How Much Do Eye Exams Cost At Shopko

marriage in a society feminist

I get from a reader and audience:

" Hello, I am a boy of 23 who has not made much intention of getting married, but since I hear it every day of their fathers sent to disaster divorces with children, that lost house car etc etc ... I wondered if there was a way to ensure that this does not happen? and if that's what I'm about to offer is a good way:

before marriage declaration la casa in cui si andrà ad abitare(qualora fosse di mia proprietà) ad uso ufficio di una SRL e di prendere sempre prima del matrimonio un’auto aziendale sempre della stessa srl .

fissare come residenza della mia famiglia in una casa affittata oppure facendo una dichiarazione di ospitalità , anche se in teoria non ci abiterò.

so che è brutto pensare ciò prima del matrimonio, ma sentendo certi casi penso che vedermi sottratto le mie proprietà in modo quasi incondizionato mi faccia sentire usurpato. Addirittura in casi in cui la mia cara ex porta in casa un nuovo tizio e non lo sposa, pagando vitto e alloggio per tutti e due. Per non parlare di un senso di inferiorità che spesso gli uomini sono costretti a subire durante il matrimonio, dato che un passo falso gli potrebbe scoinvolgere la vita.Ciao “

Risponde il responsabile di Antifeminist Online Journal :

L’unico metodo certo per evitare di perdere casa, figli, soldi, auto e salute psicofisica è non sposarsi. Ogni strategia, piano d’azione e precauzioni varie, per quanto ben architettate possano essere, non risolvono i due problemi principali legati al matrimonio in una società femminista come la nostra.

Il primo di questi due problemi principali sorge appena ci si sposa: la moglie From that moment takes the knife by the handle. The second problem is that in case of separation, in most cases is the man to lose out.

Regarding the first problem, your girlfriend just becomes a "wife" is automatically invested with a power that earlier, during the normal relationship, did not have.
E 'using the power of blackmail as a weapon state (Feminist), that is threatening the separation with everything that goes with it (the second problem). All the grains of the first problem can manifest itself in countless ways. An example: you have children, you want to send them to private school, your wife, to public school. Discuss, argue, and do not come to a compromise. In the evening, or night, after the quarrel, your wife decides to "soften" a little : do not you give it. And do not even give you the next day, the next, and perhaps not allowed for weeks or even months. This weapon, namely that of sexual blackmail, had also before marriage, but it was checked, because you could oppose the other weapons: I leave you, I go with another, I go to prostitutes, etc.etc. All these weapons, now, did not you anymore. Or rather, you have but you can potentially backfire: if you leave it, go with another, go to prostitutes or else your wife will utilizzare il suo Nuovo Potere, che prima non aveva, e invocare lo Stato (Femminista) per chiedere la separazione e punirti con tutto ciò che ne consegue.

Durante la vita coniugale tua moglie può fare il bello e il cattivo tempo, e dovrai sempre aver presente che per quanto “terreno” tu possa guadagnare, lei avrà sempre e comunque il controllo dell’intero campo di gioco. E’ questa una di quelle situazioni in cui, l’unico modo per non perdere, è non giocare. Non sposarsi. Non si può e non si deve affidare il proprio destino esclusivamente al “buon cuore” della persona con cui si sta insieme. Per gli uomini mancano tutta una serie di garanzie che rendono il matrimonio l’equivalente della roulette russa.

Una volta che si prende coscienza di questo, bisogna valutare il problema a monte, e prima di chiedersi “ mi conviene sposarmi ? “, sarebbe meglio chiedersi “ perchè voglio sposarmi ? “.

Per i credenti , potrebbe sorgere il bisogno di realizzare il sacramento del matrimonio. Ma ha senso realizzare questo sacramento in una società corrotta, in cui il matrimonio sembra esser diventato una scusa per fare baldoria in chiesa per un giorno, e poi spassarsela per una settimana nella “luna di miele” alle Maldive, salvo poi dissolvere questo “legame sacro” quando Lei decide che è time to "break free from the chains of marriage" (but not from your bank account)? Is this not for believers, a serious offense the sacrament of marriage?
Just as in a church used for black masses and the adoration of the devil should not celebrate mass, so in a society corrupted by feminist cancer should not be used to clean the traditions that we have only the shell, but whose interior is rotting. If you buy an apple
because attracted to shiny and healthy-looking skin, only to discover that inside is rotten and worms, has not guilty. It 'been deceived. But who knew, knows and has seen that the apple is rotten, and yet still decide to buy it, has only himself to blame when then verify what we already knew before.

For non-believers , however, the issue is much simpler, and decide not to marry takes a sense of independence from the increasingly oppressive rule.
Why give the State more freedom to enter right into our bedrooms, giving you even more tools in hand to punish us when you decide that this is right?
This power, which the state has used and continues to use to transfer money from the pockets of men in women's pockets, and to enlarge the freedom of all proportion to the detriment of women than men, today sees its greatest expression in their marriage. And that is why, even as you have the decline of the number of marriages [1] , that as we go to weaken one of the tools that the State uses to expand its power over citizens, they start to talk of "new solutions "to replace this tradition now rotting. Here is the entrance of "modern marriage", that is, say, the PACS, and other gadgets like, who would, under the guise of gay rights, women's right to drop into the cauldron that heterosexual men begin to look with distrust traditional marriage [2] .
If these men do not marry, then how will the state to transfer part of their money to so many women? And how will further restrict their freedom, depleted uranium, unless they married they decided to deprive the state of this weapon?

The only solution is not to marry. If you want to live the experience of married life, you can always experiment with cohabitation of longer or shorter [3] , always provided it be made more insidious and misleading to equate cohabitation with marriage.
Something finally must be said with great clarity: who buys a poison apple, knowing it was poisoned, then do not expect any "solidarity" by his peers when the lethal effect of the poison will start to be felt.

Who is the cause of his ill cry himself.

Notes:
[1] In recent trent 'years decreased by 32.4%, ISTAT 2006.
[2] According to recent statistics ISTAT , heterosexual unmarried couples are currently about 555,000, while 10 years ago were less than half: 227,000. The State (feminist) is looking for, and finding, new creative ways to continue to plunder le proprietà degli uomini, bloccando di fatto ogni possibile convivenza fra uomo e donna che non sia sanzionata, controllata, e circoscritta in un campo minato con ordigni anti-uomo che garantisca la punizione della parte maschile della coppia in caso di separazione. In questo scenario, un uomo che decide di sposarsi non ha tutte le rotelle apposto.
[3] Sulla questione della convivenza, vedere questo link .