Male Authority – Provisioning vs. Duty

I’ve been watching Outlaw King on Netflix recently. There’s a part where the wife of Robert the Bruce says ‘Power is making decisions, and whatever course you are charting, I choose you, my husband’ It struck me that my own wife had said almost these same words to me in 2005. When I’d decided to take a job in Orlando that would uproot us from family and friends. There was no “,…but what about my friends, career, etc.?” from her and I had no hesitation to consider anything but taking the position. She said, “You are my husband, I go where you go.”

How many men hold a default Frame in their marriage? Many women are reluctant to even accept their husband’s last name today. There’s a lot of bullshit reasons for this, but the core truth is that women have no confidence in their man in the long term. They don’t trust his ‘course’. There’s holding Frame, and then there’s establishing a long term Frame, a paradigm, a reality of his own, that defines a man’s authority in his marriage and family relationships. Women today still want marriage, but few want to defer to their husband’s ‘course’. They don’t trust him with her life.

And why would they? For the past four or five generations men have been portrayed in popular culture as untrustworthy. Either they are Beta buffoons in need of women’s uniquely female ‘reasoning’ (which is really male reasoning with breasts) to save them from themselves, or they’re malicious Alpha malcontents (or perverts) also in need of female correction to bring them to female approved justice. It’s the retribution fantasy of feminism played out in popular media, but the societal result is generations of women who have no inherent respect of men and even less trust in any beneficial course they might plot out for them as future wives.

There’s also the male perspective to consider in this. Most men approach their marriage and long term relationships from what is ostensibly an egalitarian perspective. “Equality”, playing fair, being an “equal partner” a pretense of egalitarianism, is all a cover story for a power dynamic that is truly based on resource dynamics. In a ‘modern marriage’, male authority, even just the idea of it, is ceded by default to the woman. I’ll explain why in a moment.

Today’s marriage stats and the socioeconomic variables within marriage point to a very cold truth; if you make less money than your wife, statistically, your marriage is far more likely to dissolve. In couples where a woman outearns her husband divorce rates increase. Virtually every article written about this power dynamic attempts to paint the men involved as ‘feeling threatened‘ by their wives’ success, but the visceral truth can be distilled through the process of women’s Hypergamy. As you might guess, our feminine-centric social order can never allow for an unflattering picture of women, thus men must look like ridiculous, insecure, man-babies – this is another piece of the puzzle – but the stats don’t lie, only the reasoning for them misleads us culturally.

In an “egalitarian” marriage it is actually financial considerations that imbalance that idealistic fantasy of a “coequal partnership”. Men and masculinity are made to look ridiculous, insecure, potentially violent and incompetent on a social scale. This effort to delegitimize anything male has been going on since the late 1960s. The social impact of this has resulted in several generations whose default impression of men in general is one of distrust. Either distrust based in men’s potential for abusiveness, or largely more a distrust based in a default presumption of incompetence. Women cannot trust a man with her life because a majority of men are ridiculous buffoons, no better than big children and now we add that almost 40% of them are outearned by their wives.

Is it any wonder women have no default respect for a man’s course for their lives? In fact, given these modern circumstances, fantasies of an egalitarian marriage being the ideal notion are really the only way to justify marriage at all for women. Thus, we’ve crafted a new ideal of marriage that furnishes women with legal and social failsafes to make what looks like a really horrible, life-long attachment to a buffoon or an abuser just palatable enough to have women believe things might work out for them. Don’t worry ladies, the egalitarian ideal, that any potential husband worth your consideration will subscribe to wholesale, provides you not only with options that will absolve you of all responsibility for his (and your own) failures, but you’ll never have to really do anything he says. The law is on your side, and the very premise of an egalitarian marriage frees you from ever having to go along with one of his half-baked life plans for the both of you. In fact, as long as you make more money than him, you’ll almost surely be doing the ‘course’ setting for the both of you.

Needless to say this is not conducive to women entertaining a default deference to men’s authority. If women’s baseline impression of men is one of incompetence, ridiculousness and distrust, and then you combine it with the fact that over a third of them wont be earning the same financially we begin to see the reasons for the decline in marriage today. If the default perception of men is one of expected incompetence, why would a woman ever want to get married?

This is kind of a quandary. In marriage, a man’s authority today only extends to this monetary wealth – there is no inherent authority associated with being male despite what feminist bleat about ‘male privilege’. Wealth enforces will, but women still seek to find ways around accepting that authority by assuming control of that wealth. This is one reason why “financial abuse” has been fashioned into a form of spousal abuse, but there are many other means of emotional control that mitigates male authority-by-wealth.

Even when a man is the primary breadwinner his means to authority in his marriage is still mitigated. A man’s provisioning for his wife and family has always been considered a ‘manly duty’. Even the most masculinity-confused, Vichy Males are still conditioned to assume providership as a masculine trait that is ‘non-toxic’ and approved by their teachers. In most Trad-Con thought a man isn’t even to be considered a “man” unless he can prove his competence in generating more resources than he needs for himself. The direction of every aspiration he has must be applied to providing for a future wife, their children, likely their (her) extended family and then extended to society. By the old set of books a man can’t even be given the title of “man” (or “a real man”) unless he can prove he’s prepared himself to be a good husband, father and community leader.

While there’s nothing inherently wrong with a strong desire to fulfill this provisioning agenda, the men who do accept this as their “manly duty” are conditioned to only see their sacrifices as their expected responsibility. They are actively discouraged from ever assuming any authority might be forthcoming in exchange for their sacrifices. Not even a man’s wealth is a guarantee of authority; certainly not if he’s been conditioned to believe that an egalitarian marriage is an ideal, much less a possibility.

And now we come full circle – the promulgation of an egalitarian ideal in marriage, in gender equity, in the retribution and restitution that feminism is based on, all of this and more has the latent purpose of stripping men of any concept of authority, while enforcing the ideal of male responsibility. In The Second Set of Books I made the case that most (Beta) men today live by, or would like to live by, an old social contract that on the surface seems noble. They believe in an anachronism that promises them that honor, duty, chivalry and a default respect of women will, sooner or later, be appreciated by a woman with the “quality” enough to appreciate it and show that appreciation by accepting him for her intimate attentions. Only later do they come to realize that their dedication to that anachronism is misplaced and the exchange of duty for authority is not only erased, but he’s perceived as a “toxic” monster or a ridiculous “macho” fool for ever expecting that exchange. The world is actually playing by a second set of books that expects all of his ‘honor-bound’ beliefs are his responsibility, but nothing he sacrifices grants him any authority.

Last week I hosted a Special Edition of the Red Man Group in which we discussed whether a married man today is by default Blue Pill or Beta.

RMG_Patriarchs_Title_defaultIt’s almost impossible to broach this topic without accusations of bias or personal circumstance coloring a man’s perspective of marriage – and that’s from either side of the topic. I wasn’t endorsing marriage in this; if anything I made a case against marriage based on the same questioning of men’s authority I’ve explored in this essay. By today’s standards, marriage is far too dicey a prospect for me to ever advocate for. But how far are we willing to take this abandoning of dominance hierarchies in intersexual relationships? I recently got into a debate as to whether monogamous relationships – outside formal marriage – were even beneficial for men today. In that discussion we dissected the history of monogamy and in human relations it’s at least somewhat accepted that monogamy and two-parent investment in offspring was a dynamic that’s been beneficial to our own and some other species. I think that in the past, when social circumstance was different, the concept of monogamy and the institution of marriage were instrumental in our advancement and largely beneficial. All that’s changed now and much of the second set of books I referred to in this essay is predicated on an egalitarianism that has erased male authority and placed it on the shoulders of women who are ill-equipped (and honestly not wanting) to use that authority.

This last sentence here is going to seem like heresy to those invested in blank-slate, egalitarian equalism and fempowerment, but the truth is evident and unignorable that an evolved patriarchal authority has progressed us to an age where we’ve become prosperous enough to entertain thoughts of abandoning it. Stripping men of authority while still expecting a default, and total, responsibility is a really good summation of the two sets of books – the conflict between the old and the new social contract. And yes, I’m aware of the all the arguments that this state of disempowering men is by some political design. Destabilizing the family starts with delegitimizing male authority and confusing generations of men about the aspects of masculinity. Doubt and self-loathing are key in men policing other men for presumptions of authority. It’s crabs in the bucket – when one man presumes authority there need to be ten more to pull him back down into confusion and doubt.

So where do we go with this from here? Even the most ‘Con’ of Trad-Con women will still default to their fempowerment conditioning when presented with a default male authority they are supposed to follow. Can a man be a leader in his own home anymore? MGTOWs will tell you no, and they’d be right. You can’t out-Alpha the state. But the state is still comprised of men and women with their own preconceptions and belief-sets. Our evolved firmware still predisposes us to conventional gender roles, and that predisposition is also one of women expecting  male competence, decisiveness and dominance. Women still want a man to follow in spite of their conditioning to distrust men’s competence. Maybe a new form of monogamy is in order. Egalitarianism is a dead end, it only defaults to 100% female authority and 100% male responsibility. But perhaps at some point, when things get so bad that women are forced to take a chance on the men they think are potential buffoons and abusers, a new kind of “marriage” can come out of the morass that egalitarianism has made of marriage.

How do we get back to a state of male authority based on a woman’s trust of her husband? I would like to believe I have this with my wife today, but I know that this is tenuous from the perspective of true, actionable authority. I once came down hard on a pastor who was advising the women of his congregation to “allow” their husbands to lead them. He was basically asking the women to stand down and trust God that their husbands we’re actually worthy of their trust. He didn’t know it, but his entire premise stemmed from women already acknowledging that they had ultimate authority over their husband as a given. Most pastors are pussy-whipped, so this default authority is usually presumed as a sexual threat-point women will exercise over their husbands. What he didn’t understand was that women’s authority is his default for a much deeper, more socially expansive reason. So even to ask women to allow their husbands to exercise ‘headship’ is ludicrous – it’s something even those women have no power to do because the presumption of authority is always in their favor. They can’t allow their men authority over them because the social paradigm they live in wont allow them to allow it.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

Leave a Reply

  Subscribe  
Notify of
Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

Well, I’m no slouch in the looks department myself, but I sweat no man. If wifey sees a handsome guy, usually younger, and she’s in my presence, she might or might not make a comment. After knowing her for as long as I have, I can read her ( and most chicks ) fairly well. Women look at attractive men, like men look at attractive women. This.doesn’t make me FEEL any kind of way. Why would it? I also don’t get in my feelings when dudes pushup on her when we’re out. Especially younger dudes. That’s cool as hell. She’ll… Read more »

EhIntellect
Guest

“Let’s say you are the man on the right and David Gandy is the good looking man that amogs you.”

Good question.

Give me an example how it would play out, i.e. how would he AMOG in your opinion? How would you AMOG a OMG with wifey in tow?

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

… If I read here I might understand.😂😂

No. I.understood forever.

Sentient
Guest
Sentient
Offline

Orson

Did you notice anything odd on her behaviour?

Rejected…

No make out… despite her saying at 0:58 – unprompted – “you’re so handsome I don’t know what to say”…

“The issue with these is,,, it’s just too high. It’s always like some sort of drug high and she goes away and she’s like fuck I don’t know much about the guy…”

Spoken like a guy who actually knows women and is not masturbating to Gandy… +1

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

Orson

One last thing before I go for a delicious lunch.

Not every married man fits into the Manosphere characture of some kind of beaten down doofus. For clarity and accurate understanding, let go of that stereotype. Then you can learn a thing or three.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

NYT article, the videos:

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader
Offline

Orson Only a blue piller would deny that looks are the most important factor when it comes to attraction and validational sex. Then Mystery is blue pill, and so is Style and so is every other PUA out there. You are wrong. It’s similar blue pill lies that women say such as “I care more about personality and confidence than looks”. Paying attention to what women say is blue pill by definition. Pay attention to what they do, not what they say. That’s Red Pill 100 level learning. When a woman says that she is strong and independent, but she… Read more »

fleezer
Guest
fleezer
Offline

“Then you can learn a thing or three.” i learn everyday like today, from that cam girl article from Rollo twitter: “Girlfriending is the act of providing emotional support to members off-cam.” lol “Some of my camgirl friends Girlfriended hard. They’d text their high tippers throughout the day, send them photos or occasionally free porny videos of themselves, and sometimes even have phone calls. They knew about their high-tippers lives, and the high tippers would send them gifts. All of these things were done for free, to create an ongoing relationship very slightly divorced from the direct tip-n-flash model of… Read more »

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader
Offline

kfg NYT article, the videos: Oh, the girls rant was a TED blab before it was an NYT thumbsucker? Whatta surprise! Because TED blabs are sooo full of Teh Science and stuph like that. At least I have a new term to play with: Neurosexism… Science is being a big meany to feminists and the FI nowadays. The blank slate turns out to have a lot of writing on it, physical brain structures turn out to be not interchangeable at all, so now girlies like Daphna are reduced to deliberately obfuscating and fuzzying up actual statistical distributions in order to… Read more »

j
Guest
j
Offline

@boulderhead Thanks for sharing your story. Couldn’t help but laugh out loud at the alfred e newman reference, however: Things are moving good and I meet the redhead out at a bar and bring her home but cant get past third base and decide to try later. Duane gets up in the morning and little red is all over him and I get the notion I’m a tool. next thing I’m looking for a place to stay and reds moving in,and game wins over looks” This isn’t an ugly guy cold approaching a random stunner in the street/club. You did… Read more »

EhIntellect
Guest

j loses his footing here vs. OMG and gets bitchy then goes push-pull then coquettish. Then heel-biting rapid deployment PUA shock troops arrive, cluelessly attempting comment section j defense. Flail.

This is the level of j et al. No chops and his queer little coterie reinforces j’s a fraud.

Oh, by all means, you retarded noobs, more cowbell.

EhIntellect
Guest

Thank you for your irrelevant daddy issue codswallop.

Back to how you would AMOG any of the OMG’s here, or OMG’s generally.

In your experience, how would the convo play out?

EhIntellect
Guest

“He was so mean that he left no scope for me to mean back.”

Awesome. Simply AWESOME!

First j with “Blax you had a daddy mentor, I didn’t and that makes me sad, socially goofy and pimply.”

Now anime-guy projecting his failures on his daddy, too.

Hm…

EhIntellect
Guest

“If it was just that, why are you even here? You didn’t have daddy issues right?” “right?” Uh….no assumptions made there and ironically proves my statement you’re projecting…a lot. I don’t mind talking inter-generational relationships but you’ve got some tone-deafness going on and no one, and I mean no one here will engage you unless you change in some way for the better, if only toning down the phony grr and simply state what’s going on in your head. That we can work with…but until then feel free to ruin your own life, second by second, minute by minute, day… Read more »

EhIntellect
Guest

Ok. That’s better but remember this: that monster is you not something else. Two questions:

How old are you? Are you feeling safe?

EhIntellect
Guest

Ok.

Hentai boy falls from the top of the Chrysler Bldg and, passing the 15th floor, complements himself how well he deals with gravity.

TheWanderer
Guest
TheWanderer
Offline

Great article! “So even to ask women to allow their husbands to exercise ‘headship’ is ludicrous – it’s something even those women have no power to do because the presumption of authority is always in their favor. They can’t allow their men authority over them because the social paradigm they live in wont allow them to allow it.” Just as predicted in 1871: From: https://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2016/5/22/womens-rights-women “This suggests a third consequence, which some of the advocates of the movement even already are bold enough to foreshadow. “Women’s Rights” mean the abolition of all permanent marriage ties. We are told that Mrs.… Read more »

EhIntellect
Guest

Btw: 19 y.o. is not a boy. You, qua you, are clinically retarded, and mark my words, son, that does not excuse you from your failures in the now no matter how much you cling to the pubescence.

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

“More Cowbell” That’s funny. How appropriate. Playing to Blue Oyster Cult’s “Don’t Fear the Reaper”, Will Ferrell in the SNL skit is playing more cowbell, flailing away as if he’s making a difference, while the music could well be a Red Pill OMG anthem. Not being afraid to die, not being afraid of what his wife might do, not being afraid to actually love a woman for her value added-ness (the gods of Red Pill forbid, Romeo and Juliette…). LOL. Blue Öyster Cult’s first hit, Don’t Fear The Reaper was written by lead guitarist Donald Roeser, also known as Buck… Read more »

mersonia
Guest
mersonia
Offline

The autism ……….It’s tough to sift through these comments ….. between eh animeboy sfj and asd( the confirmed level 4 autist) its hard out fhere for a pimp

theasdgamer
Guest

All these boys failing at AMOGing, lol.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

1972, history is made when Stealers Wheel releases Stuck in the Middle, defining precisely the correct amount of cowbell.

Centuries
Guest
Centuries
Offline

Any use of a cow bell outside of a cross race is tantamount to a musical tantrum.

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

There’s some video of J. doing more-cowbell at a cyclocross race:

https://youtu.be/rSDkoFspt44

Anonymous Reade
Guest
Anonymous Reade
Offline

@Sentient The difference between the two vids is obvious. Blond Brit is closer to the wall and carrying all her brittle-bitch persona everywhere with her, because that is working for her in the bizworld. Her hypergamy peeked out at various points; she’s fishing for a Beta provider at this point. Various clocks are ticking. While the Polish girl is obviously early 20’s and much more feminine, naturally her hypergamy is not so prominent (it’s there, just not IN YOUR FACE as the Brit) and since she’s still in student-world her mindset is “lots of time”. IMO anyway. On behalf of… Read more »

Fred Flange, GBFC (Great Books For Cucks)
Guest
Fred Flange, GBFC (Great Books For Cucks)
Offline

Speaking of too much cowbell and the new Science!! of neuroseximalism: Your Ivy League tuition dollars at work. A Princeton University a cappella group was pressured into deleting from their shows the Disney-film Little Mermaid song “Kiss The Girl.” Too hetero-normative and toxically masculinist, sayeth the stoont editorialist-type-persun expostulating in the Daily Princetonian. https://www.thecollegefix.com/a-cappella-group-stops-singing-offensive-and-violating-little-mermaid-song/ If you know the song at all, this SJW hatred of a Beta-Try-To-Be-Brave tune fits well with the evangel preached in our lead essay. In the movie the song is sung by Sebastian the crab (!) to a shy Beta boy trying to get up the… Read more »

Centuries
Guest
Centuries
Offline

So I started reading the NYT article and then KFG posted the videos, so I started those, then I decided to take a dump, purely coincidence, well anyway while taking said break I must have subconsciously been infected by said research, that I must get back to and investigate, just fascinating, then it hit me…. There must be a binary female condition. Could it be that some women are SENSIBLE and some women are a-SENSIBLE. SENSIBLE women realize they are in fact female not male and act accordingly including all things hypergamous and solphilistic as they desire aSENSIBLE women are… Read more »

KABA
Guest
KABA
Offline

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2018/12/03/Women-reluctant-to-take-preventive-breast-cancer-drug-study-says/1121543847230/ From the study: More than 13 percent of the women studied had some concern that prescription drugs were addictive, while about 6 percent thought all drugs are poison and over 3 percent said prescription drugs could do more harm than good. Also, almost 24 percent of the women thought that people who take medication should take a break at some point. … iow: many women are too ridiculous to take medications VS getting cancer. They can’t be trusted to take their pill. And one in 4 women will take a break from her pills, when she’s on spring break… Read more »

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

boulderhead
Guest

@Century

Now your wheels are spinning,could it be not an internal glitch but rather the surplus of external media,that determines her sensibilities or lack thereof. Tomb raider my ass.

Centuries
Guest
Centuries
Offline

boulderhead I get that the media, schooling, churches, pc culture, etc. all contribute to generating a largely blue pill generation of men, I was a friggin blue pill chump and going red pill (understanding the truth) was like have a switch turned on, but the level and commitment that these women seem to exist at seems triggered beyond simple societal programming and I understand that there is a significant culture of SJW’s out there. I know and work with plenty of stem women and regardless of whether they seem unhappy working in a stem field, or seem outwardly fine, they… Read more »

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader
Offline

Centuries
So what triggers the women like those from the NYT article to seemly absorb their lives with this agenda versus following a more feminine aligned path. Is it some bastardization of solphilism?

More likely the Problem That Has No Name…

Centuries
Guest
Centuries
Offline

AR

Betty Friedan (what a looker) would be so proud of all the women walking on the glass floor looking down and saying is this it?

I wonder if the pendulum of the west being stretched taut to the left will slowly realign or come loose like a chaotic wrecking ball….

Thanks for the info; I’ll put that book on my list!

boulderhead
Guest

“I get that the media, schooling, churches, pc culture, etc. all contribute to generating a largely blue pill generation of men”

Now you need to get that the reason for this is it was all aimed at women.

boulderhead
Guest

@Centuries

https://therationalmale.com/2016/04/24/fempowerment/

“In the manosphere we like to highlight the ‘pussification’ of modern men through various efforts on the part of a nebulous ‘socitey’ aligned against masculinity. However, the flip side to this is the fempowerment agenda; an feminine-primary social structure that disallows any criticism of inherently female nature while promoting the empowerment of women on every level of social strata.”

It is highly likely that it is just that time of the month or they wan’t or need something for the more feminine acting ones

EhIntellect
Guest

“generating a largely blue pill generation of men” BP is a means to human slavery. All must be methodically trained, and at some point people act as freewilling serfs and a few become masters. No child wills to be a serf, to force the will to bend against itself requires overlapping layers of tremendous economic, sexual, social, cultural carrots and sticks. It’s not enough to generate “a” BP generation. Such a canard requires continual cradle-to-grave sustematic reinforcement of everyone, all the time, forevermore, and that’s why there’s so much dysfx. People want love, not crappy stuff. All Uncle Sam offers… Read more »

boulderhead
Guest

@Eh

TPTB legislate and the common man figures a way around the legislation,so TPTB add more rules and new ways to circumvent are added. This goes on and on until the final dependency is mandated then the only way around is return to nomad barbarian.

The final outcome is the starting place of the race.

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

The only means to ‘ out alpha ‘ the state is by understanding how it operates across it’s myriads of platforms. Once you do this, you won’t have to fight the state, nor will you have to accept it in your heart. It will become only a thing to be dealt with. The more self sufficient you are, the less you are affected by the ‘ state ‘. Your not as big of a blip on its radar. But first, you must stop listening to those that worship, need or believe in ‘ state ‘. Don’t bother debating if they… Read more »

EhIntellect
Guest

@ Blax Knowing is half the battle. Once a guy knows where he stands IRT his surroundings he can better deal with the reality that we’re serving two masters and that we must, as long we’re here. The point of being a better man is to play, and play well, within the inexorable universal rules. Much of RP-follower frustration springs from the idea that RP or PUA is some crack or cheat code around the rules. IMO, RP, hypergamy, FI, shit tests, the divorce culture, are in the code too, and our lives reflect this though our aggregate decisions. We… Read more »

boulderhead
Guest

After all why rush it?

EhIntellect
Guest

“After all why rush it?”

No truer Alpha statement.

One last item.

TRM does a nice job describing half the observable code, leaves the other half for others to describe.

BTW, all of the observable code is out there for the having and has been there for a long, long time. It benefits a man to stash the RP map occasionally and look around

theasdgamer
Guest

Blax, I feel happy somehow knowing that you’re contributing to my rocking chair money. But I suspect that you have tried to chisel me out of it and the State needs to come down hard on chiselers. lol

The main reason to believe in The State ™ is that it mitigates crime and protects you from foreigners who would enslave you. Of course, as you say, don’t become a slave of The State and be realistic about the purposes of the nomenklatura.

Blaximus
Guest
Blaximus
Offline

The state creates an illusion of crime mitigation. Talk to law enforcers/prison guards sometime. People get really worked up if the word ” crime ” is spoken. Fearful that somebody’s gonna take shit from you, lol. But most people haven’t experienced much crime. Here in the super zip where I work, practically every house has an ADT or Slommins sign posted, but nothing happens here and the town has 2 or 3 cops….like Mayberry. Yet folks are afraid. The most significant crime that does affect you isn’t violent crime or outright theft, but institutions pick your pocket/wallet consistently, even though… Read more »

Yollo Comanche
Guest
Yollo Comanche
Offline

Fuck Pedro.

Ramses
Guest
Ramses
Offline

Great site. Always insightful. I am in a dark place right now. I don’t even think I know myself or can quantify things accurately anymore because my glasses are tainted. It all started with a being very well off, making well into 6 figures since I was 27 years old. by the time I was 40 I had about $800,000 in cash, RRSPs and assets. At 41 I got separated (half my assets disappeared, I was paying 3000 a month in support and my ex did not work a day since we got married), getting laid off (and still making… Read more »

K
Guest
K
Offline

If a woman doesn’t like what you are doing, then does that mean you ignore her needs and wants because you should have ultimate authority? How is letting women have some sort of power in the decision making process a bad thing? This seems like the man is bound to step all over the woman because she has no power of her own, even doing what she wants is bad thing, shouldn’t marriage be about compromises so as not to ignore what the other wants?

%d bloggers like this: