All right, in light of my recent posts on Vox’s gun shirts, I think it might be appropriate for me to go through this post by Vox after Dalrock’s take on it. I’m late, I know. Put it in my imaginary suggestion box if it bothers you.
A note – I am NOT here to try and refute or disagree with either Vox or Dalrock. Just figure out what Vox is trying to say.
Disclaimer: Not a married man, not currently engaged, and thus cannot comment on this in any manner outside of direct interpretation of words. Given this I’m going to try and keep what I think separate from Dalrock.
After someone expresses sympathy for MGTOW (for the non-savvy, this is “men go their own way” and refers to men who decide to opt out of the marriage market because it is such a brutal deal for men from the legal perspective), Vox replies with this:
MGTOW are low morale cowards. From the societal and civilizational perspective they are useless parasites who, by their fecklessness, are helping the barbarians win the civilization war. Sure, they’re vastly to be preferred to the feminists, foreigners, globalists, and anti-Christians who are actively waging war against Western civilization, but they are passively refusing to defend it in any way.
How are they any better than the very Western women they excoriate? They are, in fact, observably worse, as both are in it merely for themselves but at least the women may produce the next generation of Western children, even if they will surely raise them in a sub-optimal manner. Neither the feral woman nor the fearful MGTOW is capable of maintaining the civilization whose toys they enjoy.
“How are they better than the very western women they excoriate?” strikes me as a very strange question. The whole point of MGTOW is that these men believe women are so dangerous as a group that they will destroy them emotionally and financially if they opt into the marriage market. Is Vox saying it would be better to marry these women? I doubt he means that. So what exactly does he mean?
My best guess is that he means they should try to find women they don’t think are bad and take the plunge to marry them despite the risks, but if that’s what he means his “How are they better than the very western women they excoriate?” is still an odd question, because it doesn’t really address anything at all.
This is where things get – and I don’t know how else to say this – weird.
If we aren’t sympathetic to soldiers who run the moment they see the first casualties in their unit, we should not be sympathetic to men who run from women because they saw someone taken down by a toxic woman. The truth is that men often suffer the legal order they deserve, because they tolerate it. Would any Roman patrician have meekly submitted to being made an indentured servant at the whim of his wife and the word of a judge?
No. He would have killed the judge, the wife, and everyone who assisted either of them, then calmly gone home and opened his veins in the bath. That’s why Roman law permitted patriarchs to kill those under their authority who crossed them in any way – because they were going to do it anyway and the maintenance of legal order in their society relied upon acknowledging that reality.
Seriously, what? I have absolutely no clue what he is trying to say here. None. I’ve read this multiple times and still don’t get it.
So…because a Roman would have murdered several people and turned his own children into orphans…modern men should…
Is he saying that collectively, over generations, men have let women take the legal control of marriage to a point that men should be ashamed?
Well…what men? Who, exactly did this that he is referring to? I mean, it obviously happened, but what is the sin of each, individual man divorced by his wife for cash money that warrants this level of shame and degradation?
And is he saying that the solution to this is…revolution? We should rise up and collectively fight a war to take back our marriages? Is Vox willing to fight this war? If Spacebunny drops Vox and runs off with the kids, is Vox willing to start rallying men to the cause and overthrow the government?
Or does he want each individual man to take up the cause personally? So he truly believes that if Spacebunny divorces him the answer here is to orphan his children after they live with the reality that daddy killed mommy, went on a killing spree, and then offed himself in the bathtub? Hopefully he sends the kids out first so they don’t stumble onto the bodies.
If he doesn’t mean this, and I doubt he does, what does he mean? What exactly is he saying here?
I have no idea.
But the modern man values his toys more than his honor. That’s why no one, including the legal system, respects his possession of either. Men could end the entire divorce machine in 30 days if they chose, but instead, they prefer to live alone as indentured servants or in fear of becoming an indentured servant.
Men could end the divorce machine in 30 days…how? Seriously, how? How is this supposed to work?
I am not saying “wife up those sluts”, I am merely saying that living one’s life in fear of potentially wifing up a woman who may turn out to be less than entirely faithful and interested in playing the divorce lottery is not worthy of respect or emulation.
These two sections appear at first glance to be completely contradictory.
On the one hand, getting married literally puts you at risk of becoming an indentured servant, something he has contempt for.
But on the other hand, we should get married anyway or we’re Not Real Men.
The only way to resolve this potential contradiction, according to Vox, if I’m reading this right, is if you marry someone while also being willing to go on a vigilante spree and orphan your children after committing suicide.
If you are not willing to do that, you are Not A Real Man and Deserve What You Get.
A man of the West takes risks. A man of the Wests molds his wife and his children. A man of the West is willing to fight for his honor, his family, and his civilization. Success is not guaranteed. But then, when, in the entire history of Man, has it ever been guaranteed? For millennia, young men of honor have fought and died for what they believe. But for what, if anything, would an MGTOW risk breaking a fingernail?
And now the divorce mill and lack of commitment to revolution or murder-suicide is the equivalent to a fear of breaking a fingernail.
Please, tell me how else I can possibly read this post. I don’t see another way.
Ultimately Dalrock appears to be right, unfortunately. As he says:
The reality is that our current anti married father policies are merely the formal legal expression of our societal disrespect of married fathers. The men of National Review, and now sadly Vox, are searching for a way to motivate men to marry without offering married fathers respect. Though the details of their arguments differ, the form is the same; married fathers deserve the contempt the system has for them. If you disagree, your are either lazy or a coward.
I truly hope I’m misunderstanding him here. I just don’t see how.