The Traditionalist Case for Marriage

I’ve heard it said many times in the Manosphere that marriage is a bad deal for men; the woman will divorce you for “cash and prizes” as soon as she becomes “unhaaaapy”, that the family court system is anti-male, etc. etc. etc. It is claimed that marriage today is based on the woman having 100% of the authority and the man having 100% of the responsibility because the woman can call upon the state to kick the man out of the house and take away his money whenever she wants, as soon as the man no longer pleases her.

Often it is claimed that traditional marriage was OK because under traditional marriage the man had authority as well as responsibility but now feminists have made marriage completely one sided by taking away the man’s authority while continuing to expect from the man the same responsibility as before.

There is something strange about this mindset as if the man has the right to everything in the marriage and the woman has the right to nothing and there being no assumption of the man having a duty towards the woman in the first place.

Marriage is a one-sided relationship between the man and the woman and it always has been; marriage being more one-sided in the past than it is today. The husband takes care of, financially supports, the wife and the wife obeys the husband. The husband takes care of the wife, not the other way around. Marriage is not about equality at all; it is about the husband taking care of the needs emotional and moral and material of his wife who is subordinate to him and dependent upon him.

In marriage the husband has 100% of the authority and 100% of the responsibility; or maybe 90% of the authority and 90% of the responsibility more realistically speaking; but 100% of the authority and 100% of the responsibility theoretically.

But now with modern feminism now husband and wife are equal? Equal authority and equal responsibility; a mutual partnership between equals?

The starting default position of marriage is that the man has full authority and full responsibility both; this means it is abusive to the man to deny him the authority he is entitled to but that it is also abusive to the woman to deny her the support she is entitled to. It is abusive for a woman to defy her husband but it is also abusive for the husband to make his wife work, it is abusive for the husband to refuse his duty of full financial support of his wife.

Marriage is expensive; a woman is expensive, very expensive. To not think of marriage as a financial loss for the husband is crazy; the whole point of marriage being the financial support of the wife so that the wife can dedicate herself to feminine things rather than the masculine pursuit of making money. The whole point of marriage is to remove the woman from masculine responsibilities she is ill equipped to perform and redirect her efforts towards the feminine forms of contribution she is better at; this requiring the woman’s full financial support which of course is very expensive and a big financial loss for the man. That being the whole point of what marriage is.

The logic of the divorce settlement, who gets what money, in the event of a divorce is what is “fair” to both parties. Maybe you are suspicious that in reality family court is anti-male but at least the theory is to be fair to both parties. If you are in a happy functioning marriage then the income of the marriage is meant to benefit both parties and the assets that the marriage accumulates over time is meant to benefit both parties. Perhaps, hopefully, the wife will drop out of the workforce while she is married, this harming the woman’s ability to make income in the event she has to reenter the workforce later. Also children are likely to be born during the marriage, those children needing to be taken care of and supported until they grow up whether their parents remain married to each other or not.

So then a divorce happens. At the time the couple was married the assets of the marriage were assumed to be there for the benefit of both husband and wife, right? Both husband and wife having a sense of ownership of the marital assets? Now that divorce comes shouldn’t the wife get half and the husband get half since while married those assets belonged to both of them? If there were children from the marriage and those children will end up living with their mother and be the responsibility of their mother then shouldn’t the father also have a continuing duty to support the children after the divorce just like he had a duty to support the children while the marriage was still intact? The need of the children to be supported doesn’t go away just because their parents got divorced. If the wife was out of the workforce for an extended period of time during the marriage (as it should be) and now she has to reenter the workforce with a big hole in her work history due to the expectation that the husband placed upon her that she would quit her job after marrying him then doesn’t it make sense for the woman to be partially supported for a couple of years while she rehabilitates herself to enable herself to begin supporting herself again?

This is the philosophy of the current family court system; to be fair to both parties after the divorce. I am not saying that I agree with all of this or that I think this is the ideal way for divorce to be handled but this is not an “anti-male” way of approaching divorce and it is not a crazy way to look at divorce; there indeed being value in the effort to be fair to both parties.

What you have to keep in mind here is that women are intrinsically dependent upon men and that men have an automatic duty to support women because of women’s natural and normal and good dependence upon men. Women are intrinsically dependent upon men and intrinsically subordinate to men both.

Women have to be safe entering into marriage with a man and they have to be safe having children with a man and they have to be safe allowing themselves to depend upon a man for support; they have to be safe entering into all the different kinds of relationship behaviors with men that they should enter into with men. It is not just the man who takes a risk getting married; the woman takes a risk getting married to.

The woman takes a risk getting married because the woman enters into heavy dependency upon a man as she takes on heavy responsibilities she will need the man to support her in. Will the man continue to support her and continue to treat her well going forward? The woman is not so sure. At least if she marries the man and things go bad the family court will protect her interests to some extent and make sure she is not too bad off in the aftermath.

What risk does the man take marrying? Yes the man will lose lots of money in the divorce and the family relationships and the family roles he was hoping for will be lost or severely damaged but the man always knew that marriage would be a big financial loss for himself if he was a traditional man whose intent was to support his wife financially during the marriage. The point of marriage for the man is to serve a moral purpose; not to keep his money to himself.

Failing to get married is damaging, very damaging. It is not like the option of lifetime singleness is neutral or costless; lifetime singleness means never taking on the family roles of husband and father; vital and basic parts of a normal comfortable fulfilling life. Yes if you never get married you will be richer and have more free time if you want it; of that there is no doubt. But of course the purpose of marriage for a man is the family roles that go along with marriage; it is the contribution of marriage that is the benefit of marriage for a man. With lifetime singleness you are denied these relationship benefits automatically by definition.

If you get married you have a 50% chance of major family failure in the future due to divorce (if you are average, many marriages having a more conservative foundation and therefore a lower likelihood of divorce). If however you never get married then you have a 100% chance of major family failure as you never even put a family together around yourself in the first place.

You need to remember; women are naturally dependent upon men and naturally subordinate to men both. You can create a traditional marriage with a woman today even within this wider feminist culture by simply declaring to the woman that you are looking for a traditional woman who will submit to you and that if she is not willing to submit to you then she needs to find herself another man. Make sure you establish your dominance over the woman before marriage during the dating stage; the woman should be submitting to you from the very beginning of your romantic relationship with her. As a traditional man you are providing a big benefit to her; you are taking care of her including the promise of full financial support if you later marry her. This benefit that you provide to her is the basis of your authority and dominance over her; if she does not submit to you then you threaten to withdraw the rewards you provide to her as punishment against her for her disobedience to you. In this way you can establish a traditional relationship with a woman even within today’s current feminist social climate.

Maybe this woman is nice and good and happy with you and obedient to you now but later she will turn against you once she becomes “unhaaaapy” with you for some reason. Yes, she will be able to collect “cash and prizes” from you in a potential future divorce but you will not be fully financially supporting her anymore after she has divorced you. In other words the money you provide to her during the ordinary course of your marriage will be a lot more than what she would get by divorcing you so if she is a rational actor and you treat her well as a general rule then logically it will not make sense for her to divorce you.

Also, the marital value of a divorced older woman with maybe another man’s kids in tow is a lot lower than her marital value as a young single woman without kids; the marital value she has to you as her already established husband. It makes a lot more sense for a woman to stick with the husband of her youth who loves her and knows her as the woman he fell in love with when they were both young and who shares her children with her than to divorce the man and try to get a new man with her now much lower marital value in the romantic marketplace.

There are strong incentives for the woman to stay married to you if you are a traditional man who treats her well; the woman losing a lot from divorce to.

The default position of the man and the woman is not equality; it is men financially supporting women and women obeying men. You don’t marry as a man because it “makes sense” in a practical sense for you as the man. That is never what marriage was for men in the traditional past. You marry because you want to be a husband and you want to be a father; you marry for the emotional reward and the moral purpose of being a husband and a father. This emotional reward and this moral reward from marriage still holds true today even in this feminist corrupted world.

Related article:
Why Should a Man in this Day and Age Get Married?

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Patriarchy, Relationship Dynamics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The Traditionalist Case for Marriage

  1. Marriage needs a comeback for sure! The generation of broken homes must be ended if we’re to have any productive future!

  2. Sanne says:

    most of these men you are talking about are the male equivalent of a catlady. They are either too old and missed on marriage altogether, or suffered a bitter divorce and are now trying to persuade younger men never to marry, the same way bitter old feminists try to persuade women to forego marriage and children. Their ideas about the way marriage was in the past are very unrealistic and seem to be based on p*rn fantasies instead of reality. I doubt they’d be happier in a real patriarchy since the demands placed on men by such a society are very high.

    Men used to be expected to provide not only for their wives, but also for the single female relatives, including cousins, and not that long ago, either. That’s why women were expected to obey their menfolks, men’s authority IS based on men’s responsibility, but they totally miss it. Many seem to think that they could be a stay-at-home dad and still be entitled to wifely submission. There is no reasoning with the folks, they’ll just accuse you of being a white knight if you don’t hate women sufficiently. They are also expecting women to get out and start a revolution, to change society for the better which says enough about them, imo. What kind of man expects women to fight his battles for him?

    • Maya says:

      Totally on point Sanne. The manosphere has this picture of the model woman:

      Dresses like a lady, but also like a w***e when it suits him.

      Always ready and aroused at the click of a finger. Attends to his every need and performs all acts like she’s a super p***star. As for her own needs? If he’s enjoying himself then OBVIOUSLY she’s enjoying herself too.

      Knows how to cook and clean and submit to his every whim, but can change a light bulb, be a mechanic and fix the sink.

      Is so smart and can talk to him about everything under the sun whilst always agreeing with him, yet still remain intellectually inferior.

      So wafer-thin, deliciously feminine and delicate yet can lift heavy items when she needs to. She can also physically fight back and protect herself if any random man on the street tries to harass her.

      So fertile that she falls pregnant after every sex session and bears children. Takes care of the children and the home while looking 10/10 every. single. minute., yet can also somehow hold down a full-time paying job, because why should it all be on him, this money-making business? One man can’t do it all. She should pull her weight too.

      Oh, and when they both get home from work, she gives him a massage because he worked so hard sitting on his a** in an office all day, sometimes even walking to the water cooler and back.

      She never complains, because the marriage is perfect.

      If they were to EVER divorce (which would be shocking news) then she’d NEVER be greedy enough to ask for even a single cent. He can take all the money and keep it for himself because… fair’s fair?


      As can be seen, these men have very realistic requirements. It’s the women these days who have insane expectations.

  3. Sanne,

    This bashing of marriage that I am trying to respond to here is actually standard practice in the wider Manosphere; I am an oddball trying to promote marriage here in these parts. Of course I am also an oddball putting so much emphasis on the need for husbands to financially support their wives.

    This post was inspired by Rollo Tomassi’s recent post:

    Raiders of the Lost Covenant

    And in particular Rollo’s “debate” with Dr. Everett Piper of Oklahoma Wesleyan University linked to and mentioned in Rollo’s post.

    In regards to men not only being expected to financially provide for their wives but other female relatives as well; that is very true. In 1890 in the United States among white women 35 to 44 years old 2.3% of married women worked while 36.6% of single (never married) women worked; this indicating the majority of never married “old maid” women 35 to 44 years old were being financially supported presumably by male relatives not their husband. This general support of female relatives, not ones wife, seems to pretty much have disappeared by 1940 but in real traditional society deeper in the past the support of even unmarried women was very strong. It took until 1990 for the more basic idea that a wife should not work to pretty much disappear from the culture.

    So here I am trying to remind people that not so long ago when family life was much better functioning than today that MARRIED WOMEN DID NOT WORK!

    But yes Sanne, you are right, the more general belief was that women should not work in general, but definitely a married woman should not work because the married woman has a definite obvious guardian who is responsible for her in the person of her husband.

    There is this idea among the MGTOWs that with their “marriage strike” against women that women will “feel the pain” of men abandoning them and in response to this demand to make the marriage laws “more fair” (less “burdensome” upon men apparently) so that men will come back to them. Since women ultimately control everything in this society only women can make things better, therefore women must be “punished” by the “marriage strike” in order so that women themselves will be the ones to demand a return to patriarchy (or something like that).

    If men want patriarchy back then men can bring patriarchy back against women’s wills whether women like it or not; that being sort of the whole point of what patriarchy is, what patriarchy means. The thing is patriarchy is male guardianship of women; the protection of women and the support of women and control over women all combined; the purpose of the control over women being to enable men to support women and protect women and take care of women in general.

    • Anette Andersen says:

      Hi Jesse,
      You say in your last paragraph “If men want patriarchy back then men can bring patriarchy back against women’s will whether women like it or not….”
      Please do!!! And sooner rather than later. Your paragraph is excellent and you manage to say so much in just a few sentences. Men bringing patriarchy back would be the best thing that could happen to our messed up world.

  4. Nicole Jenny says:

    This was a very enjoyable read.
    I come to this page when I am disgusted with society.
    I am completely grossed out by these severely obese whales being encouraged by companies to hang out in a bikini and be confident (I am in no way someone that would fat shame, but this is just a TERRIBLE message!!). Christ, I don’t really feel like letting it all hang out in a bikini, and I’m 5’7, 130 lbs! Oh, but let us not forget! Modesty is so uncool in these “modern” days.
    Recent ads that keep popping up on my YouTube lately are grossing me out as well.
    Yeah, tuck your skin rolls in with this new shapely piece that goes under your dress…like it matters….when you get naked in front of a male, it’ll all spill out anyway! Also, I don’t think anyone would want to see an extremely large man with half of his clothes off! Talk about double standards..

    I’m so tired of this ass backwards “logic.”. It is simply a cancer to civilization. Nowadays, we’re just supposed to sit back and watch stay-at-home moms be ridiculed by miserable, psycho feminists. YET, we are then required to acknowledge how cute it is when a man is staying at home with the kids (Good God no! Male bodies were not created to breastfeed!! Duh!!). I want to hide inside, as everyday I see people sinking deeper and deeper into the feminists lies.
    REVERSE this curse!😢
    *End of rant.

  5. Georgia Peach says:

    That post was fantastic!!!
    Agreed 100%

  6. Pingback: What Women are Entitled To | Secular Patriarchy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s