Mailvox: that’s what I’m talking about

VR vents her bitter spleen:

Nice. So you’re going to find some woman who will shack up with you. It’s a good thing, too, that you’re looking for a woman with no aspirations beyond scrubbing the toilet and popping out kids. It would take someone pretty stupid both to a.) believe shacking up is marriage and b.) to look to you as her leader.

Have you forgotten that if your shacking up arrangement lasts, said woman is going to eventually become your common-law wife who will be legally entitled to half your Star Wars toys? What are you planning to do, Vox? Dump her after six-and-a-half years for an upgrade? Having no job of her own, she’d be hard pressed to get her share of what any emotional support and maid service may have entitled to, let alone custody of the kids. I have to hand it to you. You really laid out a blueprint for any misogynistic “Christian” knucklehead out there who sees protecting his stuff as the most important goal of a marriage.

And I don’t know how to break this to you, but women can have careers and raise kids at the same time. A lot of women today are doing just that. Some of us even make as much or more than our husbands. Go figure, huh? Personally, I like to contribute to the household income. And I appreciate being married to a guy strong and wise enough to trust his own judgement – and me – enough to enter the same legal agreement that you see as a trap.

I don’t know what happened between you and your mother, but it must have been bad. You really seem to hate women. I don’t know if you write the headlines for you column, but in the case of the one on Worldnet Daily, it’s appropriate. You should most definitely stay single, especially if it keeps you from reproducing.

Apparently men and women were doing nothing more than shacking up for six thousand years until the government began issuing marriage certificates 150 years ago. And while a lot of women are having careers and raising kids at the same time, they are demonstrably doing a shoddy job at both. The anger here is particularly interesting because this is clearly a married woman, and yet the mere notion that men might swear off marriage is enough to send her into a hissy fit. I checked out a Canadian forum while preparing to write today’s column and it was very telling how these successful men who date regularly were labled losers by women simply because they stated that they had no intention of getting married. Of course, any man who is dumb enough to get married because he’s afraid of women calling him names deserves precisely what he’s going to get, namely, a woman calling him names.

In my recent contribution to THE ANTHOLOGY AT THE END OF THE UNIVERSE, I highlighted how Douglas Adams showed how government interference causes people to behave in otherwise irrational ways. If the law forces men to trade in their women every six years in order to avoid being subject to unjust forfeiture of their property, then that’s precisely what you can expect them to eventually do. Perhaps the government will then propose prosecuting men who show a suspicious pattern of serial monogamy, just as they do with those who regularly withdraw sums of cash from their bank account.

I also enjoy the pop psychology that inevitably surfaces anytime one fails to sufficiently prostrate oneself before female dogma. It seems clear to me that VR is subject to a terrible case of penis envy and her anger is rooted in her sexual frustration with her husband.

UPDATE – It’s interesting, but the BLS actually excludes all mention of married couples wherein the husband works and the wife does not in order to jack up the percentage of wives who make more than their husbands do. But since I am approximately 8x smarter than the average government bureaucrat, I took the liberty of dividing the number of wives who earn more than their husbands – 11,329,000 – by the number of married couples, 56,747,000. This gives a more accurate figure of 19.6 percent instead of the 30.7 percent reported by the BLS.

So this means that there are still 19,883,000 traditional wives who remain outside the labor force, but they are now outnumbered almost two-to-one.