Equalist Marriage Advice.

A leftist equalist helpfully posts his marriage relationship advice over at Vox Day's:

A) We each respect the others ambitions
B) The kid got disciplined by us both and raised by both
c) We both cooked, cleaned
D) Made big decisions together
E) We each play the games we want
f) We F*cked a lot.
G) We both work
H) We hold hands when we walk down the street
I) We are partners in everything and have each others back

Now, a commenter named Mudz has this to say to that:

 If they had only known! WHY DIDN'T THEY HOLD HANDS??

I'm sure it must be delightful for you both to return from work to a dark house, then discuss together who's going to cook dinner and do the chores, how you're going to discipline your child, who's big decision you'll fairly support. Sounds like the perfect respite from a long day of work, to repeat over and over again.

I think it's pretty dubious that 9 mostly tangential requisites is better than 6 basic ones for marriage, but you can claim it's what anchored your relationship if you like(because marriage only works if you do just everything together, whatever those things are). But I shall regard the claim with great skepticism.

But let's do a quick breakdown, point-by-point. Happily, although I am not married, we humans have the option of vicarious experience, where we can learn from the mistakes and experiences of others, and form an opinion based on those experiences without having to go through them ourselves. Isn't that wonderful?

A) We each respect the others ambitions

Unfortunately, the problem arises when one's ambitions do not make them good marriage material. My ambition, for some time, was to muddle through life aimlessly, goof off and do what I wanted so long as I wasn't being a parasite on anyone. Is it an ambition, this lack of ambition? In a sense it is - or perhaps I could suggest that my ambition, perhaps, is to be a street tough. Neither makes me particularly good husband material.

Now, if a girl's ambition is to get a corporate boyfriend, that's fine. You go pursue that ambition somewhere else, pumpkin, just not as my wife. I'm sure another gamma, considerably more bloated and pasty-faced than I am, will be more than overjoyed to take you in your late 30's. Have ambitions? Sure. They just make you not-wife material.

B) The kid got disciplined by us both and raised by both

Now, the bulk of my discipline in my childhood was given over to my mother, since my father worked irregular hours. It probably would've worked the other way around, too. The problem is that kids today love to play off parents against each other (ever hear "go ask mom", "go ask dad" "mom said I could do X", and other variants?). Having a clear disciplinarian role cuts that out of the equation entirely.

Men working out of the home is a fairly modern invention, too. Circa 1776, most men worked in or around the home, be it on a farm, in a cottage industry, or their workplace was their home in some sense. To say dad was not around to raise kids...well, that's why I say we need to go back to before the French Revolution, anyways.

c) We both cooked, cleaned

Oh, now that's bullshit. SSM, Dalrock, Heartiste and Vox all have pointed out repeatedly: clear demarcation of of roles in a relationship lead to less social loafing and strife over the details of said responsibilities, and no matter what women say, observing what they do is proof enough that men washing dishes are not sexy.

It's not like we get any joy out of it, either.

D) Made big decisions together

Again, more equalist nonsense. As SSM and RPW point out, when you have two people and they disagree, someone has to get their way (and please, remember the old joke that "compromise" is just code for the guy giving in.) Vox has repeatedly pointed out on Alpha Game that in general, men tend to try and take their wives' opinions into consideration, while women tend to show a fourfold increased in-group preference when it comes to Team Woman and Team Her Man.

Aurini puts it best: "when men have power, they use it to benefit women. When women have power, they abuse it."

It's a hard pill to swallow for most non-reactionaries, but the facts are the facts, no matter how badly they contradict the equalist drivel we're all steeped in today: women tend to make bad decisions, and this has been exacerbated by modernity and societal degeneracy aiding and abetting them. For the record, "bad" here is defined as "requiring others to bail them out of the results of their decisions." From Prohibition to US government spending jumping the moment women were given the vote - they've repeatedly shown themselves as a group to display high-time preference and a lowered ability to understand cause and effect, amongst other things well-discussed in the mandrosphere. Various evo-psych explanations have been put forward, but the fact remains that on average, women have smaller amygdalas than men, perhaps due to men protecting them over millenia from the worst nature had to throw at the proto-monkeys living in trees.

E) We each play the games we want
f) We F*cked a lot.

Irrelevant, really. Hey, friends with benefits do a lot of both, too, yet their relationship stability doesn't seem to top out on average...

G) We both work

Sunshine Mary has made a post on this, so I won't repeat her points. But on my part, while I suppose that the massive depression of real wages since 1973 may have made this quite attractive for the crowd which simply must have a mcmansion, after seeing enough crying kids dropped off at the nine daycares near my place, all I have to say is FUCK NO. My mother stayed at home to raise me, I'm grateful for it as much as she is to have escaped a mushroom cannery, and any kids I have are going to have someone at home to take care of them - I'll be a fucking stay-at-home dad if I need to, hypergamy be fucking damned.

H) We hold hands when we walk down the street

Instant demonstration of low value there. Poor frame - she's on your arm, or not there at all.

I) We are partners in everything and have each others back

On the surface, this sounds good. But what does it mean, really? What does "partners in everything" mean, when it comes down to the details? Does having "each others' back" mean enabling destructive behaviour, like it does with so many couples these days?

Of course, since the anklebiter who made these original claims has been outed under various handles and has at various times claimed to be some combination of a black homosexual high-class shoe-obsessed individual who regularly visits Paris, I have some doubts about the persona he claims to possess here, either, or the claims he makes of a 22-year successful marriage.