Modern Marriage & Modern Lies
It's a zero sum game
One of the most renowned passages in the Bible, Matthew 6:24, conveys Christ's message that one cannot serve two masters. While it primarily highlights the perils of attempting to serve both God and material wealth, this verse can also be interpreted more broadly to address various aspects of life. Lately, Pearl Davis has ignited a controversy by urging young men to refrain from marriage. This provocative suggestion has naturally sparked significant backlash from online right-wing circles and mainstream conservatives alike. Talking heads like Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh have vehemently criticized her viewpoint, insisting that marriage is a noble institution and young men should be encouraged to embrace it.
As a happily, married man myself, I wholeheartedly endorse and recognize the numerous advantages and significance of the institution of marriage. Throughout history, the family has been considered a microcosm of society – affectionately known as "the little commonwealth" – with its stability governed by the harmonious union of husband and wife. Indeed, marriage represents the bedrock upon which the entire family structure is built.
Be that as it may, this doesn't imply that Pearl's critique holds no merit. It is undeniably evident that contemporary marriage has evolved into more of a legal obligation that disproportionately bestows benefits upon women. Without delving into every minute detail, aspects such as divorce proceedings, custody battles, alimony payments, and child support arrangements tend to be predominantly advantageous to women. Consequently, it should come as no surprise that individuals like Pearl and a growing number of young men view marriage as an uphill battle with insurmountable odds stacked against them. Why would someone willingly enter into an agreement where only one party will reap substantial benefits?
With this perspective in mind, while we must respect the sanctity of marriage and its ability to foster close-knit families and stable societies, we must also remain open to valid critiques. Acknowledging these challenges surrounding modern-day marriages allows us to work towards a solution and offer men and women real-world advice.
Naturally, individuals like Shapiro vehemently challenge Pearl's perspective, offering retorts akin to the relational equivalent of "vote harder." Their advice consists of getting married, embracing religious beliefs, finding the perfect partner, and so on. As one would expect from today's mainstream conservatives, these suggestions may seem valuable on the surface; however, they tend to either actively or subconsciously overlook the crux of the issue.
The inherent fallacy among modern conservatives often lies in their failure to recognize their own indoctrination with liberal ideals. Unwittingly absorbing 90% of these concepts while attempting to advocate traditional values. The stark reality is that true traditionalism cannot coexist with liberal egalitarian philosophy. One cannot accept the tenets of modern feminism while at the same time trying to encourage traditional values. They are oil and water.
By developing a more comprehensive understanding of this ideological inconsistency and addressing it head-on, modern conservatives can present a stronger and more authoritative argument on the compatibility between traditionalism and select aspects of liberalism, but don’t hold your breath.
The amusing paradox we find ourselves discussing is that if one were to genuinely embrace feminism for its core principle - the idea that women should be treated with absolute equality to men - then numerous gender-related issues would likely vanish. Custody battles wouldn't see women emerging victorious every single time, they wouldn't automatically retain the house, and they couldn't walk away from a relationship "simply because the spark isn't there any longer." Regrettably, it seems that taking responsibility for one's actions isn't a trait commonly associated with feminists. As such, losing every custody battle isn't high on the wishlist for most women either, which as the 20th century has shown means that women (feminist or not) struggle to grasp the true consequences of their own ideology.
This leaves us at a fascinating crossroads: you must either dismiss feminism in its entirety – encompassing every aspect from women in the workplace to higher education and even female sports – or you must wholeheartedly embrace feminism in its purest form. This would involve replacing each and every law and standard that grants special treatment to women, exchanging them with rules based on genuine equality.
In considering the matter of gender equality, two main perspectives often surface: either women are equal to men, or they remain in a subordinate position. If we embrace the former notion, it is only fair that women are treated as such. However, if we lean towards the latter belief, it becomes crucial to provide special treatment for women in order to ensure their safety and well-being. Unfortunately, one cannot eat their cake and have it too. Public figures like Shapiro and Walsh, along with numerous conservative pundits, find themselves caught in a paradoxical web – as much as they want to deny it, they are essentially a throwback to liberals from two decades ago.
That said, we must now shift our focus toward the crux of this debate: the overarching influence of liberal egalitarianism coloring our world. Ultimately, what lies at the heart of this struggle is a choice between the principles of tradition and those of liberalism. None of us – myself included – have escaped being born into a world permeated with various degrees of egalitarianism. Consequently, rejecting this mindset may seem utterly unattainable given the current culture. Nevertheless, if one truly wishes to mend societal issues related to marriage and gender roles, there is no room for half-measures; a wholehearted commitment becomes imperative.
It is crucial that each individual choose their allegiance: either serve liberal egalitarian values or uphold traditional ones. In doing so, we arrive at something that looks like horseshoe theory – you can either follow feminism to its ultimate conclusion or dismiss it completely; there is no middle ground on which to stand. It’s a zero-sum game.
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other.
-TJS