A lengthy but absorbing piece concerning the “marriage strike” proposal in Stephen Baskerville’s latest book (spoiler alert, it’s not the same as MGTOW). I’ve posted the following comments and fully expect many of the followers of this blog not to agree with them. Please feel free to comment, as always.
“Excellent, thanks! As the author of “The Fraud of the Rings” I’d like to point out that I wrote at some length in the book about the need for serious preparation for marriage. In my experience most couples give more thought to the wedding day than to the 70+ years that may follow it. Had I undertaken such preparations before my second marriage, I wouldn’t have married. With the benefit of hindsight, the marriage was never going to be a lengthy or happy one.
I would argue for comprehensive preparation for marriage, with an outsider being the sole judge of whether a couple’s marriage is likely to succeed, being pre-conditions for being handed a wedding licence. The divorce rate would fall like a stone.
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS”
—————————-
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X (formerly Twitter) channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
I agree. And in fact in theory that is what is supposed to happen in the case of “Church” weddings and even the “state” officiant at the registry office is supposed to be assured the couple are fully aware of the seriousness of the “state of matrimony” the marriage is also made publis to alow others to come forward with information relevant. I was amazed that the current head of the CoE read out the Church’s idea of marriage at the start of the Prince Harry wedding. For it does make clear that this is a social institution of great seriousness specifically for the care and upbringing of the next generations , which requires the help of a god, wider family and community. A rare expression of the roles and responsibilities in our current society. Later a Bishop from America sermonized about “lurve” and “two people” much in the vein of a romantic novel. The latter is of course in tune with our current “feminized” society in which the idea that there might be roles, responsibilities and duties in marriage is brushed aside in favour of transient emotions and “me me me” (now “self lurve”). My wife enjoys a programme about the Groom arranging the wedding I am heartened on the rare occasions when an officiant (usually a Catholic Priest) baulks at the tight timescales and reason for the quick marriage, even though they are easy to be presented as boring killjoys.
In my own denomination same sex marriages are carried out and just to stir it I often observe that if the only criteria is if two people “lurve” each other, why not 3 people or 4 surely the next step is polygamous marriage? And sit back and enjoy the fuss.
In truth modern marriage is a fragile state entered into with more efforts in selecting “the dress” and party venue than considering the actual duties and responsibilities involved. So yes a reintroduction of its seriousness would at least mean those getting married are better prepared than characters from a cheap romantic novel.
LikeLike
There was no white dress or any great ‘do’ at my wedding. Unlike most women, my wife was as scathing about such stuff as myself. It took place in a registry office and the only guests were our parents. Afterwards it was back to our flat where we had prepared a meal. And that was that. No honeymoon. I had initially planned on taking only the morning off work. In the event I relented and took the whole day.
LikeLike