You know, it is often said, mostly by feminists, women, and women-firsters, that men need to take responsibility for who they marry. If they marry a gold-digger, they themselves are solely responsible for her actions, she is but an agent of nature and does not have any more conscience than a bird, whose shit has an equal chance of falling on a Lexus or a Lada. Your mistake for keeping the top down, now the poo is on the seats and has stained the leather.
The assumption is that men need to apologize for another's behavior when it doesn't turn out right. So if she decides to leave you and takes half of everything, you should have seen it coming because you're a man, and men are clairvoyant.
Sayeth the woman - they aren't? Then how come they always know what gifts to give me? How do they always know where all the romantic places are?
Heh, heh.
I was reading a letter that Glenn Sacks put on his blog, from a witch (who else can be that angry and evil?) who doesn't like that her ex has a new life. Vindictiveness and spite, ahh what a beauty the fair sex is.
There's a rabble-rouser in the comments, a female supremacist in the purest sense of the word - Annie. You can read her comments if you have the stomach. I bet the WKKK would be proud of her. There are a few choice comments too...
Here's a comment from Mark:
The other problem I see on this blog is that men tend to get a pass on everything, feminism in reverse if you will. The answer isn't not getting married, it's making a good choice on whom you marry. Sorry, but there are no shortage of men that think it's just great the woman they're dating is really impressed with their car and Visa card then act shocked when they "pretend" to realize the woman was just after someone to pay her bills.
Comment from Rosemarie:
Ding ding ding! We have a winner - Mark, you have hit the nail on the head when it comes to men who try to impress women with their Porches and their sailboats and their Amex, then cry foul when they realize they've attracted a money-grubbing opportunist.
As usual, the man gets the responsibility, the woman gets a free pass. I'll show you why.
Just think for a moment that a man meets a woman. She is highly sexual, sensual, free with her body and takes care of his intimate needs like no other. Let's not bring money into this; let's say they are both young and carefree with nary a penny to their name.
They marry, thinking that the bliss is going to last forever. Pretty soon, she pops out a kid, then another. Her gyno puts her on some pills, the sex dries up, she doesn't feel attracted to him anymore now that she's got what her biological clock was telling her to get.
Does the man have a right to expect sex to continue? Actually, if you answer in the affirmative, your opinion doesn't matter because of a simple little thing called marital rape. Law trumps opinion. This little feminist invention allows men to be prosecuted for the most basic function of marriage - sex.
He's a beast if he wants sex when she doesn't.
He's a beast if he doesn't want sex when she does.
So if a man cannot expect the good sex to continue, and cannot take it from her forcibly, what right does a woman have to expect the support to continue?
Ah, there we have the double standard. Money is not deemed personal like the body is, because men have money and women have the body. Simple gender politics.
A woman having to have sex with a man she does not like is a travesty, a human rights violation, it is everything that is wrong with the world; whereas a man having to support a woman he does not like is called marriage.
