With the Anglosphere's interest in all things British and Royal, a great deal can be gleaned from the recent announcement of the wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton. The press are swooning over Kate's wedding dress, not just in Britain but across the Anglosphere. It were as if we lived in a culture where marriage remained a central feature of British people's lives, when if fact Marriage rates in 2010 are at their lowest since records began:
The number of people getting married has fallen to its lowest level since records began in 1862. For the first time ever fewer than 2 in 100 women, over the age of 16, got married in a single year. In 2008 the marriage rate for women fell from 2 per cent to 1.96 per cent, less than half the rate 25 years ago.
The rate for men has shown a similar decline, according to the annual figures published by the Office for National Statistics. The figures highlight how marriage has substantially fallen out of favour. From a peak in 1940, when 426,1000 young couples – spurred on by the urgency of World War II – married for the first time, just 147,130 marriages in 2008 were where both partners were getting wed for the first time.
In total, just 228,204 marriages took place during 2008 in England and Wales. The escalating cost of weddings, and the failure of the Government to support the institution of marriage were among the factors blamed. Though, long-term changes in society, especially the increase in the number of women working and their desire to get married later in life, are also key factors.
The average age of women marrying for the first time has nearly hit the symbolic 30-year-old barrier, at 29.9, up from 29.8 during 2007. For men, the average age of getting married for the first time was 32.1 years, up from 32 the previous year.
Many expressed sadness at the statistics.
Dave Percival, a campaigner for marriage, said: "Living together and marriage are increasingly seen as the same by the public, yet the outcomes are radically different. Two thirds of all the first marriages in 2008 can be expected to last a lifetime. Less than 10 per cent of cohabiting relationships last even to their tenth anniversary."
SOURCE: Daily Telegraph, 11 February 2010
So, given the fact that we now live in a post-Marriage era (as American Game experts aver), why all the hysteria about this Royal Marriage? I would argue that we are seeing puritanical Anglo-Saxon memes at work. Like the ever-popular Disney franchise in the United States, the British Royal Family is an archaic residue of core Anglo values: repression, puritanism, misandry and feminism (in no particular order). Consequently, it reflexively exalts events and persons who advertise this agenda. Moreover, the popular appeal of such saccharine fairy tales to the Anglo-American masses shows that, in attitudes at least, puritanism is alive and well across the Anglophone world. If it were not, why does the pan-Anglosphere preoccupation with 'white weddings', 'princesses' and 'happy ever after' remain so perennially popular?
Moreover, the marriage gives us a deeper understanding of Anglo feminism. Kate Middleton is a fairly average girl: average looks, average intellect and distinctly average accomplishments. When swept up in the Royal Marriage tornado, however, she suddenly becomes an exalted goddess striding down the aisle of Westminster Abbey in a (faux) virginal white gown, set high above all others. Even Prince William becomes a mere dramatic prop in her all-pervasive psycho-sexual drama - and he is the heir to the throne of England! And so we see who Anglo feminism strives to stifle male sexual self-expression with all the forces at its disposal, why it vilifies male virility at every turn and why it does not differ one jot from Victorian puritanism: because those agendas exalt women and diminish men. It really is that simple. And this is the fountainhead of all that oppresses men in the contemporary Anglosphere. While draconian punishments are meted out to males for the least infraction (or no infraction, in the case of divorced fathers) women are essentially above the law - guiltless goddesses on pedestals, one and all.
But really, given the Royals' abysmal record at long-term relationships (very much in line with the rest of the British population), the likelihood of Kate and William becoming a long-term symbol of wedded bliss are slight indeed. Understandably touchy about this very fact, the British Establishment (composed of women, White Knights and Gay White Knights, from all I can gather) has recently suspended an Anglican Bishop for daring to even mention this possibility:
A leading bishop has been criticised after publicly denouncing Prince William’s engagement to Kate Middleton and predicting that their marriage will only last for seven years.
Canon Peter Bruinvels, a Synod member and former Tory MP, said: “This is deeply disappointing and disrespectful. The Bishop should be reminded that we are an established Church in which the Monarch plays an integral role.”
The Bishop’s immediate superior, the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, is a close friend of the Prince of Wales and sources have suggested that he may be asked to conduct the wedding service.
But Lambeth Palace played down the furore, insisting that the bishop was “entitled to his views”.
Bishop Broadbent made his comments about the engagement on Facebook, shortly after it had been announced last Tuesday.
He wrote: “Need to work out what date in the spring or summer I should be booking my republican day trip to France.”
He went on to say: “I think we need a party in Calais for all good republicans who can't stand the nauseating tosh that surrounds this event.
“I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears (Prince Charles) and the Porcelain Doll (Lady Diana), and hope to avoid this one too.”
He said the wedding should belong to the family, as opposed to becoming "national flim-flam” paid for by tax payers. And he criticised the media for descending into “fawning deferential nonsense”.
“I wish them well, but their nuptials are nothing to do with me,” he wrote. “Leave them to get married somewhere out of the limelight and leave them alone.”
He later added: “I give the marriage seven years.”
Source: UK Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2010
Beneath the predictable Anglo-Saxon hysteria and 'fawning deferential nonsense', of course, lies a very serious ideological agenda. The good Bishop has dared to challenge the inane puritanical meme that still exerts such a pernicious influence over the Anglosphere and for that, he has to be publicly pilloried.
In our view, seven years is rather too long for this marriage; three is a far more accurate assessment. This is largely because Anglo-Saxon repression brings unrealistic expectations to marriage, which is paradoxically why the institution is crumbling across the Anglosphere. It is fanciful and cruel to expect still-virile males to rely on past-prime wives as their sole sexual partners. More rational, less puritanical peoples (the Latins and Japanese, for example) allow husbands sexual escapades beyond matrimony with prostitutes and other women of 'easy virtue'. This erotic pragmatism actually maintains the institution of Marriage by introducing a safety-valve to dissipate accreted sexual tensions. By contrast, Anglo Marriages crumble under the weight of unrealistic, Disneyfied expectations. And then, of course, there is the thorny issue of Anglo men refusing to marry at all for fear of post-divorce penury at the hands of feminist judges...
So much for puritanism.
Posts
Bishop Broadbent sounds like good drinking company; he speaks from the hip, as it were.
ReplyDeleteAs for marriage in general, I agree in the message of privacy. It should be a private contract between those concerned, and not billed as a didache for utopian virtue; where it becomes a contract with an impossible third party, allied to the women, thus voiding the principle of equity.
And of the marriages that I have witnessed, their longevity seems to be an inverse relationship with the paroxysms of joy expressed by the bride; leaving the bemused groom to look on, holding his dick, as his 'life-partner' completely ignores him, and parties her brains out with her envious work colleagues.
I live in the USA and we are hearing about this marriage on the news all the time. Your right that Anglo-Saxon repression brings unrealistic expectations to marriage. No wonder why anglo-countries have the highest divorce rates in the world.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that women in anglo-societies are more interested in planning their wedding day than actually staying married. The fairy tale "princess" wants to marry her "prince" and when she gets bored of him, she can divorce him and take 50% of his assets!
Please explain to me why any man in an anglo-country would ever want to get married? I don't see the benefits of marriage for a man, I only see benefits of marriage for women.
I'm not sure whether my comment was published, since my internet failed, but in case it wasn't:
ReplyDeleteJimmyGiro, you can also determine the longevity of the marriage by whether the bride-to-be attends a bachelorette party, which by all accounts, is just an excuse for her to cheat on her man - and exult in it. These things seem to be an American phenomenon above all else.
Why such women still get to marry upstanding men (when by right, they should only get to marry louts) is inexpliciable - luckily, upstanding men are withdrawing from these Anglobitches and their marriages, so these will hopefully become rarer. Let them try to date the 'big, buff' male strippers they cheat on their men with and then see how far they get.
Jesus Christ what a spate of misogyny. why do these Anglobitches want to marry these so called upstanding men who you argue require prostitutes to be able to fufil their marriage contract? if it's unrealistic for both parties too achieve don't get married, marriage has always been about monogamy in anglo western cultures.
ReplyDeleteYou argue that Latino and Japanese simply solve the divorce rates through allowing their husbands to seek sexual gratification from external sources. I am inclined to argue that there is no 'allowing' going on here.
In both Latino and Japanese cultures divorce just isn't a viable option, women are encouraged to become wives and there is a huge emphasis on a woman's role in the home, allowing their husbands to visit prostitutes has nothing to do with the success of the marriage, it is tolerating and putting up with her husbands infidelity and the pain and humiliation that brings, or indeed allowing herself to become shut out of his life that she doesn't find out about it thereby comprimising the intimacy and sex life to begin with. Please research these cultures for yourself.
And of course let's not generalise here, not all men visit prostitutes and not all women are fantastically faithful little angels.
Perhaps the ready availability of divorce accounts for the divorce rates because it's easy to get hold of and becoming more acceptable? Perhaps the huge finantical cost of both marriage and divorce is acting as a deterant for most couples which might explain the dip in marriage? Perhaps it's the statistic of marriages to end in dovorce that we are all so aware of "1 in 3" deters people from getting married? Perhaps because marriage is a traditional ritual that is largely associated with religion so many now feel it is not relevant to their relationship is a reason for couples choosing not to marry? Perhaps even, it might that we are in recession right now and the average marriage costs £20,000 which may account for the slump in popularity?
You see how there can be many many factors that affect something?
And ofcourse r.e. your little comment of the wedding being all about the woman, traditionally that was when a woman had to sacrifice her life for her husband, she has to spend everyday taking care of her husband, cooking, cleaning bearing children. In many cultures women do not see their families after they marry. See above point about wedding being a traditional ritual, whilst the dynamics of the marriage have shifted in a few cases, the ritual still remains the same, people marry in churches despite having no religion, people marry in white, the father gives the bride away. These things don't mean anything anymore yet they are still practiced. Irrelevant?
Anon 04:06
DeleteGo fuck yourself Angloskank. Any society that values mostly worthless females more than far more valuable males deserves being destroyed.
*it is tolerating and putting up with her husbands infidelity and the pain and humiliation that brings, or indeed allowing herself to become shut out of his life that she doesn't find out about it thereby comprimising the intimacy and sex life to begin with*
ReplyDeleteYou're just projecting here, applying insipid Anglo values to more vigorous sexual cultures. As I understand it, many Japanese women help raise funds for their husband to visit a high-class prostitute every once in a while, knowing that his love is still theirs. The obsessive, stifling monogamy inherent in Anglo marriage is simply not part of their world-view. Past-prime women dislike sex anyway, so it is a win-win-win situation - husband, wife and prostitute all benefit. If this pragmatic approach is so bad, how come divorce is so much rarer in Japan than in the Anglo-American world?
*Perhaps it's the statistic of marriages to end in dovorce that we are all so aware of "1 in 3" deters people from getting married? Perhaps because marriage is a traditional ritual that is largely associated with religion so many now feel it is not relevant to their relationship is a reason for couples choosing not to marry? Perhaps even, it might that we are in recession right now and the average marriage costs £20,000 which may account for the slump in popularity?*
Especially among Anglo-American men, who stand to lose 80% of their wealth in divorces typically initiated by women in 70% of cases, and which affect half of all American marriages. Russian Roulette offers much better odds.
*See above point about wedding being a traditional ritual, whilst the dynamics of the marriage have shifted in a few cases, the ritual still remains the same, people marry in churches despite having no religion, people marry in white, the father gives the bride away. These things don't mean anything anymore yet they are still practiced.*
But that is the whole point of the essay. In the midst of widespread divorce, separation and singleness, the Anglo media bangs on and on about White Weddings and tearful brides as if we were still living in 1953. Though this agenda has no referent in social reality, the Anglo media persists in advancing the puritanical Anglo meme whenever possible.
What is bizarre about this is that women - the very people who have systematically trashed traditional institutions over the past thirty years - are those most committed to such fairy tales. This, I aver, relates not to romantic love but rather the misandrist narcissism inherent in Anglo-American women, which seeks to systematically exalt women and denigrate men at every opportunity. In short, this Royal Marriage is a neo-pagan gynophile fanfare celebrating Anglo matriarchy and its sickly 'cult of woman', and little else. Why else would Anglo women - so uniformly misandrist and counter-traditional in every other sphere - be so obsessed by it?
@James Bond:
ReplyDelete"Please explain to me why any man in an anglo-country would ever want to get married?"
Two things:
Brain-washing and shaming language.
It is that simple.
P.S.
ReplyDelete@Anon - you are clearly wrong about several things.
Your thinking is clearly skewed.
I am going to write up a post about it.
I think your comment demonstrates some extreme foolishness that is worthy of analysis.
Rookh, could you explain to me the kind of obsession you the British males have with old premature women. That girl Middleton looks like William's older sister. Here in Mexico we have a rule: Never date a woman around your age!
ReplyDeleteWasn't Prince William's father a late-in-life marrier? Wasn't he forced to get hitched amid rising rumors, some of which still persist, that he's gay?
ReplyDeleteWait 'til Harry comes in with Beyonce on his arm! Say what?!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteSantiago:
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it is right (men tend to prefer younger women if they are available), but young Anglo women tend to be quite vicious, which would make an older Anglo woman more appealing, due to them developing empathic traits that were absent in their youth.
Of course, you can counteract this conundrum by simply avoiding Anglo women.
DaRick:
ReplyDeleteOlder Anglo women are just as vicious as the younger ones, they are simply better at being manipulative about it. Also, the media here openly shames and discourages men from pursuing younger women. But you're right, avoiding Anglo women is the best policy: and I've been to Mexico enough to know Santiago is right: Mexican women don't reflexively hate men like Anglo women do.
Anon406:
ReplyDeleteOne of the many things I've never understood about all of you who apologize for Anglo women is this: what is your obsession with berating men who find Anglo women distasteful, choose to avoid them, and encourage other men to do the same? After all, Anglo women constantly shriek that they don't need men (and then prove it by divorcing at the earliest opportunity); they renounce motherhood in favor of abortion and single parenthood; they openly reject the most desirable males in favor of dysfunctional thugs.
That being the case, why should there be any objection if Anglo men refuse to have anything to do with them? It seems, logically, it's giving you everything you want: the Anglo bitch is no longer encumbered by (what they deem) our useless presence; leaving plenty of them available for masochistic manginas to have fun with. Really, if you believe what you say, you should be encouraging blogs this as much as possible.
With respect to you all, we seem to be discussing the mainstream media's depiction of what may be called "The New Narcissists" (extreme narcissism to be specific). I do agree that Caucasian women of certain ethnicities are the most virulent man-haters and matriarchs you are likely to encounter.
ReplyDeleteThere's an old truism possibly at work here. Men tend to marry their mothers. If it holds true in this case, Prince William has married a gal that will turn out to be a maverick where royal protocol is concerned and one that will dump him for the poolboy in a heart beat.
ReplyDelete*Rookh, could you explain to me the kind of obsession you the British males have with old premature women. That girl Middleton looks like William's older sister. Here in Mexico we have a rule: Never date a woman around your age!*
ReplyDeleteIt is a strange phenomenon. The Middleton girl indeed looks 'past prime'. However, as you opined in your excellent post to me, all Anglo-Saxons tend to age badly. William himself looks rather older than his age.
There is also this to consider. Perhaps Anglo males think an older woman will be 'safer' (less temperamental and prone to continual post-Marriage shit-testing), as Rick implies. Whether that is really true is another matter, of course.
*I'm not saying it is right (men tend to prefer younger women if they are available), but young Anglo women tend to be quite vicious, which would make an older Anglo woman more appealing, due to them developing empathic traits that were absent in their youth.*
ReplyDeleteYoung Anglo women are certainly more vicious, but does age really develop their 'empathic' traits? Could it not be that, with the loss of physical beauty (and thus the power of sexual control and manipulation), the older Anglo woman is rather FORCED to adopt a more pleasant persona? That is, could such an outwardly convivial persona be just a 'mask of convenience' hiding the same misandrist contempt she deployed in her youth?
Rookh:
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly conceivable, but I lack a proper answer to that question, for two reasons:
1) I make a point of avoiding Anglo women entirely, so I don't know how older Anglo women behave in a relationship - whether she's hiding her misandry or whether her wiser, more tempered countenance is genuine
2) Generational gaps - women in my generation (Y) are clearly worse than women of generations past
Rookh:
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I believe that the lifestyle choices of many Anglos have an effect on their physical appearance. Aside from their partially towards tanning (something completely irrational in my opinion), they also tend to drink and drug themselves more than they should. Obviously, this leads to beer guts (notice how Muslims lack them). My grandad is a case in point.
William is also going bald, which never helps you when trying to look young.
Well...
ReplyDeleteThey are married now, and as always Brides look Radiant and Grooms Nervous. Given that she is not that young; older than him, and not THAT good-looking and is from a (comparatively) poor family this is the Perfect Example of Hypergamy.
Call me mean and bad spirited but we can now watch it fall apart, as it did with his Mother who was younger, slightly better-looking and from a higher social rank. Kate (sorry The Duchess of Cambridge)has Anglo-Bitch written right through her, I would say. Let's hope I am wrong, and that Rookh's Thesis is faulty. Sadly I don't think it is.
I also wanted to add, as I have been looking at some pictures of the wedding (the great and the good) that behind the Diversity and Equality of Political Correctness which is surely meant only for us plebs that in the Upper Echelons nothing has changed: the ceremony with its choristers and music is entirely traditional CofE; the women wear hats in the Abbey, whereas the men are bare headed, the Bride, the Groom, both families and all their friends (celebrity and otherwise) in the congregation are apparently white; the Groom and Best Man are in ceremonial Military Uniform; the Bride is female (and not same-sex) the wedding-dress aspires to Virginity; the congregation is sprinkled with small children. Politicians and their policies come and go but...
ReplyDeleteOn a positive note I would like to think that this happy event banishes, finally, the maudlin sentimentality (represented by Elton John's awful song) unleashed by the 1997 funeral of The Princess of Wales.