What some of us are discussing is the sociological implications of a society where men have been robbed of their incentive to work. You saw this is in the Soviet Union where the state *dictated* what men should do, what crops they would plant, what factory they should report to, etc.
Communism looked great on paper to the social engineers and to the elites who felt unbound by the decrees they dictated to everyone else. They had a solution to men behaving badly - they murdered them. The remaining males were kowtowed into doing what they could to survive. But survival is not the same as excelling and the men increasingly failed to put forth good work, only what they needed to get by. The Soviet Union collapsed from within, as did the communist states of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, etc, because uninspired men rarely excel.
The danger communism posed to the East, feminism now poses to the West - a massive socialist nanny-state government increasingly removing the incentive for men to excel.
Call it unmanliness, call it wimpishness, weakness or whatever. I call it human nature. And that's to be ignored at one's own peril.
I know I can't....
My ex blackmailed me for years by threatening to call the cops on me for false domestic violence... For that priviledge, I'm now allowed to pay the debts she ran up in my name that I didn't know about, and give her half of everything I managed to save (she didn't work).
There are three partners to any marriage, the man, the woman, and the state. The state is a system designed to punish a man for supposed transgressions of previous men and give rewards and succor to women in order to gain more dependents and power.
I, for one, won't play anymore. A woman who insists on a state-sanctioned marriage is in effect saying: "I love you now, but if I meet someone more fun, I want the kids and half of everything you worked for."
It's so screwed-up now, that the only way I would know that a woman actually loves me is if she doesn't insist on a legal union.