Author: Doug Mortimer
While
sitting
in
a
winery
enjoying
a
local
fruit
of
the
vine,
I
struck
up
a
conversation
with
a
fellow
sitting
next
to
me.
He
appeared
to
be
in
his
mid-20s
and
spoke
with
a
British
accent.
As
it
turned
out,
he
was
a
Pakistani.
I
assumed,
perhaps
wrongly,
he
was
a
Muslim
and
wondered
why
he
was
imbibing
an
alcoholic
beverage,
but
it
would
have
been
rude
to
bring
up
that
issue.
It
turned
out
he
was
in
town
on
family
business
–
or
more
to
the
point,
his
whole
family
was
in
town
for
family
business.
The
young
man
was
considering
marrying
a
local
girl
and
his
family
and
hers
were
discussing
the
matter.
Particularly
surprising
was
the
involvement
of
grandparents,
aunts
and
uncles.
That
seemed
odd
to
me,
but
what
the
hell
do
I
know
about
Pakistani
kinship
systems
and
mating
habits?
As
I
reflected
on
it
afterwards,
however,
it
started
to
make
sense.
After
all,
the
young
man
shared
DNA
with
his
parents.
This
was
also
true,
to
a
lesser
extent,
of
his
grandparents,
aunts,
and
uncles.
They
were,
in
a
sense,
stakeholders
in
this
young
man’s
choice
of
a
mate.
Their
DNA
was
contained
in
the
young
man’s
DNA,
which
would
be
passed
on
to
the
young
man’s
children,
so
it
was
incumbent
upon
them
to
make
sure
that
a
suitable
match
was
arranged.
Of
course,
the
prospective
bride’s
family
had
the
same
interest.
The
family
discussions,
as
the
young
man
described
them
to
me,
had
the
businesslike
ring
of
a
corporate
merger
rather
than
a
romantic
pairing
off
of
two
young
people.
Of
course,
the
trope
in
countless
movies
and
novels
is
boy
meets
girl,
not
clan
meets
clan.
Clannishness
might
have
been
considered
positive
or
at
least
normal
once
upon
a
time;
now
the
word
has
negative
romantic
connotations,
evoking
images
of
the
Montagues
and
the
Capulets.
In
modern
western
societies,
it
is
assumed
that
marriage
is
an
individual
choice
and
that
love
is
the
primary
motivation.
Even
with
more
and
more
men
self-medicating
with
red
pills,
it
must
be
admitted
that
romantic
love
remains
embedded
in
our
culture.
In
fact,
a
lot
of
people
make
a
lot
of
money
off
it.
Romantic
love
drives
jewelry
sales,
book
sales
(romance
novels),
candy
sales
(Valentine’s
Day),
wedding
planning,
honeymoon
travel,
cosmetics
sales,
and
the
fashion
industry.
Even
in
an
age
of
cynicism,
love
is
love
and
love
conquers
all…except
when
it
doesn’t.
In
that
case,
one
may
revel
in
the
martyrdom
of
love
unrequited.
Romantic
love
runs
the
gamut
from
bliss
to
masochism.
Of
course,
if
a
modern
western
couple
becomes
an
item,
it
is
still
customary
to
introduce
one’s
prospective
spouse
to
one’s
parents.
I
seriously
doubt,
however,
that
a
young
man
would
approach
his
prospective
father-in-law
and
formally
ask
for
his
daughter’s
hand
in
marriage.
And
I
know
the
grandparents,
aunts
and
uncles
would
not
be
consulted
on
the
matter.
As
likely
as
not,
they
would
not
meet
the
fiancé
before
the
wedding
day.
Also,
if
a
father
objected
to
his
daughter’s
choice
of
a
mate
today
it
would
probably
make
no
difference
to
her
(unless
the
father
was
wealthy
and
swore
to
cut
her
out
of
the
will).
Of
course,
given
the
reality
of
same-sex
marriage
today,
there’s
no
telling
how
many
fathers
breathe
a
sigh
of
relief
upon
discovering
that
their
daughter
is
not
marrying
someone
else’s
daughter.
With
birth
rates
in
the
dumper
today,
it
is
understandable
that
parents
of
adult
children
are
concerned
about
the
family
bloodline.
When
birth
rates
were
higher,
it
was
pretty
well
assured
that
some
if
not
all
of
one’s
offspring
would
engender
their
own
offspring.
Pity
the
only
child
today,
forced
to
bear
the
bloodline
burden
all
alone.
And
if
said
child
has
announced
that
being
a
girlboss
or
going
MGTOW
or
changing
sex
are
more
important
than
offspring,
what
can
the
parents
do?
In
a
sense,
it’s
their
fault.
They
should
have
spawned
more
kids
to
tilt
the
odds
in
their
favor.
Imagine
how
much
pressure
parents
can
apply
in
such
a
situation,
then
try
to
imagine
how
much
pressure
Pakistani
parents,
grandparents,
uncles,
and
aunts
can
apply!
Are
they
justified
in
exerting
that
pressure?
If
this
sort
of
piling
on
took
hold
in
western
society,
it
would
open
up
a
can
of
worms.
Suppose
a
westernized
Pakistani
college
girl
meets
the
old-school
family
of
her
fiancé
and
the
subject
of
abortion
comes
up.
“My
body,
my
choice,”
won’t
fly,
as
an
aborted
fetus
bears
the
DNA
of
a
lot
of
family
members.
You
cannot
abort
that
fetus
any
more
than
you
can
renege
on
any
sort
of
sacred
trust.
The
reply
to
the
individualist
existential
question
“Whose
life
is
it?”
is
“Whose
DNA
is
it?”
Speaking
of
stakeholders,
how
about
the
father
of
a
child
the
mother
wants
to
abort.
Half
the
DNA
of
that
fetus
was
contributed
by
the
father
but
he
has
no
say
in
whether
that
baby
is
allowed
to
be
born?
Equity,
anyone?
Granted,
it
might
be
difficult
for
a
modern
Westerner
to
grasp
this
concept
of
shared
DNA,
as
we
are
so
hopelessly
wrapped
up
in
human
rights
and
autonomy
and
equality
and
all
sorts
of
other
concepts.
An
obligation
to
one’s
clan
is
considered
passé.
Have
you
ever
heard
someone
refer
to
a
relative
as
a
kinsman?
I
didn’t
think
so.
And
describing
a
relative
as
a
clansman
evokes
images
of
Birth
of
a
Nation.
In
truth,
the
clan
is
hardly
the
most
repressive
institution
in
the
world
today.
While
unbridled
individualism
appears
to
be
the
new
normal,
that
is
illusory.
You
have
an
obligation
to
the
Big
Clan,
i.e.,
the
state.
That
could
be
your
city,
your
county,
your
state,
the
fedguv,
or
some
sort
of
global
consortium
such
as
the
UN
or
the
WEF.
This
brings
up
an
important
difference.
In
olden
days
you
could
walk
away
from
your
clan
if
there
were
some
sort
of
irreconcilable
breach.
It
might
result
in
hard
feelings
or
regrets
but
it
could
be
done.
Walking
away
from
the
state
is
another
matter
entirely.
Assertions
of
individual
sovereign
immunity
will
not
be
entertained
in
any
court
of
law,
and
only
rarely
in
the
court
of
public
opinion.
One
wonders…what
would
happen
if
a
Pakistani
woman
paid
a
visit
to
a
sperm
bank.
Would
the
donor
have
to
undergo
a
vetting
process
from
the
family?
If
a
son
had
his
choice
of
frozen
eggs
from
an
assortment
of
women,
would
his
relatives
stage
an
inquest?
Can
we
say
that
the
Pakistani
way
is
superior
to
the
western
version
of
romantic
attachment
over
all?
Is
mate
choice
by
committee
superior
to
mate
choice
by
emotions?
Admittedly,
the
former
is
less
likely
to
be
influenced
by
rose-colored
glasses.
Of
course,
marriages
of
convenience
have
always
taken
place,
but
could
such
cold-blooded
rationalism
ever
become
the
norm
in
the
west?
Can
the
head
ultimately
conquer
the
heart?
If
so,
should
it
conquer
the
heart?
Is
it
possible
for
the
head
and
the
heart
to
operate
in
synch?
Think
of
it!
The
brain
and
the
heart…two
organs
beating
as
one!
Of
course,
there
is
always
the
possibility
that
A.I./A.I.
(artificial
intelligence/artificial
insemination)
will
take
over
and
conventional
human
reproduction
will
no
longer
be
needed
and
could
conceivably
be
outlawed.
Think
of
it!
No
more
dysfunctional
families!
No
more
awkward
Thanksgiving
dinners!
No
more
creepy
in-laws!
No
more
nepotism!
And
no
need
for
Pakistani-style
vetting!
In
the
meantime,
does
a
thoroughly
modern
young
couple
want
to
have
a
flock
of
relatives
sizing
them
up
before
they
get
married?
I
don’t
think
so,
but
obligation
goes
both
ways.
The
relatives
are
more
likely
to
support
you
in
a
rough
spot
if
you
have
respected
their
wishes.
It’s
great
if
people
are
there
when
you
need
them,
but
that
means
they
will
likely
be
hanging
around
when
you
don’t
need
them
and
would
rather
be
left
alone.
For
every
close-knit
family
you
envy,
there
is
one
that
makes
you
shudder
and
say
to
yourself,
“Sure
glad
I’m
not
one
of
them.”
So
what’s
the
answer?
Blue
pill?
Red
pill?
Black
pill?
Where
is
Big
Pharma
when
you
really
need
them?
Original Story on AVFM
These stories are from AVoiceForMen.com.
(Changing the cultural narrative)