My blog

Tag: marriage

  • In Defense of Arranged Marriage

    In Defense of Arranged Marriage

    The purpose of marriage is children. I know I link to Darwin Reactionary a lot, but fact is he addresses the idea in such detail it is hard not to reference him. But perhaps there is no need to go into utilitarianism, let us discuss the story of Swetaketu instead.

    The rishi sees another brahmaNa catch his mothers hand and pull her away. Infuriated he is about to berate the interloper, when his father Uddalaka stops him and says that it is an acceptable practice that men and women can take any partner they desire. The rishi cannot tolerate this, and thus he lays the cornerstone of civilization – the institution of marriage.

    It is important to note that in the story, it is not the mother or the father who are invested in the marriage it is the child Swetaketu. It is he who desires a union for his parents, while they are simply not bothered by it. It is also interesting to note that while this could have been his father who was straying and his mother admonishing him, the reverse is true. This is perhaps because the mother is extremely important to the child’s development. In jyotishashastra the moon represents both the mother of the native as well as the mind, but this tidbit is only of auxillary value. The mAnava dharma shAstra itself gives us a clue as to the importance of the mother.

    MDS 2.145. The teacher is ten times more venerable than a sub-teacher, the father a hundred times more than the teacher, but the mother a thousand times more than the father.

    Thus we see that out of all the parties involved the most affected is the child, and that marriage itself was instantiated not for the father who may benefit greatly from a wife who honours him, nor the mother who benefits greatly from being revered in the household which could not happen if any man could enjoy her without restraint, but it is the child who benefits from the stable union of father and mother in the holy union of marriage. There is a huge amount of literature on the superiority of married biological parents raising a child versus any other form even that of biological parents cohabiting.

    So now we know, marriage is good and it protects everyone involved but it protects children even more we should ideally discuss who marries and how they decide. If marriage is truly about offspring then the decision to marry must be based keeping this in mind. Marriage cannot be a decision based on feelings such as love, because such lust is ephemeral and it leads to a slippery slope. If one can simply choose one’s partner, then what stops one from divorcing the first wife once the lust wears off? Is this fair to the child? Is this fair to the wife? Is it fair to the husband? Tacitus writes on how the Germanic tribes viewed marriage and the structure of it is echoed in how Indians view marriage, or perhaps it is best I say viewed.

    Love marriages thus are a dicey situation. Will a decision taken on the basis of fleeting feelings weather difficult situations? The American Psychological Association makes the claim that this is not so. A significant percentage of marriages are ending in divorce estimated as high as 50%. Marriage in the UK has crashed to an all time low, and people are getting married later and later which affects the quality of the progeny. The idea of marriage based on love thus is not fulfilling the purpose of marriage, love marriages are for the most part, a farce.

    Now we know that the Germanic tribes seemed to “arrange” marriage in some sense and we know that in India this has always been the case. But did this exist elsewhere? Apostolou has a number of interesting papers which discuss this. He argues that marriages have always been arranged and this is why risk taking behavior in men is valued, not because women are impressed by risk taking behavior but because other men are. Let us not dive into quasi-Freudian psychobabble about latent homosexuality, he clarifies that men are signalling to fathers of women they desire. The fathers are the ones who restrict mating rights to their daughters, and they value traits in men such as industriousness and character thus selecting for such things in the population.

    Apostolou describes multiple ways in which this was done in the past, both through psychological manipulation as well as through physical force but the outcomes regardless was that sons and daughters married on the behest of their parents. The parents chose mates for them and this has been extrapolated both in agricultural societies as well as early hunter gatherer ones.

    Think about this for a minute. This means that humans have evolved to have their parents choose their partners for them. They are completely ill-equipped to select a mate. Are divorce rates and marriage rates in the West a surprise?

    Here are another couple studies cited in the same paper.

    Farthing concluded that certain aspects of male risk-taking behaviors are directed towards other men rather than women. And men are responsive to such behaviors: Kelly and Dunbar found that men prefer to form friendships with risk-prone, brave men. It is no surprise then that men make riskier decisions while driving when they have male passengers than when they have female ones. Additionally, Fischer and Rodriguez Mosquera in a meta-analysis study concluded that men evoke anger and aggression not because they want to attract the attention of women, but because they are afraid of losing status and respect in the eyes of other men.

    Why are men so concerned with acquiring wealth, signalling risk taking ability and out-competing every other man in their field? Instead of signalling their prowess to other men, if they wanted to reproduce they should be signalling to women. Might it be because signalling wealth to older men, make them valuable son-in-laws in their eyes ultimately giving them a wife.

    Now let’s remove this model of mate selection and let’s ask men to choose their own wives. Given how ingrained this system of men acquiring traits and behaviours which signal value to men, they will simply not be able to change strategies and signal now to women. They are already starting out at a disadvantage. On the other hand, men who were unconcerned with becoming industrious but were able to signal to women their mating ability, colloquially “players”, will be the ones who succeed in mating often to the detriment of the women involved. Without arranged marriage, it looks like we hit the prisoner’s dilemma Nash equilibrium. Everyone is worse off.

    These make a strong case for the continuation of the arranged marriage system put in place by our pitRs. Apostolou also describes how this may not be possible in post-industrial societies, but that simply means we have to be stricter about organizing Hindu society. The Japanese have industrialized but are nowhere near as degenerate as the West. No systems are foolproof, nor do they work effectively 100% of the time. There are always leakages, and there will always be failures. However, perhaps looking at maximizing the quantity of beneficial outcomes is a better way to go about organizing society than maximizing entropy in a way that benefits a few lucky elite.

    The author tweets @PaganTrad. The article was first published here.

  • Abortion and Pre-Marital Sex is a lose-lose proposition for everyone

    Abortion and Pre-Marital Sex is a lose-lose proposition for everyone

    The article in YP and twitter discussion on abortion led to a massive twitter outrage among the “Hindu” liberals and secular liberals alike, who want to justify murder in the name of choice for women. Somehow these people don’t seem to get that every action has its consequences and if someone eats salt, he/she has to drink water. The most common retort or justification from the liberals, who want to justify murder of babies, is that babies will not be taken care of if they are allowed to be born in an unplanned way. But what they seem to miss is that this was precisely why the ancient cultures put a heavy price on such pregnancies in the form of marriage, often at gun point. People were not supposed to be having unprotected sex resulting in pregnancies in the first place. Justifying murder of few week old foetuses in the name of “unplanned”, “economic”, “muh choice” etc is no different than justifying murder of infants for the same reason. After all an infant, which is less than one year old is as dependant on the mother and society as the foetus is on the mother which some disgusting subhuman animals masquerading as liberals like to call it- “a parasite”. But nobody justifies killing infants who cannot be taken care of by their parents. The same people, ‘which’ justify abortion under the pretext of not being able to take care of their foetus would still think it is murder to kill infants under the pretext of not being able to take care of them, unless they are complete psychopaths.
    a1
    Sample of subhumans

    There is nothing Hindu about “Muh Choice” abortion:

    Some pro-abortionists, who call themselves as Hindu “feminists”, claim that Hinduism is liberal and that anything can be done and still be consistent with Hindu morality. However, this notion that Hinduism is liberal and allows whatever one wants to do is a bastardisation of Hindu philosophy and theology. Hinduism allows “exploration” of various philosophies and questioning of various ideas. That is not the same as the bastardised version of the Hindu philosophy advocated by the animals masquerading as liberals as “anything goes”. That is one can choose the path of Sankaracharya for attaining moksha or path of Ramanujan and so on but one cannot go around killing people, who they perceive as being useless for society and claim that such psychotic killing is also the way of Hinduism and is a path for moksha. As one could see in the above example, there is a huge difference between “there are multiple paths to ultimate truth” as against “anything can be done and still be moral” philosophy.

    Unlike what the “muh choice” feminists/Hindu liberals like to portray, there is no philosophy in Hinduism which justifies abortion. In fact, all the philosophies of Hinduism say the same thing about abortion (sisu hatya) i.e. it is an unforgivable sin. Hindu Shastras forbid abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger, since in this case not killing the foetus will kill the mother. Hindu Shastras make it pretty clear that sisu hatya is equivalent to 50 murders, since the life being killed/murdered here is as innocent a life can be. The curse for Ashvathama in Mahabharata should be enough of a lesson for anyone on this issue. This is where it is important to call out the self-identified “Hindu” feminists and liberals on their nonsense. There is nothing Hindu whatsover about either them or their philosophy. They just want to justify murder in the name of a bastardised version of Hinduism and philosophy.

    Abortion in the name of rape:

    The second biggest argument from the side of psychopaths who support murder in the name of economics is that rape victims should be allowed to have abortions. But rape as the reason for abortion accounts for less than 0.1% of the total abortions carried out today. As such an exception can be made on humanitarian grounds for such conditions. However, this is not a valid argument to give to justify abortion for the other 99%. This argument is no different than saying that killing someone in self defence is valid (abortion w.r.t. rape) and so killing anybody for any reason (abortion under the pretext of “muh choice”) which is murder is also valid.

    Abortion and Premarital Sex:

    Amongst all this, the most disgusting and disturbing observation in the debate was that most of the anti-abortion rhetoric came from men and many women, even those claiming to be pro-Hindu Dharma, supported abortion. The reason for that can range from the deep desire among today’s westernised, mentally colonised modern Hindu women to have premarital sex to them having fully bought into the idea that abortion is about women’s rights. The former is indicative of how much the society has decayed today. All of them have been corrupted by brothelwood and hollywood into thinking that premarital sex is somehow good for women and is about women’s rights. This is of course patently false. When premarital sex is restricted by the society, either by law or by social convention, it doesn’t restrict the sex activities of the women alone, but it restricts men too. For example, when government bans the manufacture of tobacco, is it restricting the right of only tobacco manufacturers? Of course not. It impedes the use of tobacco by the tobacco users as well indirectly. The same is true with premarital sex restrictions.

    Premarital sex restrictions were imposed on women mostly because women bore the brunt of the responsibility if things go wrong. They were the ones who got pregnant. A man could impregnate a woman and take off to nowhere but the woman had to bear the child. So societies were far more protective of the girl child than of the boy child. This has nothing to do with misogyny or women’s rights, but rather the practical reality and biology. And restricting girls from having premarital sex also effectively restricts boys from having premarital sex, since the penalty for such activities in pre-westernised India or any other traditionalist culture for that matter was marriage, often at gun point or social outcasting.

    Also, the very notion of premarital sex is incoherent. The act of sex is associated in all archaic ethos with the act of procreation. Sex outside of marriage is purely for pleasure and is akin to mutual masturbation. Sex within the marriage is a sacred act, and one who participates in this act with his beloved, their bind sanctified by the fire of ritual is one without fault. Thus society restricted both men and women from participating in sexual union outside of marriage because of this very fact. Since it is harmful more to women as discussed above, it is imperative for the young Hindu men to take note of this and behave with the chivalry that once populated the lands of our ancestors. For men in a society set the rules while women uphold them (सा स्त्री या अनुविधायिनी।). Therefore it is important for our young men to understand the dangers of free sex hedonism and to protect their sisters and potential love interests from this danger by behaving in a dutiful manner and engaging in Dharmic conduct.

    Premarital sex is a snake oil sold as women’s rights:

    Feminists and progressives have sold this snake oil that premarital sex is a sign of women’s rebellion against patriarchy and misogyny and that it is about women’s rights to women. This has been internalised to a deep extend by the anglicised and westernised middle and upper middle class women and men to a large extent in India. But as shown in the above paragraph, it has nothing to do with women’s rights as it restricts men’s right to have sex as well indirectly. But even if one looks past the motives of feminists and progressives in this respect and see into the effect of what happened to the societies which adopted these ideas, it will be very clear that premarital sex has actually caused a lot of chaos and destruction to families around the world, in every country. In countries where premarital sex is the norm, women have actually grown lot less happier than they were in traditional homes. Studies after studies have shown that premarital sex actually makes women miserable. So neither is the premarital sex a women’s rights issue nor is premarital sex something which does positive things for women

    Pick Up Artists and MGTOWs of the west:

    The US TV operas, Hollywood films and the Brothelwood films which glorify pre-marital sex of the west do not show the result of such premarital sex to either their audience back home nor the Indians who get colonised by those ideas. West is a miserable society behind their material wealth. The number of unmarried people there is now above 50% and is only growing faster. Women are getting miserable everyday. Most of their women do want to get married but could not find good men to marry. Most of the men who would have married in the traditional societies now do not see the point of marriage. Most of them end up as single mothers, mooching off the state, which is still overwhelmingly paid for by the men there in taxes, in the name of welfare and child support or from the guys they tricked into getting pregnant and use state force to get alimony. The half intelligent women who bought the feminist Kool aid of women empowerment and sought to further their careers while screwing around with meaningless sex find themselves partner-less in their 30+ age and are forced to live with cat piss as their true companions instead of babies.

    The fact that premarital sex is the norm meant that the western men can get what most men want anyway i.e. free sex without commitment. They play platitudes to women empowerment and “you go girl” feminism since it is in their direct short term benefit of having sex without commitment. In the traditional families, penalty for such sex included massive penalties like shotgun wedding. But now, feminists have freed them from that shackles. So many men do not even see the point of getting married. Since the two most important things they got out of marriage – sex and children are now not a guarantee for them. Wife can legally deny them sex, the whole marital rape issue, and can legally take their children away from them in the courts in a divorce, which is increasingly initiated by them. Of course, women are increasingly initiating the divorces because when they do decide to settle in their 30s, all the good men were either already snatched by the intelligent conservative women who were still in their 20s and hence they are left to contend with leftover men, who they might never have even dated in their prime and hence become increasingly resentful towards after marriage.

    Of course, women initiating majority of the divorces in a society where 50% of the marriages end in divorces meant that many men opt out of marriages even more there giving rise to the growth of MGTOW, or Men Going Their Own Way. These are men who have decided to opt out of anything to do with women outside of work and sex and would never become committed or marry. Given their options in the west, is it any wonder that this group is on the rise? Some of them even hail feminism for liberating men from their duties towards societies and family and instead allowing them to work for themselves and enjoy life with complete hedonism.

    As any astute observer might notice, all of these problems are inter-related and it is all one leading up to another. The problems in the west started with the sexual revolution of the 1970s and the little cultural capital they had left was consumed up in the very next generation. Now their societies are in profound decay with their marriage rates plummeting. In fact, the problem has forced the government of UK to create massive incentives for creating and maintaining families, like giving two parent families tax breaks. The societal implications aside, what was the result of this supposed liberation of women on the psych and well being of women and men? Men for the large part were not actually affected by this social change. The men of today are not any worse off than men of the 1930s or 40s as they have substituted sex and family by porn and video games. Their happiness levels have remained the same today as it was back then. But as often pointed out in YP, women have become miserable as time went on. All the supposedly “women” liberating ideas of feminism and progressivism have only made the women miserable.

    The question is, is Indian society willing to take a known poison willingly, if that poison gets labelled “Deva Prasadam”? Because this is how the premarital sex is being sold to Indian society as being women’s right and liberation of women. Even the most basic scrutiny of this poisonous idea would have shown that premarital sex is not a women’s right issue as the most significant beneficiary of the liberalisation of sex is men as men are the ones who are always looking for more sexual partners and sexual acts. Seeing the response of the urbanised, anglicised Indian women on twitter who responded to the issue, it looks they are indeed willing to or have already consumed the poison. The irony is that most of these women who defend this nonsense on twitter are well past their prime and are unlikely to find someone they think they deserve or they could have gotten when they were younger and had not wasted their youth on meaningless sex on the advice of feminist poison of career before family or meaningless sex being awesome. One has to wonder if these women are miserable inside and hence want other young Indian women to become sluts like they themselves are so that they themselves have company in their misery. Notice that men have benefits from both normalised premarital sex as seen by the emergence of PUAs and never married happy hippy men of the West as well as the traditionalist strict marital code societies of India as complained by feminists and liberals. But women have a lot to lose in a society where premarital sex is the norm if west is any indication. The anglicised urban Indian ladies should ask themselves if they would rather have a stable family like their mothers and grandmothers or the cat piss soaked single ladies of the west in their 30/40s, all for having few more sex partners, not necessarily more sex.

    Not to forget, this does not mean Indian men should turn into PUA and MGTOWs as these men are hurting their pitRs by failing to procreate and provide for their children and building good society. The western society having turned against its men has not left any avenue for their men to behave responsibly and care for future generation. So, although PUAs might be happy in short run and enjoy hedonism while their societies burn, the death warrant of their future generations is already signed. This is another reason why India should tread carefully before its men decide to completely give up on future generation and fall into hedonism.

    Abortion as Women’s right issue:

    This is again a spurious argument. Abortion is not a women’s right issue any more than right to kill an infant is a women’s right issue. No body, in their right mind (or semi lunatic mind like the liberals) thinks that “muh child, muh right” as an argument to kill infants, they cannot take care of. Their right to decide on the life of the foetus ended when they decided not to take any precautions before their sexual act or ignored the risks associated with free sex (even safest contraceptions have some 1-2% failure rate). They have the right to use contraceptives, but that is not an excuse to kill the foetus. Unless the woman’s health is in direct danger from the foetus, in which case inaction on the part of society will kill the mother, there is no moral justification for killing the foetus.

    Laws vs Societal Norms:

    Many people who are against abortion think that changing abortion laws will fix this mess. It wont and it cant. For example, the single mother rate in anti-abortion Ireland is about 25%, less than the American figure of 50% but still is very high compared to single mother rate in present day, non-anglicised, non-mentally enslaved India i.e. 1%. This is a much more widespread societal problem and has to be advanced through social change and change in consciousness. But laws do play a role. There is a reason why the single mother rate in Ireland is only 25% as against the 50% rate of USA. A law which legalises what is immoral today, will become moral tomorrow since law will change the attitude of the society to it over time. This is why majority of our mothers and grandmothers would have seen abortion as an evil thing to do while majority of future anglicised culturally enslaved Indian women of today think abortion is a “muh rights” issue. If Government legalises murder of infants who cannot be fed today for economic reasons on “pragmatic grounds”, like how these animals view it, then in two generations questioning the killing of infants will evoke the same response from then young ones of the society who would have been brought up normalised to infanticide.

    Fake CultureVeers and Indian Exceptionalism:

    To make these matters worse, there are CultureVeers who think that these issues are real and yet think nothing needs to be done and that Indian society will survive this without any effort. That is when pointed out that India will become a middle income third world shit hole like Mexico ,Brazil or Romania, they will claim that uniqueness and oldness of deep rooted Indian culture will protect them from social rot which comes with liberalism and feminism. They are the cultural counter part of the “we survived Abrahamic assault for 1000 years and hence nothing will happen to us” type, i.e. the morons who forget that the very survival of our civilization required the blood and sacrifice of our countless number of ancestors. Their idea of anything goes will not help India or anybody except to serve as an excuse for these things for being lazy,hiding behind the myth of Indian Exceptionalism. India wont be a shit hole today if Indian exceptionalism is indeed true. Our family institutions are what kept us from turning into North Africa and these people want to take even that away. Preventing the demise of Indian society depends on whether or not we Indians learn from the mistakes of the decadent west and how much sacrifice we Indians are willing to make. Question is- are we ready to sacrifice and learn? If not, then there is no point in talking about Hindu civilisation and culture as there wont be anything left of it at the end of liberalism, just like how Christianity is all but dead in western societies.

  • Who is a good boy?

    Who is a good boy?

    Modern youth is confused and doesn’t know what it wants in life. There are many fancy names floating around for this phenomenon, mid/quarter life crisis, existential crisis, existentialism, fatalism, nihilism.

    On a practical level, it is also a function of the gender roles we are slotted in. The females are breaking free of their traditional roles with slogans like “women don’t belong in the kitchen” but unfortunately men are neither aware nor willing to break free from theirs, nor will the modern society allow them to do so. The traditional male gender role is still that of a provider who works in an office and a man’s worth in society is still benchmarked on the money he earns.

    On an abstract level, the turmoil that upwardly mobile youth is facing is that we are climbing the Maslow’s pyramid too early and hence stumbling across the question of “what next?” which is the trigger for all forms of existential crisis. A person who has climbed the first three steps of the pyramid and ensured that he has enough resources so that he will never starve to death will start looking for sublime sources of validation like the definition of a meaningful, eventful or fulfilling life.

    The need is to get into a variety of things like national security, martial arts, video games, religious geometry, dharma, paragliding, rifle shooting, solo long distance bike trips and recently even aquarium designing. Just consume a variety of content, get involved in various activities and communities and keep the brain stimulated.

    We have to stop the jinx of letting society define us as a good provider and start redefining the meaning of life with us at the focal point. Do things for ourselves instead of finding actualization in being a better provider and acquiring the paraphernalia to advertise to the world that we are indeed doing well.

    Wah beta wah, IITian ban gaye? Wah beta, MNC mein job lag gaya? Wah, 17 hours kaam karte ho, extra time bhi karte ho? Piles hain? Wah wah, fir toh bahut workload hoga? Excellent! Wah, wah beta nayi car le li? Naya ghar? Badhiya hai, you are such a ‘good boy’. Now marry my daughter and be a good provider for her.

    A good girl does whatever she wants and a good boy does whatever enables him to pay for the good girl’s wants. That is the current Indian dream we are chasing.

    We need to stop grooming young males in our society to conflate their self worth with their earning potential, otherwise we are only presenting ourselves as a magnet for the wrong kind of crowd who will file fake 498A cases and empty out bank accounts within no time. What young males in India need the most, is a spine. Unfortunately, it’s not available on Flipkart, so we will have to grow one ourselves.

    Disclaimer from YP

    The growth of such opinion among men in India will destroy us just like it destroyed the west. And the men are not to be blamed for thinking this way, the society has been too harsh to them and will only get worse with further changes in marital laws. They are already feeling estranged by the nonchalant attitude which the political establishment has towards them.

    Image Source:
    http://ayay.co.uk/backgrounds/animals/dogs/good-dog-jack-russell-terrier.jpg

  • A discussion on Marriage

    A discussion on Marriage

    The following discussion looks at the institution of marriage from Hindu perspective and what each party gains from the institution. Since this institution developed independently across all societies, marriage should serve some teleological function.

    D:

    Regarding this modern woman problem, the issue is the halo attached to this thing called ‘career’. This is originally a Protestant idea where routine work came to be seen as service to god. In the ancient texts we read that duty of men was to bring wealth and glory to the family. Women were care-givers for the family. Both worked for the family in their different capacities. But ‘career’ is for oneself. Once men get hooked on it, it is unfair to expect women to remain care-givers for the family. If salvation for men lies in building careers for themselves, the same will be demanded by women as well. I see men as the root of the problem here. They have switched from being ‘settler’ to ‘hunter’. Women merely emulate men in whatever they do.

    DF:

    So much of the modern world can be traced back to Protestantism.

    PT:

    DF the primary motivations under Protestantism is also the same, but protestantism spins it into work is worship. That’s the point. The primary motivation is always the same because humans are all the same animals fundamentally. The religions shape our baser instincts into something greater. Counter religions just do a shoddy job of it IMHO.

    AS:

    Within the confines of religion, counter religions sacralize primal instincts of man. For example, Islam grants four wives to men along with infinite number of sex slaves. It incentivizes aggression against a perceived ‘enemy’. So naturally, anyone choosing Islam is not maladaptive as far as base instincts are considered evolutionarily. The women on the other hand have a steady supply of good number of alpha men. Men who are polygamous and ever ready for war. Where Counter-religions fail is at building civilization. The costs of polygamy and being in war always within or without makes them incapable of building civilization.

    Also as far as women participation in the industrialized work force is concerned I would blame that on not only ‘feminism’ but also viewing women as primarily economic beings. This erodes the inherent value they come with- which is giving birth. Consequently, the relation between working women of today and their low TFR makes eminent sense.

    About ‘Sex’ being the primary motivation for men to marry. I think this whole approach is wrong from a Hindu perspective. Creating dichotomies between sex, procreation, filial piety, etc. is wrong. I have seen numerous Hindu couples who have got married without consummating the marriage.

    YP:

    Good point AS. Islam is a war machine and is used to gain new territory, but once in peace it cannot build civilization unless it gives up its Islamic core.

    AS:

    Their aim is not to bring order which civilization brings and with that progress. That is why they are unmattas.

    DF:

    Procreation and sex being divorced is very much a post-contraceptive development.

    AS:

    Due to degeneracy or for that even the way marriage was conceptualized in the Judeo-Abrahamic traditions. Sex is often seen as the primary motivation of marriage. It is a very good incentive, no doubt. And biologically perhaps the single biggest motivation for men to marry. Women of course have their own motivations to marry. But we are I feel not analysing the role of Religion and culture in bringing about marriages. Religion as PT pointed out curbs the primal urges to bring about a modicum of order. And we cannot discount that. DF, contraception is just an excuse. The larger forces at play is progressivism. Islamic societies still do allow free sex.

    YP:

    Successful easily available contraception is not an excuse. But you can say putting condom machine at every corner is definitely a choice by state.

    DF:

    Of course, but contraception is a dysgenic technology which has altered our understanding of sex/reproduction/marriage.

    AS:

    Granted. But who or what incentivizes the use of contraceptives? What I am trying to say is contraception is just a tool.

    DF:

    Liberal democratic state 🙂

    AS:

    Yes.

    DF:

    I’m making an entirely different point though.

    AS:

    Yes DF I got your point.

    PT:

    My point in saying sex is the primary motivation of men to marry is the base instinct. Why else marry, if you can simply sleep with whoever you want? And we can see that once women started sleeping around in the West and there was easy access to sex through these women plus porn, men have stopped marrying. It has nothing to do with the Hindu perspective, rather I’m hypothesizing about the fundamental reason marriage existed at all in all societies everywhere.

    YP:

    Historically speaking marriage was a way to get alliance and resources as well. But yes, in the end resource acquisition too boils down to value in sexual market. Cannot close eyes to its primacy.

    PT:

    Well let’s say there’s no marriage at all, then no one inherits any property right? Along with the institution of marriage Svetaketu also instituted property rights. So inheritance/alliance/resources pre-Svetaketu didn’t exist?

    YP:

    They must have existed in some form.

    PT:

    Well not property rights but inheritance laws. See here’s what I’m trying to figure out. Why marriage? What does a man gain out of marriage, similarly what does a woman?

    AS:

    PT- why would men marry if they get free sex like in the West? It used to be the case pre-Svetaketu. Of course, no one here is saying that sex is not one of the motivations of marriage. But there are other elements to marriage which the elders and wise understood and hence imposed upon the philandering men and women. Religion/Culture played a crucial motivational role.

    YP:

    I did not say sex does not play a role. It is primary market. Even other resources help in the same market. So thinking that it does not matter is foolhardy for Hindus.

    SV:

    The primary beneficiary of marriage (or similar agreement as in animal) is female in keeping the male bound as female is the known parent and the one that knows the male parent of offspring. Male’s motivation is two-fold: its fiefdom without which its existence is meaningless, and its possession of female (which again is twofold, mating and ownership).

    AS:

    Yes, what I am saying is along what YP is saying I guess.

    PT:

    Fiefdom in what SV? Isn’t ownership of the female the same as mating rights? Else ownership in what sense? I know the motivation for women. It is to have a protector, resources. Men I still don’t fully grasp.

    YP:

    Beta men gain by marriage! Weaker men have fitness incentive to not sow the oats everywhere but use one partner and see that his genes get passed on.

    AS:

    SV- in keeping the male bound, does the Female also possess the man?

    SV:

    Not just mating – the region it owns and rules, the food that the female gets, the protection of offspring, holding the sense of unit (pride or clan or family) etc.

    PT:

    Yes, YP I know that. One way I look at marriage is that it exists only to restrain alphas and enable betas to lead fulfilling lives.

    SV:

    Female possesses the male too, but I guess it is not of the same nature. Say for instance Sita tells Hanuman she does not know whether Rama’s affection for her is more or his ego of owning her.

    PT:

    AS if you look at the data on how marriage causally reduces crime it’s because the woman controls the finances as well as persuades the man not to indulge in risk taking behaviour.

    SV:

    After all things of nature apply to both genders but to varying degrees.

    PT:

    The civilizing aspect of marriage is because women control men within marriage and because men have duty to women. Simply being married in itself restricts a man’s liberty.

    AS:

    PT, yes aware of that. SV, interesting.

    SV:

    Call it restriction of liberty or finding a means of fulfilment through family 🙂

    PT:

    All limiting of that kind of liberty is good according to me so I use it interchangeably.

    AS:

    In a marriage, therefore, the man gives away his liberty, in exchange of ‘fiefdom’. I get it now.

    PT:

    Men probably gain much more than women in marriage else women wouldn’t initiate divorces.

    AS:

    So we both understand the teleos of marriage and how it is beneficial from a man as well as women’s perspective.

    YP:

    Not true PT. Women now marry the social security. Women would have cheated even in the past or would have had dalliances but they would not get divorce, just because state would not fund them.

    SV:

    I guess women initiate divorces because they stop thinking like women (except in extreme cases of course).

    YP:

    The institution of marriage has changed over time, giving more power to women both in and outside the marriage. If you give progeny to the male, divorce would again fall. But in the west 80-90% times they get child custody.

    AS:

    Yes, laws are destroying civilization.

    Good point YP.

    YP:

    Divorce is a function of incentives. So you can say modern marriage don’t offer much to the women (in the west). Not so much true in Asia yet.

    AS:

    Interesting to note how the institution of marriage has changed based on progressive legislations.

    SV:

    Modern marriage is no marriage at all. It is a joke – sleep around for years and get married just like that and then separate when you want.

    AS:

    I am with the classical liberals here when they say that the state should have no role in passing out marriage certificates. If you stop that much of the stresses on modern marriage would go.

    PT:

    Right that makes sense, YP.

    AS:

    Let the ownership of marriage return to the society.

    Discussants- AS- @Abhra Sarkar, D- @Damanaka, PT- @PaganTrad, SV- @SkandaVeera, YP- @YugaParivartan

    Image Source:

    https://partycruiserevents.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/homa_agni.jpg

  • How Feminism ruins the happiness of women

    How Feminism ruins the happiness of women

    Feminists have made western women miserable

    Countless studies and surveys in the West have shown that western women are on average getting miserable every decade for the past several decades while men’s happiness have been constant. Many in west find this to be contrary to what they expected because the ultra progressive feminism of the west was thought to be harbringer of liberation and hence happiness for the women of the west. However, many mainstream academia and media there, because they are clouded by their own “feminism is good” bias, miss the most important reason for the declining happiness of women in the west which is Feminism.
    Decreasing women happiness: Stevenson and Wolfers, 2009

    For a long time, the western media and feminists have been pushing a narrative that women would be happy with their work life and that they would get as much satisfaction from being a corporate money slave as they would from having a loving husband and loving children and loving families. They have been pushing the narrative that women can have career as much as they can have a family without any problem even though this is against reality. Given this reality, feminists have now hardened their stance against nature even more by further downplaying the role of motherhood and are increasingly calling it slavery and asking women to opt out of child bearing all together. They come to this conclusion because of viewing the world with feminist lens that men and women are absolutely the same. However, men and women are not absolutely the same. Men don’t have to take a break of 1 year from their careers to have children like women and hence have a natural edge in the careers. Men also have a higher strength in their overall body and only the top 0.1% of women can match the body strength of an average Man. This is the biological reality and cannot be wished away. While traditionally, the families helped women against this natural bias through institution of marriage, now the feminists have forced western governments and increasingly the industry to bear this private cost of having children, thus replacing regular husband with the new husband called big government.

    However, this is not a bad thing. Questioning why it is unfair that men can have a career AND family while women can’t have both is ignoring the reality that women have to undergo 9 months of pregnancy and another 6-9 months of child rearing when the child must be with his mother compulsory. This takes away almost 1 year away from career of the women for each child they have. But that’s not a bad thing as propounded by feminists. When they have husbands taking care of them and earning for them when they are vulnerable during bearing and rearing a child, why should it matter where the money and resources for taking care of the child comes from? This is a problem only if one views woman as a single unit instead of viewing women as a part of a whole unit called family. So long as men and women are part of family, such differences in careers and working capabilities hardly figure into anything meaningful as both men and women would complement each other and form synergies to raise their families together for a better future. Even through government intervention, this problem will not disappear as women still have to take almost or more than an year off per child, thus making it difficult to balance career and family together. Unless women become like men and completely give up their natural instincts for motherhood, this constraint will remain binding. Now the only question which remains to be answered is whether women will like to have loving caring husbands next to their side during this important period of their life or a faceless government.

    However, since many women in the west were brainwashed into pursuing a career over finding a suitable family before their prime age of 22-25, they end up wasting their prime time looking for careers and becoming corporate slaves like most men. However, since men value youth and beauty in women over money, for the most part at least, they end up not going after “career” women. So when the career women come looking for a man to settle down after their youth has faded away, they usually end up being disappointed that there is no one left, at least not the kind of guys they dreamt would be theirs. Eventually they settle for a guy that they usually end up loathing because they had passed up so many better potential mates during their prime age but were forced by career to not settle down. This undoubtedly leaves a large number of women unsatisfied with their marriages as they end up taking divorce and finally becoming lonely cat ladies in their old age.

    Also, feminism has also reduced any taboo regarding divorces and free sex in the west in the name of sexual revolution. This has further reduced the incentive for men there to marry them in the first place. Why would men marry women when they can get free sex with far less emotional and economic baggage that is associated with marriage? This has led to Pick Up Artist culture in the west among men. Either way, both contribute to low marriages and high divorces in the western society and the women and men having to live separately and divorced for the major part of their life. Is it any wonder that western marriages fail more than 50% of the time even though most marriages happen after several dates and partners and live in relationships, implying that the marriage must have finally happened after the couple had decided that they have a lot of compatibility? This also busts the myth of better screening mechanism associated with love marriages. The truth is, marriage needs commitment more than compatibility to work and feminism and its assault on western families have turned marriage from being about commitment to being about compatibility. Now the western society is paying the price for it with 50% divorces and 50% single moms and 20 times higher per capita rapes than India.

    How feminism destroyed the happiness of Chinese women

    While feminism has completely ruined western society and it’s family structures, it is now in the process of ruining eastern cultures and society too. Chinese and Japanese society, which are all family values based societies much like Indian society are also starting to feel the pinch caused by feminism. And as with western feminism, feminism in China is ruining the happiness of the women there as well. For a long time, feminist elites in Chinese media propagandised about the greatness of women entering workforce and sacrificing their early lives for career. They fed the lie that women will be as satisfied with their lives as corporate paper pushers as they would be with their family life and children and that women can have a family after they had established a career for themselves. However, reality is far different from propaganda and China is not special either. The women who believed the media lies that men would like their money more than their youth and pursued a career instead of pursuing a family at their prime age are now finding it increasingly difficult to get married even though they are very rich now. It is important to note here that China has a very bad sex ratio and these women should have had no problem in getting married just because the demand for marriageable women would be very high due to very poor sex ratio. Still, these women have a hard time finding a “suitable” life partner and are called “leftover women” in Chinese parlance. Of course, the western feminists are now trying to blame the Chinese society and government for shaming these women, but fact of the matter is that these women are themselves sad due to lack of interest they receive from men.

    Though this is a generalisation, it will hold true for most men and women- men are visual creatures and are attracted to youth and beauty of a woman and women are needy creatures who are attracted to wealth and security of a man. There is nothing wrong in either behaviour as they are deep rooted in biology and evolution. Men love women because they can have babies and hence are attracted to young women who can have healthy babies compared to old women. Women on the other hand are very vulnerable socially and financially when they have children and look to men who can provide them security- physical, financial and social and hence marry more for their power and wealth than their physical attraction, even though physical attributes do have a role in attraction.

    This is why, even though the Chinese women are now millionaires they find it very difficult to find men of equal status to marry today. Women want men of same status as themselves to be their husbands and hence will try to look for millionaire men. The only problem however is that millionaire men are already rich and are more attracted to youth and beauty and would rather marry younger, less rich women as they themselves have all the money they want and have little use for more money compared to a good wife who can take care of their families better. Of course the western articles on this issue has dismissed the issue as being patriarchal mindset but that doesn’t change the truth or the ground reality or the biological realities of the sexes. Whining and crying about patriarchy is not going to make women go after poor beggars for marriage nor is it going to make rich men go after old “career” women just because the feminists say so. All that feminists have done is given women bad advice and have ruined their chances of success in their love life and hence an overall happier lifestyle. Having blindly chosen career by completely side-lining the importance of family, is it any wonder that women’s happiness has been on the decline ever since the advent of feminism?