I run across the strangest sites when searching the web for stats, like: Should I Divorce Him?
This lovely site is a place for women who want to thoughtfully discuss their soon to be ex husbands. I’ve searched for “Should I Divorce Her?” but for some reason there isn’t such a site for men.
One of the main sections of the site is the Hall of Shame, where women post Photos showcasing shameful behavior – husbands and marriage at its worst. These husbands are really bad! For example, there is the dastardly man who didn’t take out the garbage:
99 bottles of soda in the can…
Ok, maybe there’s only 97. It’s plain to see that everything has its limits… including this recycling pail.
I apologize for not warning you in advance how troubling this man’s actions are. But now consider yourself forewarned. It gets worse. Another husband left the toilet seat up! And this other bastard failed to put the toilet paper on the dispenser properly! But all of these SOBs are mere child’s play compared to the man who sent his ex wife a box of chocolates!
I gave him my heart, and all I got was this lousy box of chocolates in return. Valentine’s Day sucks, especially when you’re alone. Out of the goodness of his heart, my estranged husband gave me a box of candy “from the kids.” It was thoughtful and thoughtless at the same time. The last thing I needed this holiday was a reminder that I no longer had a Valentine. Thanks for the memories.
But don’t assume the entire site is filled with women bitching about men. Seriously. Stop it.
In addition to the above section where women send in photos bitching about men, there is also a forum for them to bitch about men titled The Bitchin’ Boards. There are also blogs where women can bitch about men titled The Hag Rags. In the forum there is a section where women can emote on whether, when, and how to pull the trigger on divorce, as well as one for them to discuss their fabulous single lives after divorce. Unlike the very full forum for women to fantasize about their power to divorce, the latter section is surprisingly sparse with only three posts since 2007. The most recent one is titled The Difference Between Reality and Fantasy…
I have been divorced for three months now. I’ve used this site as a sounding board and it has helped me greatly to decide whether to leave my abusive 10 year relationship or stay with the bastard…
Physically, I get alot of male attention, so I pictured this lifestyle with thoughts of dinner and dancing with a hot stud…
Not!
I am back to reality, full force….
The new has worn off and I am home alone on a Saturday night with a lukewarm invitation from the man I’m dating to join him for drinks after he is finished with his family dinner. *sigh*.
Luckily her hamster regains his footing and rationalizes her back to being happy with her choice by the end of the post, but those brief glimpses of reality can be quite unsettling.
I think most women sense that this will be the case, which is why so many seem to relish in prolonging the process of deciding to divorce as long as possible. Once the button is pushed, they can’t relish the power any longer. Some women make the rookie mistake of staying married too long before discovering they aren’t haaapy, or failing to twist the knife long enough when deciding how to be true to themselves. These women could learn a thing or two about marriage from one of the bloggers on the site named Newlywed. She started bitching about her husband back in December of 2007. Here is an excerpt from one of her first posts:
Since I am newly married — for about 10 months now — everyone I talk to always asks, “So how’s married life?” I really don’t want to tell them the truth and say something like “It’s the biggest mistake I ever made.”
…Now I see him everyday so there is nothing special about the weekends. He is not even fun to be around anymore. Now I have to clean twice as much because he is a total slob who refuses to clean anything. I used to enjoy decorating my place. I liked picking out colors, hanging up pictures, and choosing items to display in my home. Now of course we share a place so we both get to decide how we want it to look.
Sounds like she had some unrealistic expectations. Go figure. As of her most recent blog entry in February of 2010, she is (still) going to give him another chance:
I have finally made decision. Prince Charming (P.C.) and I have been apart for quite a while now. We have been talking and emailing, and I have seen him twice, but we haven’t been living together. He’s been working out of town, and I have been going to school in another state. Now that P.C. has had some time to change, and I have had some time to focus on school we are getting back together.
Now that is how you string the guy along, ladies! And if it doesn’t work out, just remember your secret multi-millionaire hunky handyman is only a mouse click away!
But not all guys are guilty of the above referenced crimes against humanity. Some guys are guilty of a totally different kind of offense. For example, in the section for women to bitch about their boyfriends, the lone post is by a woman whose boyfriend inexplicably won’t commit! meesha59 bravely bares her pain:
Been dating my boyfriend for approx. 7 years – still no commitment. How long is too long?
Seriously. What is wrong with these men who can’t commit?
The reason there is no “Should I Divorce Her?” is that the phrase “Yes, unless she’s the rich one.” would make for a very thin site indeed!
I want children a lot, which is the only reason to get married. If you don’t want children, you’re better off with serial relationships.
However, taking the red pill and reading these blogs by men has made me realize that marriage in this country is not worth it.
I’m trying to figure out how to expatriate. Seriously.
she sure sounds like a gem. smh.
Life is better when you’re SINGLE! Thank goodness I don’t have to put up with any bitch or her rationalization hamsters…
I recently tried to inform others about the problem with certain women (and male authorities catering to women) in our society. This was within the topic of the Fr. Corapi kerfuffle and his recent announcement. The comments on http://www.theblacksheepdog.us demonstrate MPAI (most people are idiots). It is well worth listening to the statements Fr. Corapi posted.
The vast majority of the posts from traditional Catholics (majority of commenters are women) is that there shall be no mention of women being a problem, no exposing of a particular woman’s craziness and a man accused should just suffer in silence with humility and pray. There is much animosity directed at Fr. Corapi for his actions after being accused of sexual impropriety with an adult woman in spite of the unsubstantiated accusations from a demonstrably disturbed woman.
The only place where unpleasant truths can be discussed is in the manopshere. Seriously, there is no hope of reversal to sanity without a collapse first.
So…. it’s a Dalrock site for females?
Dan – “So…. it’s a Dalrock site for females?”
Really!?!?
Dalrock is staunchly pro-marriage, and thus takes on pro-divorce sites; yet you cannot tell the difference?
I’m nominating your comment above for “Stupid Comment Of The Week”. [I’ll also point out that it is prime example of “Stupid Comment Of the Weak”]
Dan has a long history of thoughtful comments on this blog. He once spotted a math error. Another time he added his insight on Obama’s birth certificate. And then of course there is his latest contribution. He clearly likes the blog, but isn’t quite sure how to run with the big dogs. Don’t worry Dan, you’ll get the hang of it sooner or later.
Lol, I presume you consider yourself a “big dog”, Dalrock? That’s… cute?
As for the math error — when you write a post all swollen with self-import about your analytical abilities, and then fail at 4th grade arithmetic… yeah, that’s worth pointing out.
Oh, and slwerner, what I meant that it’s “Dalrock for women” is that it’s a site for women to bitch about men, whereas this is a site for men to bitch about women. Are you one of the “big dogs” Dalrock mentions, because… that’s kinda slow for a big dog.
[D: It isn’t that I don’t appreciate your math checking ability, but you have been following this site for over 6 months and have never offered anything but a few snide comments. I get the impression that it makes your day when you think you have me tripped up in some petty error.]
You get your rocks off denigrating women. I get my rocks off denigrating you. Live and let live, right?
[D: So long Dan.]
Dan–
Dalrock does not denigrate all women. What he’s denigrating here is the entitled attitude that American feminist culture teaches women to have, and the expectation that all or by far most marriage adjustments should rightfully fall on men.
Dan–
As well you’ve made zero substantive rejoinder. These observations that these sorts of deeply felt and marriage breaking complaints about trivial things are almost entirely one sided, American woman sided, ring deeply true to me and I think by far most people. I think they ring pretty true to most women too. Notice we haven’t had a single one make a rejoinder yet? If we do, I imagine it will be an ad hominem attack along your lines.
Doug 1 said what I was thinking as I read through the exchange between Dan and Dalrock. I don’t think it’s possible to be as pro-marriage as Dalrock is and be a misogynist at the same time.
The truth is that through media, legal shenanigans, and rewarding inappropriate female behavior, we’ve created an attitude of entitlement in western women (American women in particular). Dalrock points that out. Yes, men make their share of mistakes, too, but the law calls them to account for it. That’s the difference and you can’t really blame men for feeling increasingly disenfranchised.
As for the post in question: The fact that you couldn’t find a comparable site for husbands speaks volumes, I’d say.
Welcome back Dalrock. I will add I’m an not a scholar but there are three sites that have enough information and knowledge to change western society. the spearhead http://www.the-spearhead.com/ Citizen Renegade http://roissy.wordpress.com/ and yours here Dalrock. Very good for a man to read . I have 2 daughters and a very young son and a modern american wife. (all burden) Kids are great, wives are a huge problem with no end in sight. I have my work cut out for me. My oldest is 10 and I can see signs now in my daughters that they are going to desire masculin men. In todays misandry infected world the only guys that will have indicators of masculinity are crimminals. Noncrimminals gina tingle like wimps. (Thank you feminism )
Feeling it’s the biggest mistake after 10 months, not a good sign. My wife feels our first year was rough but I don’t think it got to that point. Well, not all marriages out there were a good idea.
The thing about wives’ complaints though, is that it’s another thing that you have to read the hindbrain on, not listen literally to what she says.
She might be posting about him playing too much xbox, for example. But that probably isn’t the real problem at all, it’s just what her anger and mistrust of him focuses on at that point in time. The real problem may be he’s not paying her enough personal attention and she feels taken for granted. Or that he isn’t taking his classes seriously enough and she wants him to be more focused. She feels the frustration over the xbox but if he solved the real problem the xbox wouldn’t be an issue.
So yes there is this complaint about the bottles in the recycle bin. But don’t be fooled into thinking she really is considering divorcing him over the recycle bin. It’s some other problem she isn’t mentioning, probably one that really is more serious. She’s not mentioning it because she may not even realize it.
If he literally just followed her complaint and considered it done, she’d get even more frustrated. The complaint itself is content free, just take it as a warning to pull it together and figure out what the subtext really is.
Yeah, I had the exact same thought when I read that.
The real problem has nothing to do with overflowing trash or leaving the toilet seat up. The real problem is that the man has lost hand / frame in the relationship (or perhaps never really had it in the first place). Whenever that happens in a relationship with a woman, it’s the beginning of the end. The man always must keep hand.
Women are told they can have excitement and joy every day – and when it’s not delivered, it’s the man’s fault.
Really, they were sold a bill of goods and now they don’t like it. The problem is, the men almost always end up paying the price.
Have some perspective. Women have always gathered together to bitch and whine and cry and smile and laugh: this is what they do. Women sit and idly gossip, complaining and whining. It’s the nature of women. They all harbor malice and spite for each other, play the worst, most destructive status games with each other, and play emotional games the likes of which would make most men bleed tears.
The modern Oprah-inspired bitchfest that is American culture is inspired by this insipid female behavior. Men don’t do this; when we bitch and whine, it’s hard-core bitching and whining for a purpose, then we stop.
The website you linked to is just another incidence of this ancient behavior. No change.
The difference is that this encourages women to leave marriages.
There’s nothing to do about it. One rule, for men:
DO
NOT
MARRY
THEM
They’re absolutely, completely, without reserve not worth investing in long-term relationships with.
UNLESS
you want children.
In which case, marry for children. Make it clear. And maintain hand at all costs: Psychological power in that case is more than necessary, it’s survival. She will destroy you if she can. And she doesn’t understand what she does; so don’t believe what she says, look at what she does. And simply being reliable and decent isn’t enough (this may in fact harm you).
Don’t believe me?
Look around.
I’m looking through the forums and there’s lots of women whose husbands are cheating or addicts or other stuff definitely divorce worthy.
Then there are a bunch of letters that say about the same thing: my husband is an arrogant asshole, he nevers cleans, he orders me around and expects me to cook … Gee, wonder if these are the same women that “asshole game” worked on so well when they were single. Well you got what you wanted, a husband who’s nothing if not self-confident all the time. (Pause here to allow all the hamsters to split hairs over terminology)
@ Dan: I don’t see Dalrock denigrating women. I see him as a proponent of marriage, (something I disagree with) and a bit of a pioneer in the Gender Reconcilliation Movement.
What I love about this guy, and this site, is the willingness to allow other POV and arguments, and what appears to be a fair hand in evaluating positions that aren’t his own.
I love this site because it challenges me, and makes good points in an area where I see very little positive regard; Marriage.
[D: Thanks Oak.]
Gorbachev: You sir, created a brilliant post… again. I love the way you write, and format your posts. They are insightful, powerful, and indeniably logical. Cheers!
However, I found my fatherly position to be strengthened, not diminished by my lack of a matrimonial ring. Why would having children change your advice?
In the event a relationship goes sour, you go before an anti-male/anti-father judge in both cases. However, in the case of an unmarried father, the mother has to pay for her own legal fees. In the case of a marriage, she can simply draw out the proceedings, forcing the man to pay for both lawyers until he is destitute, or agrees to her terms.
Why would marriage help in that situation? In my case, my daughters ex gave up custody to me within 2 weeks of her first legal bill. I wanted my daughter, she just wanted revenge, so I won.
@Oak,
You make a good point.
My reason for saying is I might have to get married to have children. If I have them without getting married, my family – brother, father, sister, etc. – will be shocked and outraged. If I marry a black lesbian, that’ll be okay, so long as I get married. Not being married and having kids is the most crushing shame to my family. My father will never relent; he’ll love his grandkids, but he’ll despise me. He might admire me quietly. But he’ll publicly despise me.
I actually value my family. I intend to rely on them to help with the kids: I’ve been a VERY good uncle so far, so I expect some payback, too.
The family pressure is intense. Without marriage, my mother will be shocked. She never really got over me being divorced.
These things still exist.
Perhaps I’ll find a balance. The problem is: My state is the worst for marriage for men. Women literally rape men in court. It’s the worst possible mix of conservative white-knighting and feminist man-hating legislation anywhere. They call it the People’s Republic for a reason.
If I could get married in Texas, … well, then.
All of you are stupid and young. Choose carefully the first time and stick to your man and work it all out. You will be rewarded in 20 years.
[D: Welcome to the blog L!]
@Gorvachev
Why not get a nice good protecting prenup? Or no woman you had dated will accept to marry without the right to rape you in court? No trying to be nosy but I’m genuinely curious about your dilemma.
@ Gorbachev: Ah! Now I get it. I can understand your plight now. Social pressure from those we respect is a most powerful motivator.
Once my ex-GF realized I was in this fight for my daughter till the bitter end, and she’d have to pay for the opportunity to fight me in court, she quietly capitulated giving me custody provided she didn’t have to pay any support. (A real paragon of motherly virtue, eh?)
I think this is how it would happen a lot more often if men learned to keep their engagment rings in their pants, and avoided marriage entirely.
I’m not Gorvachev, but I’ll throw in my two bits since I’m of the same mindset as Gorvachev.
1. Prenups are often thrown out at the discretion of the judge, and the trend over time in our legal system is for them to be thrown out more often.
2. Prenups can’t protect you from the “alimony as child support” scam.
3. The way prenups are treated various tremendously by state to state (and by country to country), and it’s hard to predict if you’ll end up in divorce court in an unfavorable juristiction.
4. Prenups don’t protect you from a lot of the things that happen in divorce, including WAVA, restraining orders, loss of custody, etc.
@Stephanie Rowling,
In Massachusetts, prenups are useless. Judges shred them. Men regularly lose property their families have owned for generations, and are written up in prenups. Usually, whole prenups are thrown out for tiny causes. Even divorce lawyers admit that in Massachusetts, if a guy gets way with only paying a huge alimony and half of all of his stuff – if not more – while the wife doesn’t even have her income considered, it’s good for him. In Massachusetts, divorce court is a wholly, 100% female-centered legal forum. There’s no place for men at all.
When I got divorced the first time, we split the house; we had no kids. My lawyer – a woman – ran a pretty good deal, but my ex wasn’t bitter and the divorce was reasonably amicable (we even still see each other and socialize in the same groups). That said, I got away without alimony: Alimony is the worst, most abusive form of man-hatred around. There’s no justification for it at all: It’s not 1850. Any woman who can’t work or expects to sponge off an ex husband for the rest of her life is a useless turd. Feminists also feel this way, but they tolerate a system that literally screws men.
And then there’s child support – stealth alimony. Mass has the worst record for enforcing joint custody and visitation, but one of the best records for extorting and jailing guys who can’t make child support payments.
Any illusions about this being an equal game are shattered by reality.
I was a pain-in-the-ass the first few years of marriage. I really didn’t understand men and couldn’t figure out why my husband wasn’t as conscientiousness as I was. It seemed as though he must be doing it on purpose just to annoy me.
Fast forward many years later and I honestly don’t give a rip if he takes out the trash. Most the stuff those women complain about seem so silly. My husband does a lot of the stuff I HATE doing and I am quite thankful for that (i.e. I hate making phone calls and I really hate plunging toilets.)
@ Gorbachev
I also live in Massachusetts. Believe it or not, Susan Walsh and I live in the same freaking zip code. But yeah, the marriage game here is definitely rougher for men than most places.
And it’s my view that no-fault divorce is not the problem. I don’t know any man who would want to stay married to a woman who no longer loves him, is ornery, or is unhaaapy for any reason. Let her walk—fine. I think the real problem is, 1) default mother physical custody, and 2) the wife being able to leave and take half his shit plus alimony.
You leave no-fault divorce intact, but get rid of the monetary and custody incentives and the marriage crisis is solved overnight.
@Gorvachev and @greenlander.
Sorry to hear that. I though prenups were a valid form of protection, this laws are really screw up. I guess you will need to learn to screen out the best possible woman you can get and I don’t know keep her away from feminists somehow. Herd mentality is a bitch and as told here many women start really well intentioned and the sisters convince her of their innate victim-hood and all is lost.
Hard position to be in. My sympathies to you and any other under the same dilemma.
Paige
I was a pain-in-the-ass the first few years of marriage. I really didn’t understand men and couldn’t figure out why my husband wasn’t as conscientiousness as I was. It seemed as though he must be doing it on purpose just to annoy me.
This is an important observation. Most men are not as tidy as a lot of women are. Some men are very good at keeping important things clean, such as the kitchen, but still are not very tidy. The collision of “tidy” vs. “not tidy” can cause stress.
The most important thing, though, is the comment “it seemed as though he must be doing it on purpose just to annoy me”. It’s really easy to get into thinking that way, for both parties. It’s also generally wrong, and will only do harm to the relationship. This, in my opinion, is where women get all amped up on “co-mun-i-ca-tion” as a cure-all. But what is being communicated may or may not be useful. If it’s “Why do you keep driving me crazy by doing (thing)”? that isn’t so good. If it’s “You know, this (thing) bothers me, is it important to you?” might work better. This is not an observation directed at you, Paige, I’m sure you and your husband have worked those things out.
Fast forward many years later and I honestly don’t give a rip if he takes out the trash. Most the stuff those women complain about seem so silly. My husband does a lot of the stuff I HATE doing and I am quite thankful for that (i.e. I hate making phone calls and I really hate plunging toilets.)
A lot of people are raised now to be aware of their “rights” and not their duties, and want to make sure they aren’t doing more than 50% of the work — with their roommate doing the other 50%. That’s ok, I guess, for roomies in a dorm, an apartment, a barracks, etc. but it is a fail in marriage. Every couple needs to work out their own solution to things like doing the taxes, keeping the family accounts, yard work, and so forth and so on. Keeping photographs of toilet lids indicates a bigger problem, as others have noted. One of those problems likely could be “thinking of the man in the house as a roommate, rather than a husband and lover”. IMO.
@Dragnet,
You’re right.
But as it stands, marriage benefits women *only*. It’s a wholly female-centered contract. There’s literally nothing in it for men; if a woman demands marriage, it’s a net loss for a man, regardless of how it turns out.
Marriage is for women. It’s a form of legal punishment for men.
I would do it for family, because I value family. There’s no woman I’d do it for if that were the only motivator.
Dan:
The Amerobitches do a fine job of denigrating themselves without any help from Dalrock.
Dalrock:
And people seriously argue that women don’t WANT to get divorced? LOL. Just about every guy I know who’s been dragged through that hell had his oh-so-sorry/OMG-it’s-not-my fault spouse merrily doing some other guy long before he even got served with the papers.
Divorce, to most American women, is nothing but a pension-scheme; they tolerate monogamy and then they collect support both for ‘their’ kids and for the deadbeat new boyfriend they’re shacked up with.
Greenlander’s right again: embargo the Amerobitch and find a real woman elsewhere.
Great job on this! As far as being a sloppy husband and other complaints, I wonder did these women not see these traits before they married him. Most seem to live together for at least some time before marriage or at least sleepover and see each other’s places often enough. I guess though the woman still thinks she can change him once married.
Laura Grace:
My suspicion is that it has less to do with wanting to change the man than it does with making certain that there are plausible excuses for a divorce or seperation later on.
It amazes me how these same women, who brag about how ‘giving’ and ‘loving’ they are when involved with some abusive thug, never bother to give or love or tolerate anything from even a half-way normal man. Dalrock’s last comment about the ‘commitment issues’ I think was closer to the truth.
That’s a good point, Eric. It gives them an escape plan.
@Eric
Thanks.
But to be perfectly clear: it’s not just the Amerobitches. This culture is toxic for marriage (marriage 2.0), and at the end of the toxic marriage you have divorce 2.0.
To really be free, you have to expatriate and not bring the girl back. If you want marriage 1.0, you have to live in a place that has marriage 1.0.
There’s plenty of mostly civilized places in the world that you can live that still have marriage 1.0. They’re just not in North American and Western Europe. China, Russia, Ukraine, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, etc. are perfectly fine places to live if you can take something that resembles a western income stream with you. In countries like those where Big Government doesn’t backstop bad choices for women, an upper-beta guy is a real catch… and for that upper-beta guy the marriage isn’t nearly as much risk because those countries still have divorce 1.0.
That ‘dan’ guy used to pull that shit at Double-Minded Man’s blog, till he got banned from there (IIRC); ’tis a pattern… Pathetic.
Gorbachev–
Yes, but get the kind of prenup even if you’re wanting to marry to have children, that I recommend: a prenup that mimics living together in the event of a divorce, more or less. That should be the man’s starting position, and then he can be moved a little from there.
It will take a lot of educating her in red pill swallowing to get her to think this is fair. It really is given all the facts around who files for divorce, for what reasons, and how one sided the results are against middle class and up men. This education will be far easier if she’s living with you. The basic thing you’re arguing is same financial rights, but moving to social total commitment. Which is unenforceable today for both sexes, but he financial is enforceable only agianst the man in the vast majority of marriages. Even if she makes more then the man, she gets custody, she gets net money form him big time almost always. Plus that’s not your situation, that she does or seems likely to earn more.
The basic bottom line is this. Prenups can’t protect men from all the injustices of divorce 2.0 in America but they can from a lot of them, if they’re well crafted.
Prenups probably aren’ t cost effective for working class men, except in states with life time alimony after so many years of marriage. For middle class and esp. upper middle class and up men they are.
Contempt is the marriage-killer. Contempt is the thousand little-divorces that precede the legal divorce.
It infects the marriage, at first with few symptoms – mistakenly diagnosed at first as anger or petulance.
The disease spreads itself into the marriage’s immune system – passion for the other.
Contempt is the anti-infatuation.
Infatuation distorts time-preferences, judgement of character, focuses on the good and calls it sublime, sees the neutral and calls it good. Infatuation sees the other only in the best light. Contempt – the anti-infatuation – does the opposite. It shades memories of the courtship to accentuate the negative. Then the new perspective on the past becomes prologue to its doomed future. Everything is now viewed negatively, even acts of kindness or love.
IF you catch it in time, there is a course of treatment, but it requires discipline, humility and patience, which is why most people would rather just complain and let it run its course than fix it.
@Doug1,
Exactly. There’s no way to really protect myself. But I want kids.
So I’m going to have a proper prenup drawn up, but be smart about foreign assets. Nice and untraced.
I was clever this way.
When it comes to other things, I plan to make sure it’s understood. Anyway, I’ll be maintaining hand for as long as possible.
Considering what I’ve managed so far, I’m thinking I’ll be okay.
Off to Korea for two months. Hah.
“Will S. says:
June 23, 2011 at 10:23 pm
That ‘dan’ guy used to pull that shit at Double-Minded Man’s blog, till he got banned from there (IIRC); ’tis a pattern… Pathetic.”
The same at mine. He’s a smart guy, too bad he squanders his talent on hit-and-run trollery.
Oh, BTW, great job again as always, Dalrock.
The new has worn off and I am home alone on a Saturday night with a lukewarm invitation from the man I’m dating to join him for drinks after he is finished with his family dinner. *sigh*”
And from your post on Divorce is also about power:
“What I’ve had the extreme bad taste to point out is that you can’t launch a nuclear war without suffering from the blow-back. ”
I heard ALL about my deficiencies during my divorce. But surprise, surprise. Flash forward to eight months post divorce. My ex complaining on the phone how our friends ask me to do things and don’t invite her out at all. The fantasy bubble popped and she could not accept her new reality.
Blow back indeed.
Excellent post Dalrock.
Pingback: But remember: men are the shallow ones « comminate
I would like to amend something I’ve read here. They say you should only get married if you want children. I contend that you should get married so that you can get as much sex as possible. I’ve never had any problem with the ladies, and I get way more tail married than I could ever hope for single, and I don’t have to work hard for it, and don’t have to worry about unwanted children or diseases or stalkers, either.
The older I get the more convinced I am that sex is 90% of the problem, women don’t usually know they want it until they already have done it. Though my wife seldom outright turns me down (I’m not an ogre), she often starts with the eye-rolling and “ok, whatever” and then 5 minutes later she’s.. well, you can well imagine. The point is, when we’re regularly having sex not only does it make her feel good, she knows deep down she’s keeping me happy, and that makes her happy.
Often when women bitch about their men it’s a passive-aggressive thing where they lash out fearing they are the problem, and by taking the offense they hope to get you, the man, to admit you’re the problem (i.e. shit test). Ironically it is kind of your fault, as the man you should know what will keep you happy (sex) and how to ask for and get it from your wife. The real problem isn’t the trash, or the dog, or the beer, or the TV, or whatever. The real problem is that when she isn’t having sex with you, she is somewhere certain that you are getting it somewhere else, and it drives her mad.
If that’s true, then why are there all these blogs about “married man game” and “gaming your wife” sprouting right now. There’s lots of sexless marriages out there.
On top of it, the man has no real leverage if he’s not getting it and she doesn’t want to dole it out. He can’t leave, because divorce 2.0 will clobber him. Spousal rape and VAWA keep him from insisting on it.
For an guy making any kind of real money, it’s better just to pay for it than get married if sex is the only thing he wants. (I personally don’t pay for it; I’m just pointing out that in the long run paying explicitly is cheaper than marriage.)
Fast forward many years later and I honestly don’t give a rip if he takes out the trash. Most the stuff those women complain about seem so silly.
I agree, Paige. People who would chuck their marriages over trivialities have no business getting married to begin with.
“If that’s true, then why are there all these blogs about “married man game” and “gaming your wife” sprouting right now. There’s lots of sexless marriages out there.” – Game as applied to wife will get you all the poon you want. Just learn how to push those buttons, and why she does what she does when she does what she does, and marriage is a heck of a lot easier. Sadly your point is correct about sexless marriages, this is one reason for the high divorce rates.
Happily, I don’t have any real money. I am like the wise man in Proverbs, neither rich nor poor, for if I were rich, I might grow proud and say “who is God?” while if I were poor, I might be tempted to steal and disgrace my name and Gods, too. I do not kid when I say I pity those if their wealth prevents them from knowing the happiness of a union between a man and his wife. Personally I would rather be happy than rich, as long as I’m not going hungry.
@Greenlander
If that’s true, then why are there all these blogs about “married man game” and “gaming your wife” sprouting right now. There’s lots of sexless marriages out there.
True, but interestingly Athol has written basically the same thing he is saying. In fact his comment reminded me very much of Athol’s book. I think the missing piece is knowing how to keep the attraction up (which Athol of course also addresses). If you aren’t having sex, something is typically very wrong. Dan in Philly is assuming it is because she doesn’t know she wants it until he takes the lead, and that is certainly a possibility. If the husband has slipped too far down the beta scale though the problem could be more serious.
Dal, it’s true I like to oversimplify, which I clearly did here. However lack of sex is always a problem, and frequently we overthink things to the point where we claim it’s not the “real” problem. Sometimes, that might be, but if you as a couple commit to having as much sex as possible, you would be amazed at how much better everything else seems to suddenly get. And in my experience, when there’s not enough sex going on, it’s because husband has failed to take the lead.
[D: Well put.]
One other thought. I’m not in the camp that suggests that it is the man’s responsibility to game his wife to keep her faithful, etc. She has an obligation to keep the solemn promise she made. I think if a man assumes this responsibility he actually weakens his status in the marriage. Her being a flake or a whore is never his fault. With that said, he shouldn’t deliberately tempt fate and fail to try to meet her needs either. Just like a wife should want to make herself attractive for her husband, likewise the husband should for his wife. I don’t think game should be the glue that holds the marriage together, but it can do wonders tuning up the marriage for the benefit of both the husband and the wife. This also ties in with the recent discussion from the other side of the equation regarding women who marry a man they aren’t attracted to or truly in love with. If the attraction and love is real there is no need to synthesize it, which I strongly suspect would become exhausting over time.
Off topic, but might I recommend reading this: Manifesto for the Conscious Woman [h/t Vox Day]
I’m curious as to what others here think. Mary & John seem a bit too “New Age-y” for my tastes, but I did like the thoughts behind their Manifesto.
Greenlander:
Those are great points. Ideally, the situation would (although it takes some investment) to have a place abroad and one here and spend some time in both places. But if you choose a girl from anywhere other than Western Europe or Japan, our idiotic immigration laws will pretty much make it a moot point as to where she lives.
Your right about the cultural toxicity; I won’t even date immigrant girls I meet here unless I know that their female friends are immigrants too. As for the countries you listed, if you’re bilingual and Catholic, most of Latin America is a good bet, too.
Terry:
Judging by the divorce statistics, trivialities probably play a huge part in most divorces. Really if the government was interested in putting a stop to this garbage, they’d ban no-fault divorce and go back to the system they had before where parties had to prove in court objective, clearly-defined reasons for dissolution of marriage. This will never happen, of course.
slwerner:
I think the Manifesto was well worth reading. Interesting that this same couple was able to get the HuffPost to publish a “Manifesto for the Conscious Man” but they shot them down on this “Manifesto for the Conscious Woman.”
New Agey or not, I admire this guy’s and his wife’s willingness to say what many people want to say but won’t. Except in the manosphere, of course. But there’s something to be said for putting your name and face behind this type of talk. It’s the only way true change can even begin to take place.
Thanks for sharing that!
This is my last commenr Dalrock, promise, 🙂
But I was so intrigued by the Woman’s Manifesto that I had my daughter (almost 17) read it, and then we both read the one written to women from men. Her thoughts were interesting, and mirrored mine a great deal. This is what she said:
The “Dear Woman” piece was full of vague generalities and spiritual mumbo jumbo that meant nothing. Some of it wasn’t even true. For example, the idea that women are easier to forgive gracefully and make peace than men are. [She’s in high school and knows how brutal females can be not only to young men they don’t resepect, but to one another]. The parts about men not respecting women’s need for time to relax struck her as particularly ridiculous because in her admittedly limited experience men seem to work far too hard and rest far too little. The “Dear Men” piece struck her as far more accurate and full of concrete and measureable ways that men have been mistreated at the hands of women and the heavily biased legal system.
Either she’s really smart or we’ve been talking about this stuff more than I realized.
Y’all have a great weekend!
[D: Good stuff Terry. I always enjoy reading what you have to say.]
“I would like to amend something I’ve read here. They say you should only get married if you want children. I contend that you should get married so that you can get as much sex as possible.”
I agree , completely Dan. If a person marries just to have children, and there is no real spark or attraction to begin with, then there is a good chance of said marriage failing..
Having sex frequently, in marriage, establishes a deep continuing bond and connection.Women should be having sex with their husbands because apart from feeling good it relaxes and releases tension. Sleep in is often much better too. And, as a result, she is more likely to be happier in the marriage and less likely to whinge and complain about trivial matters like toilet seats and taking out the trash. *rolls eyes*
” If you aren’t having sex, something is typically very wrong.”
It’s something my mother always said too, Dalrock.. Basically it goes without saying..It’s not rocket science, eh?
I have seen couples who have drifted apart due to not spending enough time together and having sex.
“And in my experience, when there’s not enough sex going on, it’s because husband has failed to take the lead.”
I don’t however necessarily agree with you on that one Dan..
Some years ago, when my husband was busy establishing his business, things stagnated (sexually) for awhile. He was devoting all his time and energy into making the business a success,(and I was very suppoetive of that) so he could provide for his family (and it is indeed now a thriving business) So, I took the lead..
Sent him risque text messages.Gave him short back rubs when he came home from work.. and whispered suggestive things in his ear..(even when the kids were driving me nuts, I’d block ’em out for a few minutes. lol.) I would go into his office when he was working late at night, instead of going to bed by myself and the kids were asleep, and… 😉
My husband didn’t have time to get me in the mood.. And, in any case was extremely focused on establishing his business..(And as many men already know, getting a woman in the mood can be a damn hard job sometimes.) So, I guess you could say I got myself in the mood 😀
Just sending him sexy text messages used to get me going as well.. It still does..
That was a turning point for us.. The sex is still frequent and it’s better than ever..
My opinion.. Never be complacent in marriage.. And (this is for the women) NEVER ever place the kids ahead of your husband.. He needs love affection and attention too.
“Either she’s really smart or we’ve been talking about this stuff more than I realized.”
I need to say that your daughter is both right and wrong. Women are easy to forgive their own herd, but cruel to people that threaten the herd or are from other herds. The thing is if you are part of the herd and start to “ask too many question” you can easily become a thread and not realize it. Women can be incredibly loyal mothers, daughter sisters best friends colleagues… can be incredibly kind and supportive among each other… But if you make a mistake a woman is the most cruel enemy you could possibly have, mostly because women tend to avoid a direct confrontation till they have assured “the kill” and low social cost or none for their actions, what it looks sudden backstabbing from behind was probably plotted for months, YMMV.
An interesting difference between men and women is how men can truly give a fuck about what society thinks about them while women, no matter how much they say, simply can’t. In this case, is it me or isn’t there a single significant example in the internet of a divorceé regretting her decision and cheering women to not make the same mistake, or a ex slut calling for a more careful escalation with men? It seems to me that, no matter the path, women will never dare to admit they did the wrong choice. It strikes to me how, for women, being perceived as self-admitted losers in life is closer to hell than the whether they truly are or not.
“In this case, is it me or isn’t there a single significant example in the internet of a divorceé regretting her decision and cheering women to not make the same mistake, or a ex slut calling for a more careful escalation with men?”
I think women being hipergamy are incapable of accepting any devaluation in status no matter what. But you do see regrets when is about upping one status. There had been many women that married virgin regretting that choice and writing about it. Obviously becoming experienced is more desirable than being a successful virgin thus regretting that means that the modern sisters will forgive you and greet you with open arms as a new status.
You know I deep down think this types of blog will help our case more than damage it. I mean what any woman with two functioning brain celss is not going to read this and continue thinking that women are using their “liberties” wisely. I know manosphere think all women are dumb, but dumbness has its limits, after a while some women will start to have their Frankenstein moment “We had created a monster” and try to look for answers somewhere else, YMMV.
Pingback: Liberalism? Ick. Speculation? Meh. — Dark Brightness
“Been dating my boyfriend for approx. 7 years – still no commitment. How long is too long?”
He is committed—to being her boyfriend.
Any site that encourages divorce… ain’t good. But the bigger damage is done by movies that feed into the Eat Pray Love meme.
Regarding Massachusetts…
I think this is a good litmus test for feminists to determine if they are truly for “equality” as they say.
When I meet a self-proclaimed feminist, I will have this routine statement and question for hem (not a misspelling):
“Alimony can be awarded for life in Massachusetts for life. In 96% of the cases where this happens, it’s the man paying the woman. There is an organization that is actively seeking to reform this law so that alimony payments are for a fixed period of time. Do you support those reform efforts?”
Let the waffling begin.
My view is different from Dan’s. I do think Dalrock is a very good MRA writer, for the most part. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he writes, but the MRM needs different viewpoints. I like his writing.
And, I don’t agree Dalrock failed 4th grade math. He is wrong when he says he has proved there is no marriage strike. But, it is calculus he doesn’t understand, and there is no disgrace in not fully understanding calculus. In today’s educational system, I believe most college grads don’t understand it. That is why I have suggested several times he find someone who is good at math, and learn why his math is wrong. Ditto for anyone who thinks he has proved there is no marriage strike.
The issue at hand is one simply cannot change the rate of any formula and obtain the same results. His figures on “at least one marriage among 40 year old women” is based on the marriage rate 15 years ago, when the 40 year olds were in the average marriage age.
Here are the marriage rates per 1,000 unmarried women:
Number of Marriages per 1,000
Unmarried Women Age 15 and
Older, by Year, United States:
1922 99 (found on Web)
1960 73.5
1961 72.2
1962 71.2
1963 73.4
1964 74.6
1965 75.0
1966 75.6
1967 76.4
1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8*****
2000 46.5
2004 39.9
2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)
2009 36 (UVA 2010; project moved from Rutgers)
Note the average 40 year old was the average age of marriage around 1995, and the marriage rate has been sinking ever since. That’s because there is indeed a marriage strike.
It is sad when something as easily verified as the math in this issue can cause conflict in the MRM.
@Anon age 69
The problem with the metric is in the definition. It isn’t the number of marriages per 1,000 marriage aged women, it is per 1,000 unmarried women. I don’t think anyone would disagree that the trend over the time period in question is for women to marry later and divorce more often & sooner, and to (again over time) be less likely to be able to remarry after divorce. What this means is that a larger percentage of marriage aged women are unmarried at any given point in their lives than before even though as the census data shows roughly 90% of 40 year old white women have married at least once. The denominator has been increasing, which would dramatically change the result even if the number of marriages and the size of the population remained the same. As I’ve explained before, the source data the Marriage Project uses shows that for a large segment of the period of time you reference the total number of marriages was increasing while the marriage rate per 1,000 unmarried women was declining. I explained it here, but this is the chart with the data. Part of the issue is that population was growing faster than the number of marriages, but a very large part of the change being measured by the metric you keep citing is due to women who marry spending less time being married. Since the issue at hand is divorce theft, a man who marries an older less hot woman who divorces him isn’t proof of a marriage strike.
I studied a fair amount of calc in college to get my economics bachelors degree. My engineering major roommate was surprised at the amount of calc we had to learn. Still, I admit that having not used it for approximately 20 years I would need a refresher before I could calculate integrals and derivatives. If you can find someone who can specifically point out an error which I have made I would be happy to learn from them. This isn’t personal, it is simply a math problem.
I’ve never asserted that women in their 20s today will be able to marry at the rates of women who are 10 or 20 years older than them. In fact, I have often stated that this would surprise me. I’ve shared the data numerous times that today’s 20 something women are getting married at much lower rates than the women who are just 10 years older. We don’t disagree on the data here. Where I think we part ways is in how we interpret the data. My fundamental assumption is that when there is a shift in marriage (or remarriage) rates for a demographic the group which is in the SMV power position is the one most likely to be driving the change. Specifically, I don’t see men refusing to marry younger women in favor of their older sisters. I think it is most likely that it is women in their 20s who are deciding not to marry, with the likely expectation that they will be able to marry in their 30s. This is the message being sold to young women. What the data can’t yet tell us is if this gamble will pay off. I am skeptical that it will, as I have stated many times. But the data doesn’t yet show a marriage strike, at least not one of any significant size. In 5 or 10 years we may well have the proof needed to back up this assumption.
Stephanie Rowling
You know I deep down think this types of blog will help our case more than damage it. I mean what any woman with two functioning brain cells is not going to read this and continue thinking that women are using their “liberties” wisely.
Based on what I’ve seen in my life, the number of women who would do as you suggest is a distinct minority. “In my life” isn’t just websites on the net, it’s people I have personally known, including women who have divorced men for the stupidest of reasons.
I know manosphere think all women are dumb, but dumbness has its limits,
However, there do not appear to be any limits on human stupidity, defined as “an inability to learn, or a stubborn unwillingness to learn”. Just today I encountered a woman in a brand new Chrysler sedan, a 200 or a 500, in crimson red. She was somewhere in her mid to upper 30’s, with a daughter somewhere between 10 and 12 years of age. The woman was average looking, a bit pudgy, with a brand new permed hairdo. A third party informed me she just finalized her divorce two weeks back. The child is very sad because she’s attached to her father, whom she will get to see every two weeks. So here’s this woman, with her brand new car no doubt bought from a settlement check, totally average hausfrau, and her shy, sad pre-teen daughter. And she’s going to do better than the man that she very likely just dumped (66%, remember?) exactly how?
She won’t do better, odds are. She’ll either find herself alone much of the time, or spending time with men she considers to be losers. Because she’s from a small town of 40,000 or so that’s 100 miles from anything bigger, her social circle ain’t gonna be that big. And this is not in some coastal hot spot, this is in flyover country.
Doing the same thing over and over, with the same results, is more than dumb. It’s stupid. And so I conclude that some percentage of women are stupid. Some percentage of men are, too, but they aren’t the ones tearing the hearts out of pre-teen girls (66%, remember?).
after a while some women will start to have their Frankenstein moment “We had created a monster” and try to look for answers somewhere else, YMMV.
I agree that some women are having a definite Frankenstein moment. And more power to them, especially when it comes to bringing their sisters to their senses. I’m all in favor of that, since I do like living in an industrial civilization. But many, perhaps most, are not having that moment. They have no clue what they have contributed to. It would be interesting to find out just how many women over 40 are married and living with their husbands. The numbers would be skewed by widows in the over 65 group, so maybe the data set should be 40 to 65. That would encompass the entire baby boom, and we know the boomers were and are fond of divorce. Just look at some of the ads on OKCupid and other social networking sites.
Because frankly, I suspect that most of the increase in “number of households” within that cohort consists of divorced people living alone.
Well, this is interesting, in part I get to answer my own question.
Dalrock, here is an interesting article, although it’s from a questionable source (The McClatchey newspaper chain of the MSM).
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/06/14/1273375/single-female-retired-broke-the.html
Here are some data points offered:
About 40 percent of female baby boomers are single now – up from 30 percent in 1989 – and most never meant to be. Nationally, there are about 17 million single females ages 46 to 64; about two-thirds of them separated from, divorced or buried their spouse.
If this data is correct, then in the last 22 years the number of single boomers has increased by 1/3, and they are not all widows, either. If it is true that 66% of women aged 46 to 64 are separated, divorced or widowed, then yeppers, looks like a Frankenstein moment is indeed looming up.
Because notice what the article is about: single women who are retired and broke, impoverished, etc. although the article spends more time whining about how “no one told them’ to save for retirement than discussing the “D” word. The “D” word needs to be discussed, because while two people can’t live as cheaply as one, they sure as heck can’t live as cheaply as two if they are keeping separate domiciles.
Say, what if it could be shown that divorce impoverishes both men and women? Or has that already been done…
Good find Anon Reader!
Because notice what the article is about: single women who are retired and broke, impoverished, etc. although the article spends more time whining about how “no one told them’ to save for retirement than discussing the “D” word. The “D” word needs to be discussed, because while two people can’t live as cheaply as one, they sure as heck can’t live as cheaply as two if they are keeping separate domiciles.
Say, what if it could be shown that divorce impoverishes both men and women? Or has that already been done…
Yes, I think it proves exactly that. This has been my sense looking at the larger picture as well. The other piece of the puzzle is that divorce initially creates a false sense of wealth for (frivolous) women because they are no longer under adult supervision. No new wealth was created, and they aren’t getting a bigger piece of the pie than they did when married (certainly not net cost of living). What the shopping bag strutting new divorcée is doing is squandering her (unfairly allocated) portion of the couple’s nest egg. This is ok if she can find another sucker down the road to bankroll her irresponsibility, but as the stats show this is less and less likely. Part of that is because men are slowly wising up, and the fact that women who marry later tend for obvious reasons to find themselves looking to remarry at a much older age than women of previous generations. Young, hot divorcées don’t have much problem finding a new mark if they want one. Old bitter not hot ones do struggle to find a mark, as the ok cupid data and a truckload of other data shows.
No one told these people (men refuse to save plenty too) they had to save for retirement the same way nobody told the people suing cigarette companies that smoking causes cancer. Well you know who will pay … It’s us trusty beta cubicle types. The same suckers, uh reliable providers, who already paid for health care and school for the kids of all the F-and-run badboys. The new paradigm is why have a husband when you can just take what you want from each man like a buffet. These people know what they’re doing when they make these choices, they were just making a bet that somebody else would turn up to save them later. Now they want to play dumb because it’s the best way to get others to have misplaced sympathy for them. And nobody in the MSM will have enough balls to point that out.
And this same line of B.S. was handed to us by all the people who bought half million dollar houses in SoCal in 2005 too. They got greedy, bought houses they couldn’t afford (because you know, there’s such a shortage of housing there that prices will keep going up) and then when they lost the gamble, pretend nobody explained that they really would have to make 5000/month mortgage payments after the rate reset. And then ask for the bailout.
Make a bet, and if you lose, claim you didn’t understand the rules. Same old pattern and it’s still a lie, not to mention beside the point (ignorance of the agreements you make excuses nothing). Yes I’m annoyed.
This speaks to the frivolity of at least some of these women. From the article: “Drake, the retired teacher, is also looking for the same sort of supplement. She earned $2,200 a month from her pension plan, but she has been nibbling at her savings to cover fun activities and travel. She has already spent the $40,000 profit she made when she sold her house last year.”
So in one year she spent $66,400 with pension of $26,400 so that she could travel and enjoy “fun activities”. Yes that is great retirement discipline!
@Stephanie Rowling:
“I know manosphere think all women are dumb, but dumbness has its limits, after a while some women will start to have their Frankenstein moment “We had created a monster” and try to look for answers somewhere else, YMMV.”
It’s ideology not intelligence. To understand this you must see the truth, most of these women are not prepared to confront any of the realities that they face, let alone take responsibility for their part in creating them. Kind of like the teacher in the above quote. Knows exactly what her pension is, and blows through the profit on her house. I doubt that she is truly stupid, just unwilling to face it and when she is finally forced to do so, you can bet that it will be the fault of someone else.
@Gorby
Couldn’t you just move? After all, you do travel a lot with work anyway?
Also, have you talked about your parents about it? May be worth it they may surprise you. I would never have imagined years ago that my parents would be ok with my current situation. But they’ve just got to a stage in their lives that they saw all their children married off and what happened with each and also what happened with their friends children and they are way more laissez fair than I could have ever imagined. In fact, a few months ago I spoke to my pa about us looking at getting married and he advised not to for legal and financial reasons, until at least the chicklets arrived (I nearly fainted with shock lol). Perhaps your parents may be more easygoing than you think?
@Lily,
I’ve tried to arrange moving. I may in the near future. New York isn’t much better for any of this.
But it’s better.
As part of my industry, I need to be relatively local here to find work.
“However, there do not appear to be any limits on human stupidity, defined as “an inability to learn, or a stubborn unwillingness to learn””
Well humans are lazy, they always take the immediate reward if the bad consequences are in the future. The thing is that the future is now sites like this are going to be very open to the silliness of many of this things, like Witchhunt hysteria.
“It’s ideology not intelligence. To understand this you must see the truth, most of these women are not prepared to confront any of the realities that they face, let alone take responsibility for their part in creating them.”
True. But even so, when French Revolution became corrupt beheading everyone that dared to question the republic if took a while but eventually people opened their eyes. I really hope it doesn’t take a tragedy for this to happen, so small glimpses of women showing the fruits of their labors is the second best, I used to go to Jezebel and not all of them are happy with some of the misandrist comments and articles. Maybe they are not ready to separate just yet but is not like all of them are blind, the herd is powerful. Sadly the best solution would be to make manosphere more herd like friendly but this is even harder to do, oh well I still think some women will look at this frivolous site and realize this was not what they were expecting and search for alternatives, YMMV as usual..
“He clearly likes the blog, but isn’t quite sure how to run with the big dogs. Don’t worry Dan, you’ll get the hang of it sooner or later.” Nice asshole remark, you snob.
Pingback: A Detailed Description of Divorce Fantasy | Dalrock
@Chris
Any site that encourages divorce… ain’t good. But the bigger damage is done by movies that feed into the Eat Pray Love meme.
I think this is a bit like trying to decide if porn in magazines is worse than porn on video vs internet porn. Movies like EPL are especially problematic because they are openly flaunting their pro frivolous divorce message. Women demonstrate their approval by reading the book in public or going to the theater, and find that most of society (including their church) doesn’t really much care. But the internet version is unrelenting. Wherever women gather on the web there will be very strong and pervasive messages selling divorce. You just don’t see it because as a man you aren’t their target audience.
Gorbachev—
The state law which governs divorce is not that of the state in which you go married by that of your principle married residence when she files for divorce. Yes I’m absolutely sure of that.
Get married in Mass if you want, but leave the damn state. NY is far better than Mass for example and good for your line of work. California with it’s lifetime alimony after ten years isn’t so hot, but that can be waived in a prenup. Cali definitely does honor properly done prenups as does NY. In both alimony can be completely waived, unless perhaps the woman would otherwise be a ward of the state. Make sure a wife works.
This is a vast exaggeration. Yes Mass is the worst. It’s probably not possible to completely eliminate alimony in a long marriage there, but you can sharply limit it. You can definitely sharply limit property transfers in Mass with a prenup.
Make sure your wife doesn’t be a stay at home mom forever in Mass or many other states.
Pingback: Rotating Polyandry and NAWALT | Dalrock
“What this means is that a larger percentage of marriage aged women are unmarried at any given point in their lives than before even though as the census data shows roughly 90% of 40 year old white women have married at least once.”
But, as was mentioned, why are you focusing on the 40 year old women? Forty year old women in 2011 got married, on average, at about age 25, which was in 1996. By focusing on the women who get married 15 years ago you are missing the effect of the strike in the last 15 years.
“As I’ve explained before, the source data the Marriage Project uses shows that for a large segment of the period of time you reference the total number of marriages was increasing while the marriage rate per 1,000 unmarried women was declining….Part of the issue is that population was growing faster than the number of marriages, but a very large part of the change being measured by the metric you keep citing is due to women who marry spending less time being married.”
“Part of the issue” indeed! You are moving back and forth between “rates” and absolute numbers. The total number of marriages means nothing whatsoever. What matters is the rate of marriage. The population rose, but the marriage rate dropped. Yes, there were more marriages, but the per centage of women who got married declined. How hard is that to understand?
“I’ve never asserted that women in their 20s today will be able to marry at the rates of women who are 10 or 20 years older than them. In fact, I have often stated that this would surprise me. I’ve shared the data numerous times that today’s 20 something women are getting married at much lower rates than the women who are just 10 years older. We don’t disagree on the data here. Where I think we part ways is in how we interpret the data. My fundamental assumption is that when there is a shift in marriage (or remarriage) rates for a demographic the group which is in the SMV power position is the one most likely to be driving the change. Specifically, I don’t see men refusing to marry younger women in favor of their older sisters.”
Of course not, that’s a straw man, if it’s not a red herring. NO ONE asserts that men are refusing to marry younger women in favor of older women. The real point is contained in your first sentence, that women in their 20’s today are less likely to ever get married than women who were in the 20’s 10 to 20 years ago. Somewhere in time, women who are in their 20’s today will want to get married, but won’t be able to, because men are striking.
“I think it is most likely that it is women in their 20s who are deciding not to marry, with the likely expectation that they will be able to marry in their 30s. This is the message being sold to young women. What the data can’t yet tell us is if this gamble will pay off. I am skeptical that it will, as I have stated many times. But the data doesn’t yet show a marriage strike, at least not one of any significant size. In 5 or 10 years we may well have the proof needed to back up this assumption.”
You have every right to be “spectical,” because women in their 30’s are much less desirable as marriage partners. Even assuming you are correct that it is women in their 20’s who are refusing to marry (and I question the gendering there, it seems to me that both men and women in their 20s are eschewing marriage), when they get older, they will be hit with the strike, just as their “older sisters” are being hit with it now.
Forget the calculus and the interpretations and the assumptions and keep it simple
(continued)
From the Washington Post, citing the US Census:
“Nearly a third of adults never marry at all. That number has marched upward in every age group over the past decade and a half.
“In 1986, one in four people ages 25 to 29 had never married. In 2009, that was true of almost half in that age group. The number of adults 50 to 54 who have never married also jumped during the same time period to one in 10.”
Now, I know you have an argument viz a viz the 25 to 29 year olds, but read the second sentence,,,for every age group over the last 15 years, the per centage of adults who had NEVER married has “marched upward.” And the last sentence….for adults 50 to 54 the percentage of NEVER marrieds has “jumped.”
From the New York Times:
“In 1980, only 6 percent of men in their early 40’s at all levels of education and 5 percent of women in their early 40’s had never married. By 2004, this portion had increased to 16.5 percent of men and about 12.5 percent of women.”
See that: women in their forties. In 30 years or so, the percentage of them how have NEVER been married has more than doubled.
Also from the NY Times:
“In 1950, 90 percent of white female high school graduates had married by age 40, but fewer than 75 percent of college-educated white women had tied the knot by that age. By 1980, college-educated women began marrying at higher rates and closing the education-marriage gap. That year, 92 percent of 40-year-old white female college graduates had married, compared with 96 percent of similar high school graduates.
“Since then, marriage rates have fallen for all women, but now the chance of marriage by 40 is about the same with or without a college degree. In 2008, 86 percent of 40-year-old white female college graduates were married, compared to 88 percent of those with only a high school degree”
In 1980, among college educated women, 92 per cent were married by age 40, as were 96 per cent of high school grads. But by 2008, only 86 per cent of 40 year old college grads had married, and only 88 per cent of high school grads.
Yes, most women now in their forties have been married. But the percentage is going down.
@ruddyturnstone
The data will always be backward looking. There is no way around this. In the meantime, we can speculate (and it appears you and I are in agreement in our speculation).
All I am saying is we need to look at the census data directly and not the misleading rate per 1000 women metric. I’ve written this in posts before. There are multiple problems with going by the rate stat instead of looking at actual census data. 1) Changing demographics likely accounts for much of the change we are witnessing. White women marry at very different rates than black women, for example. Also, with Latin American immigration we have people showing up already married. The wedding doesn’t get counted, but it doesn’t mean there is a strike. 2) If we are in a period of transition where women are postponing marriage but still (ultimately) marrying at the same rates, during this period of transition we will see fewer weddings. 3) Women spending less time being married changes the denominator. This is related to item 2 but still different (item 2 impacts the numerator).
The metric has too many problems for us to try to use. It certainly doesn’t prove the census data false as Anon 69 has claimed.
As I said above this is speculation. The data isn’t in yet. There is no data yet that men are driving lower rates of first marriage. There is data which I think shows that men are driving a remarriage strike, but this is something different.
Which older sisters? 78% of all white women aged 30-34 in the US today have married (some have of course since divorced). Ten years ago this same stat was 82%. Given the absolute numbers, a 4% swing isn’t an impressive strike. This is less impressive when you look at the women in the next age bracket, 35-40. 87% of these women have married today, vs 89% ten years ago. The women in the first half of their 30s will probably look very much like their 5 year older sisters five years from now. Maybe they will drop another few points, but I don’t think it is likely less than 85% of them will have married when the census looks five years from now. Think about it. How unattractive does a white woman have to be to not marry? The census isn’t leaving out morbidly obese women, lesbians, militant anti marriage feminists, etc.
But maybe this is where our disagreement is. What type of non marriage rates do you think would constitute a marriage strike? If only 80% of women can marry would you declare this a marriage strike? What if 70% of all women can marry?
(continued)
Or better yet, check out Table 1 from this Census Bureau Study done in 2009:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf
For the total population of women, the white population, the non hispanic white population, the hispanic population and the black population, in virtual lockstep, across EVERY age group with the possible exception of the over 55s, the percentage of never married women rose year by year, decade by decade, from 1986 to 2009. For white non hispanc women, the figures look this this:
1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.0 11.3 8.2 3.8 4.2 2.6 4.8
1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.1 14.3 10.9 7.7 5.9 4.6 3.6
2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.1 17.1 12.3 9.0 7.1 5.9 3.1
2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.3 18.6 12.3 9.9 8.4 7.4 4.4
2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.3 22.0 13.5 10.3 9.4 7.8 4.7
With the first column being women aged 25 to 29, the second column 30 to 34, the third column 35 to 39, the fourth column 40 to 44, the fifth column 45 to 49, the sixth column 50 to 54 and the seventh column over 55. As you can see, it is NOT merely the 20 something women “putting off marriage” at work here. Women in their early thirties were twice as likely to have never married in 2009 than they were in 1986. Even among your precious 40 year olds, there has been a huge increase in the rate of never marrieds…in 1986 only 3.8 per cent of non hispanic white women aged 40 to 44 had never been married, in 2009 that per centage had more than doubled, to 10.3 per cent. For such women aged 45 to 49, the per cent rose from 4.2 to 9.4. Even for women in their early 50s, the per cent rose from 2.6 to 4.7.
So, in conclusion, yes, of course, women (and men) in their 20’s “waiting” to get married increases the overall percentage of never married adults (it is now over 30 per cent) without defininitely proving that those twenty somethings of today will never get married in their lives. (Although I wonder if it has as big an effect as you think…we hardly experienced a baby boom twenty to twenty five years ago, and women are living longer and longer, so the percentage of women in the older age groups must have been increasing, but leave that aside.). Still, that doesn’t in any way account for women in the thirties, much less their 40s and 50s, being much more likely to have never married now than was the case in 1986. Perhaps men and women in their 20s are on a marriage “strike,” but all cultural and sociological soft data indicate that women in their 30s, 40s and 50s want to be married, but have a hard time finding a man who will do so. And this is not solely about remarriage, as the data above deals exclusively with women who have never been married. Men are saying no, if not in their 20s, then in their 30s, 40s and 50s. And they are saying no to lifelong single women, as well as divorcess and widows.
“The data will always be backward looking. There is no way around this. In the meantime, we can speculate (and it appears you and I are in agreement in our speculation).”
SOME of the data looks backward. Not all of it. See above.
“All I am saying is we need to look at the census data directly and not the misleading rate per 1000 women metric. I’ve written this in posts before. There are multiple problems with going by the rate stat instead of looking at actual census data. 1) Changing demographics likely accounts for much of the change we are witnessing. White women marry at very different rates than black women, for example. Also, with Latin American immigration we have people showing up already married. The wedding doesn’t get counted, but it doesn’t mean there is a strike. 2) If we are in a period of transition where women are postponing marriage but still (ultimately) marrying at the same rates, during this period of transition we will see fewer weddings. 3) Women spending less time being married changes the denominator. This is related to item 2 but still different (item 2 impacts the numerator).”
Yes, look at the census data that I have provided. It deals with rates, and it is specifically directed towards women who never married. So, remarriage and foreign marriage have nothing to do with it. And, it is broken down by ethnicity, so we can leave out everyone but non hispanic whites. And it is broken down by age groups, so the effect ot todays twenty somethings “delaying” marriage can be factored out. And what does it show? It shows that for every age group, the percentage of NEVER married women has risen sharply.
“Which older sisters?”
You were the one who mentioned them, as if it were the case that todays’s twentysomething men were somehow “preferring” older women, a claim which I haven’t seen anyone make.
“78% of all white women aged 30-34 in the US today have married (some have of course since divorced). Ten years ago this same stat was 82%. Given the absolute numbers, a 4% swing isn’t an impressive strike.”
Isn’t it? It means that the percent of never marrieds has gone up by half.
“This is less impressive when you look at the women in the next age bracket, 35-40. 87% of these women have married today, vs 89% ten years ago. The women in the first half of their 30s will probably look very much like their 5 year older sisters five years from now. Maybe they will drop another few points, but I don’t think it is likely less than 85% of them will have married when the census looks five years from now.”
Again, it depends on how you look at it. For every age bracket, including the 35 to 39 year olds, the per centage of never marrieds has increased signficantly since 1986 (from 8.2 to 13.5). Social change doesn’t happen over night, you know.
“The census isn’t leaving out morbidly obese women, lesbians, militant anti marriage feminists, etc.”
What difference does that make? They weren’t left out of the data for 1986 either. My assumption is that this group is no larger now than it was then, yet the data still show a statistically significant increase in never married women.
“But maybe this is where our disagreement is. What type of non marriage rates do you think would constitute a marriage strike? If only 80% of women can marry would you declare this a marriage strike? What if 70% of all women can marry?”
I think the trend is more important than some arbitrarily reckoned number. The trend means that more and more women, if they want to marry, will have to “settle,” will have to marry “down,” will have to do the courting. Already, there are signs of all three scenarious increasing. It means the bitchiest and nastiest women won’t be able to marry at all. And that means that maybe, just maybe, there will be pressure to reform the marriage, family and divorce laws. Women just love marriage, especially to hard working, wealthy men, despite a half century of feminist propaganda telling them how “oppressive” it is for them. As more and more men, and more and more of the “better” men (as they figure it), refuse to marry them, it might, just might, cross their minds that they have to make it a better deal for men, make it more fair, more truly equal, if they want to have a chance at it all.
@ruddyturnstone
I don’t think you and I are really that far apart on this. If you haven’t checked out my posts on the topic I would ask if you would please do so. Marriage Strike? is where I started on this and it has links to follow on posts clarifying my position more. I’m not saying nothing is happening, I’m saying the stats being used are misleading and it isn’t entirely clear where all of this will sort out.
I have no doubt that some proponents of the marriage strike are “cooking the books” when it comes to statistics. And, maybe you’re right, maybe we aren’t actually that far apart in our views. Basically, I think we both believe that today’s twenty something women are going to find it much, much harder to get married as they get older and older. And, over time, that means the prevalence of marriage will decrease significantly. Also, your chart, comparing percentage of never married women from 1999 to 2009 is not so different from the one I cited, comparing 1986 with 2009. They both show the same trend: for all age groups of women, the percentage of never married is increasing. We know that women love marriage, and actively seek it (at least once they reach 30), so, to me at least, this proves the existence and success of the marriage strike.
Great blog, by the way,and thanks for the discussion.
ruddy
Pingback: Evidently I’ve hit a nerve! | Dalrock
ruddyturnstone July 4, 2011 at 1:08 pm
“The census isn’t leaving out morbidly obese women, lesbians, militant anti marriage feminists, etc.”
What difference does that make? They weren’t left out of the data for 1986 either. My assumption is that this group is no larger now than it was then,”
Have you not been on peopleofwalmart.com, read about slutwalks, been to a college, etc., recently?
I cannot imagine someone thinking that the percentage of U.S. women that are obese hasn’t risen in the past 26 years. (Hint: It has, dramatically.)
“The new has worn off and I’m by myself…”
Sounds suspiciously like Jenny Erikson to me.
Sites like this are gifts that keep on giving to the men’s movement.
Contempt – the anti-infatuation – does the opposite. It shades memories of the courtship to accentuate the negative. Then the new perspective on the past becomes prologue to its doomed future. Everything is now viewed negatively, even acts of kindness or love.
This is an extremely insightful statement, and the emphasized part was a recent experience.
I had been dating this attractive woman for a while, and things seemed to be going well. Then, we had a minor disagreement–or so I thought. It was not even a disagreement as such. But her response to that incident was to recall another incident when I had gone to visit her after work (she lived in a different state). Although I was tired and groggy after an overnight shift, I still made the trip the following day, and I made every effort to be good company while at her place. All this to demonstrate my comitment to the relationship. But her interpretation was to complain that I came to visit her when I was tired!.
Meanwhile, this is a woman who would not so much as make a cup of coffee for me while I was helping her put her stuff into the car before we went on a trip! I had to cut her dead behind loose and out of my life, and I am glad I did. Some women are simply too damaged to be considered a companion.