Why shouldn't a man get married today?
There are a great many truths in the world that eminent minds and the state feed the naive people and which - the louder and more colorful, the more cunning. And all the more not obvious harm from them.
"Marriage is a family union between a man and a woman, the purpose and result of which is the birth and upbringing of children" . This is how the concept of "marriage, marriage" is interpreted in one of the numerous reference books.
Indeed, why does a man and a woman need marriage, "family ties", if not to:
- to give birth and raise children;
- run a common household;
- to feel protection and support, to have their own "rear", hearth and home.
(Well, it also happens that marriage is needed in order to leave or stay abroad, the so-called “fictitious marriage.” But this is already from the realm of undoubted anomalies, deception of the state, which has nothing to do with the real goals of marriage. )
What does a woman get in our marriage?
First, a greater and better opportunity to realize oneself as a woman and a mother. The family hearth, as well as the birth and upbringing of children - who will say that even today, in our material and corporate-scent age, this natural imperative is far from the conscious and subconscious desires and goals of almost every woman, who, in one way or another, by its nature and upbringing, at different times of his life "would not mind" becoming a wife and mother, giving birth and raising, putting together a cozy family nest?
Secondly, in marriage, a woman gets greater access to all sorts of resources of both a man-husband and the state and society: her husband's earnings, often his movable and immovable property, benefits and benefits from the state - maternity capital, benefits for receiving or housing construction, training, job and salary retention , etc.
And even if the size of the preference for a married woman and a newly-made mother does not satisfy women's needs, then married people, unlike unmarried ones, one way or another, have new opportunities, for which many marriage with its goals is considered as a new step up.
Third, the execution of a social request, the so-called. "Public duty", when the wife and mother in the eyes of society, as they were taught, fulfills their duty and role, becoming respected and acquiring a higher status, albeit without sparkling medals on the bodice of the dress. Achievement of the accomplished duty increases self-esteem and gives confidence, even when there is a lot to do at home.
Of the minuses of a “defective position” for women: difficulties associated with pregnancy and childbirth, which fall mainly on her, everyday life and household chores, “education” of unlucky husbands. This is what women often talk about when they want to talk about their difficult "defective" lot.
What does a man get in our marriage?
Firstly, for the sake of which he climbs there with his head and his horns making his way, like an inexperienced goby-fool: access to frequent and free sex. It is unlikely that any of the experienced and successful men will deny that their desire for frequent and unconditional intimacy with their object of passion was a fiery engine to build some kind of relationship and get married. And marriage, marriage was only the first condition for obtaining this intimacy. Well, today it may be the second, the third - but the fact will forever remain a fact: there would be no unsatisfied male libido - there would be no more marriages.
Secondly, a man also gets the opportunity to realize himself, as he was taught for the long twenty years of his life, in the spirit of "built houses, planted trees and born sons." A sense of duty and not for nothing of missing upbringing gives its result: a man must start a family, multiply, acquire an economy for a growing family - and he does it.
Thirdly, children are also important for a man - the opportunity to continue as heirs on full terms is given to a man almost exclusively in marriage.
What else? His hearth, where his wounds will be healed, a rookery in the form of a sofa and "tanks", a favorite garage with pieces of iron ... This is also important. A sense of your territory and "home front".
Which of the minuses? A man today has no rights to his children, the very cornerstone of the building called "marriage", and if his wife suddenly wants to divorce him, he will not have no tools to prevent her, as well as prevent the children from taking with them. Everyone knows that our courts "automatically", without even being interested in the opinions and reasons of men, in 99% of cases leave children to their mothers.
In addition, in the event of a divorce, common property, movable and immovable, acquired in marriage and not only, is divided "stupidly" in half. In fact, a man who brought his wife to his house and inadvertently registered her there immediately loses his rights to half of the house. A man who went on a watch or at the place of residence tore his intestines in order to provide for his family, and, as a rule, in almost all cases earning more than his wife, is obliged to give half of , etc.
Cases when a woman makes and brings in advance a greater contribution, in the form of movable-immovable property, in order to then leave half of her ex, are extremely rare: many of our women do not lose their heads and clearly know what, among other things, they go to marriage and what should be taken out of it.
In almost all cases, the material and financial contribution of a man to the common cause of "marriage" is incomparably greater than that of a woman, because it is generally accepted that the contribution of a woman is life and raising children. But only in case of divorce, the children - her contribution, automatically remain with her, and his contribution - movable and immovable property - is always divided in half.
Once again. This discrimination, accepted in society, is important: his contribution is his finished and earned property to a greater extent, while she was engaged in her family and home, she is divided in half, her contribution - her children, always stay with her.
Although children - of course, not only "her contribution", but their common. But then this injustice is even more monstrous, when a man who has invested love, time, money in his children is automatically deprived of them, even without the right to vote.
For comparison, until recently a man who decided to marry and become a husband, head of the family, received a number of rights to his wife and children. His wife could not leave him of her own free will, without providing strong evidence for this, and even more so could not “automatically” take the children - often the children were left with the father. It was impossible to take the children with you and, in addition, half of the house, farm and a cart with a horse, leaving the man without an inheritance and practically ruined.
Today, de facto, for any serious reason or simply for a woman's whim, a woman does not need any proof of her husband's infidelity, that he beats her, does not provide children. It is enough just to want to leave, having come up with a couple of reasons for yourself and for society why society will understand it and condemn it: drinks, beats and does not ... love.
In total, the bottom line for many men sediment for the rest of their lives:
- divorce - at her first will, children do not belong to you;
- the property in which you invested more than her earned money like a real man - half is not yours ...
Question: why would a man get married today, if, at first will and without presenting any evidence for that, a woman can leave him, taking his children, half of his property, burdening him with alimony and a sense of guilt before a respectable society?
You cannot write reviews. Reviews written using browsers with limited or disabled functionality are not accepted due to their frequent use for advertising purposes.