ok unmarried. Look at the life of any married man in your street, and you will see the house he lives in is full of crap that he would never have bought for himself - stuff he would have left at the dump had he seen it going for nothing. He lives in, and pays for, a house and life-style whose primary purpose is to service the vanity of his wife. Most guys would be vastly better off without their marriage.
The notion that a woman makes a contribution to a man's wealth doesn't border on the absurd - it crossed that frontier miles back, got its passport stamped and was given the keys to the kingdom.
The simple fact that no woman will ever concede this point, no matter how easy it is to demonstrate, is proof enough of why this fiction is maintained. In their minds, their interests come before any man's. All reason and logic, all argument, are to be used to serve their primacy of interest.
So Buck, and any other young guy reading this, take it from an older dude that your instincts are 100% reliable. Stay single, stay sane and enjoy your life.
Really, what the man is saying is the truth. Women don't have an implicit right to have their husband support them when they're no longer supporting him - they may have had a right to a minimum level of support when they were doing work like raising children or cooking meals or cleaning house, but when the levels of arrogance displayed by modern women have reached such extremes as to claim that they should be paid $138,000 for work that amounts to nothing, they should be lucky to get kicked out with the clothes on their body.
But of course that's not what happens. What happens is that the golden parachute is made out of the skin of the slave, and then salt is poured onto his body with the double jeopardy of child support and alimony. All of this is after a marriage where he presumably gave his all and worked long hours to support the bitch at home and thought that the marriage was for life, through thick and thin. Turns out it was - thick for her, thin for him. Ha Ha Ha.
Its really a wonder that so many men marry even today. Its the natural instinct and centuries of social conditioning in us, we want to spread our seed, but if that's not gonna happen, at least pass on our genes. And the feminists have made full use of that, to push through ever more punishing laws. Do you think its a coincidence that the 500 year old law that states that any children born during marriage are presumed to be the husband's is still in the books?
MGTOW is the answer to these blatantly unfair laws. "Must keep her in a manner to which she is accustomed to" my ass. I will not be a slave.
If men as a group won't stand up to tyranny for once in history, we must each work for ourselves. The last person I expect shaming language from is a fellow man, but unfortunately, the first person I get insults and shaming language from is usually a man.