Commenter davver made the following point in the discussion on Alpha Women, Beta Men:
Without disregarding feminism, I really doubt any ideological movement could explain the huge change in behavior we’ve seen throughout the developed world in regards to marriage. The truth is things like modern economic automation, technological advancement, globalization, and the pill have all had such radical effects on gender relations that the traditional model probably won’t survive. If I had to guess monogamy as we know it will probably not survive, irregardless of whether everyone all decides to abandon feminism.
While there are undoubtedly powerful disruptive forces at work against traditional marriage, this is only looking at one half of the equation. These powerful forces are lined up against biological reality. Children need fathers; those who embrace the culture of single motherhood will tend to devolve down to the underclass. We are already seeing very strong evidence of this on both ends of the SES spectrum. Upper class more intelligent parents are much more likely to do what it takes to raise their kids in an in tact household. On the bottom end of the SES spectrum we see high rates of out of wedlock births and divorce.
The other biological reality I think we will see is the strong desire of women to have the status and validation which comes from having a man invested in them. Serial monogamy has the allure of offering women this investment without their own commitment, but this isn’t a viable long term plan. As women come to understand this better this will influence their choices more and more. We already see women acting accordingly, even though the pro divorce message is deafening. We can see this in the data demonstrating that divorce rates drop dramatically as women get older. Despite all of the nonsense about how women are done with men after a certain age, etc. women’s likelihood of divorce strongly tracks their perceived ability to remarry or at least achieve something approximating marriage. The original post davver made this comment on is another example, albeit less direct. The ultra competitive career women in the article are extremely unhappy that they didn’t wind up with the traditional arrangement, even though they followed an extremely untraditional path. They still want a worthy man to demonstrate that he is invested in them, even though it is extremely unlikely.
Right now marriage is assumed to be something every woman can have once she is ready. So far the data (at least for white women) has proven this correct. Instead of a full fledged breakdown of the institution of marriage, I expect that eventually we will see husbands (and marriage) becoming something more scarce, and therefore more valued by women. We already see hints of this with the completely out of proportion gnashing of teeth about where have all the good men gone. Imagine the reaction if there actually was a shortage of eligible men willing to marry. In the meantime I expect that we will see even more social upheaval, with children and unsuspecting honest men continuing to be the ones who bear the brunt of the cost.
See Also:
The driving force behind all of this will be the end of Big Government. Present spending levels and commitments can’t be sustained at any level of taxation, even if you assume people will work the same amount at 100% tax rates.
When women can’t “marry” Big Government anymore (through makework government jobs, food stamps, welfare, free health care, child support enforcement, state-supported divorce 2.0, workplace laws and policies favoring women, etc.) having an actual man around will have a much higher premium.
I do not believe that marriage will resurrect from the dead. It will continue on its downward path to oblivion.
And for the children, the big gubmin, which will surely grow bigger, will need tax payers in greater numbers. I think that with the new technologies, neither men nor women will be necessary to produce children: the gubmin will produce its own and raise them (like cattle) in huge state farms.
An attempt of that sort was made in the former Soviet Union. Uncle Sam will do it, too, with much better results. The implication, for the gubmin, are huge and the return on investment will be immense.
Lucky will be the ones who will be authorized to have “natural” children, but the conditions the gubmin will impose will be very hard to meet.
I fully expect general slavery to be the normal status of humans in the future. This future will have been facilitated by the institution of feminism planetwise.
Good bye freedom!…
Nineteen eighty four will be implemented in totality.
The world of tomorrow will be ultimately authoritarian in nature.
It seems to be what the people (or at least women) want.
I hope I’ll be gone by then…
I find much of the anxiety about the death of monogamy overblown. As I’ve said in previous posts, while I don’t think monogamy is natural for some people, I do think it comes fairly easily for others. (The natural ratio seems to be about 50-50, which is the divorce in societies–both modern and tribal–that allow easy divorce.) Those other cheating folks, for the most part, are those who tend anyway to be the least future-oriented and most dysfunctional elements of society. I agree that you see/will continue to see this among lower SES folks, no matter what other factors you control for. You also see it among the ultra-rich; consider Paris Hilton, for example. (I think the common denominator is nothing to lose/can’t lose because the family fortune makes you untouchable). The middle class, which is the backbone of America, tends to be more conservative, stable, future-oriented, etc. then people on both ends of the spectrum. Attaining middle-class status both calls for certain genetic traits and reinforces other cultutal traits that stabilize society. The future belongs to the K-selected despite a growing underclass, which I predict the middle class will eventually tire of enabling.
There’s a fantastic academic paper on the evolution of marriage that most readers here would find interesting: The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage. Author(s): Andrew J. CherlinSource: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Nov., 2004), pp. 848-861.
[D: I found a link to this paper.]
In brief, the authors note a key transition–just in the last century or so. In our grandparents’ generation, marriage was simply “what one did”; it was a key marker of adulthood, a transition to which most young people not only aspired but felt obligated. This obligation, it was assumed, was needed or expected for the greater good of society as a whole. By contrast, marriage today has become much more hedonistic. For example, if you listen closely to the present dialogue, the benefits of marriage are more often couched in personal terms or in what marriage can do for me, myself, and I. Marriage has become an institution to benefit the personal much more so than the social. (Not to digress, but this dialogue has most recently been made apparent in the various arguments for gay marriage). The attendant corollary–which this blog has rightly scrutinized–is that marriage is, therefore, only of value as long as it benefits one’s self personally and should be terminated as soon as it “no longer works for me.”
I suspect in the coming decades, we’ll see this trajectory continue. The ability to enter into (and exit) the institution will follow what’s advantageous to the spouses individually (never mind the kids, the joint happiness, or the greater social fabric). We will see greater acceptance of marriage not for “all time”, but instead for “this particular time or stage in my life”.
I also suspect that we’ll see greater and greater effects of this hedonistic style of marriage in juvenile problems, kids raised outside of two-parent households and, more specifically, a growing number of children without fathers. …Though the public at large will be loathe to acknowledge the true cause (i.e., the change in the institution of marriage). Rather, the poor outcomes of fatherless children will be confounded with and blamed instead on issues of poverty, poor access to healthcare, and lack of social support (e.g., education opportunities, government assistance).
Although Davver is right (feminism rides on the back of technology); and although Dalrock is also undoubtedly right (most men – even some women – desire company and committment) one tends to see things from one’s own little corner of the world. Mine shows, that women are marriage-averse, save for practical considerations, and that men marry for the sake of the woman (to do the right thing) – so much for patriarchal oppression:
Friend 1 – Shotgun – so he did the decent thing , but six years on they do not even sleep in the same room.
Friend 2 – Ist Marriage Shotgun – which wife walked out after seven years to a new man (kept the two children).
– 2nd Marriage, necessary as the Visa for her was expiring. The marriage looks very unstable, and worse he is now supporting her two children by her first marriage. They are childless.
Friend 3 No work Visa, so inevitable marriage. They seem stable (after twenty years and two children) but then she is fairly stable (and dull) – but interestingly they are the only religious ones; calvinistic-type xtians.
Friend 4 Would certainly marry and thought he would move in with her, but she prefers having a see-you-on-the-weekend relationship (she has a grown-up daughter – but has never married).
As for myself, I must say I cannot think that any one woman has ever shown any (long-term) serious interest (perhaps I have strange or difficult tastes) and although they complain about ‘wham-bam-thankyou-mam’ they are the ones who (nearly always) walk out (say one thing but do another). The worst thing about it is that ones male friend and acquaintances always then see it as YOUR failure, as if the woman had no will of her own – this gets very tiresome. I think that attitude is just a defence mechanism to deny the precariousness of their own relationships.
Women have it all, and can have it all, including all the gigolo-sex they want, and still maintain a virginal reputation – serious men need not apply – and unlike men, I have known more than one seemingly successful woman, who literally slept with a different guy each day (you don’t need to be especially good-looking or have any game to do that, if you are woman). I am sure eventually things will sort themselves out, but it looks as if it is going to continue to get a lot worse before it gets better. Sorry if this reads somewhat depressingly.
[D: I think your experience proves that the issues we discuss are real and that men are in many ways very slow learners. However, keep in mind that in the US at least NAWALT. I mentioned recently that 42% of ever married white women in their 50s had divorced. While this is extremely high, it also means that the majority of white women that age who have married have never divorced. There is a clear split, not all women are making the same choices.]
I believe the future will be Islamofascist, since the Christianized west is in total collapse and has surrendered to the marxist/feninist/liberal/progressive /satanic/ socialist pap and cannot seem to muster the stones to recognize the clear threat that is Islam et al. So, what you will have are western countries voting in Islamofascists and men embracing Sharia law in retaliation for the crimes of feminism against men. Western women will reap the whirlwind for their idiocy ( they have no idea that the western Christian church they hate so much, was what brought them the equality they so love to abuse) and be subjugated to slave/dog status by governments who have surrendered to the Islamic invasion. If you think I am a tin foil hat wearer, wake up and look at Europe…question, who makes up the birthrate in EVERY European country?…MUSLIMS! They will not have to fire a shot, they will simply out breed the Christians ( post Christian really…hip and cool folks sneer at religion ya know). There are a number of books that discuss this demographic time bomb, and the day of reckoning is not but a few years off. I fear it is too late to correct the course. Men though, will have a field day giving western women their comeupance…women will have no legal standing in court, no protection from wife beating, honor killing, no rights in divorce, no rights to child custody, no educational opportunity, there will be arranged marriages, bigamy (for the men only)…tramps and sluts will be stoned to death along with homosexuals and adulterers. They will long for the return of the days when Christianity guided the law and social contracts…but it will be too late.
Dalrock:
Part of the confusion a lot of MRAs have over this issue is that there are conflicting social realities involved.
One is that traditional monogamous marriage and western civilization are inseparable concepts. Our entire civilization in the west is predicated on a stable family unit—it has been that way since western civilization emerged in Ancient Greece. True, there are a lot of MRAs, mostly MGTOWs, who talk of an evolutionary movement where marriage no longer exists. Their theories are logical, and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand; but their theories are also untested. i think the future will see a lot of innovations from the MGTOW community, but whether it will ever supplant institutional marriage remains to be seen.
The second is tendency of many social cons and also Game theorists to ignore the fact that modern cultural achievements such as mass media and public education have been used as a weapon against civilization itself by fomenting a ‘gender war’ and promoting radical feminist ideology. The problem from this is that the overwhelming majority of women in our cultureunder the age of about 60 have internalized radical feminist ideology; in many cases without even realizing it. If someone listens to a teacher like Dr. Laura Schlessinger, for example, there is a lot of misandry and feminism that comes from her—yet she’s considered probably ideological the leader of ‘tradcon women’ all through the US. I don’t think either her or her followers are even aware of their anti-male biases; and think that they genuinely don’t hate men. But it’s pretty obvious that, while these ‘tradcons’ may not hate men vicerally, they do consider us as inferiors.
The only way I see of saving the institution of marriage is to eliminate American women from any part of the solution. Men who want traditional marriage and family CANNOT find it within the confines of our culture. It is IMPOSSIBLE, and it doesn’t matter how much ‘Game’ or other techniques a man learns. Women here have been conditioned since childhood to hate and despise men; and it’s a logical impossibility to assume her attitude will change by ANY masculine influence. The best solution is to pursue relationships with women from cultures who don’t have this negative conditioning.
THF – ”To some extent, this is already happening in the UK. There are Sharia courts that operate outside of British law, and British men are going there to get better terms in a divorce. Who would blame them?”
Yup! I was going to make this very point.
It was discussed at length a couple of years ago on Glenn Sacks blog, including what it would take for a married Christian” man to convert to Islam so as to ask that any divorce proceedings be transferred to the Sharia courts. It seemed quite a few guys were seriously considering doing so.
Eric – ” The only way I see of saving the institution of marriage is to eliminate American women from any part of the solution.”
This idea of (western) men who want to marry getting foreign brides is wishful thinking. There are many of these foreign brides who are just waiting for a chance to “game” the system in the 1st-world countries of their husbands/”marks”.
For every glowing account of a marriage to a foreign women that’s working out spectacularly, there are probably two about the guy who’s mail-order bride turned on him just days after the ink on the marriage contract dried.
No, if the institution of marriage is to be saved, what is going to be necessary will be to eliminate the gyno-centric/gyno-serving State as de facto contractual partner. That’s precisely why the appeal of the Sharia courts is starting to take hold in the UK.
If divorce were as (immediately) painful (financially, emotionally, and socially/religiously) for women as it tends to be for men, there would be a lot less of it. Efforts to reform the laws and the (anti-)Family Courts, while certainly worth-while, can only go so far in making marriage safe and attractive for most men. But, on the other hand, being able to invoke the right to Sharia Court’s is a quick way to circumvent the current laws and anti-male courts altogether. [hum?? Perhaps if one insists on a non-Western wife, then the best bet would be to look for a Muslim one]
Perhaps the best alternative for those who wish to preserve marriage would be for them to begin to work towards the acceptance of so-called “Coventent Marriage”, and/or private “contractual marriage”, recognized under the law, which could at the very least reduce the interference of the State in matters of family formation and dissolution.
If the current trends in State interference continue, men are going to increasingly wish to avoid marriage; and, all those “Alpha Woman” who marry “Beta Men” are going to find that even though the courts have a decided gynocentric slant, that alone isn’t going to protect them from the financial pitfalls of marital breakups. Once high-earning women realize that they don’t have it significantly better the average man would (vis-a-vis divorce), such woman aren’t going to be so willing to marry either.
@J
I think a better group to consider would be the Boston Brahmins. MA has some of the worst divorce laws in the US when it comes to incenting divorce theft, yet MA also has one of the lowest divorce rates. I also don’t think that Paris’ parents are thought of as having done a good job of raising their children by their own peers. Paris would be considered low class in a trailer park. I can only imagine what the upper crust thinks of her. You see the Hiltons as a family with nothing to loose by breeding badly; I see them as a family with everything to loose by doing so.
Dalrock – “You see the Hiltons as a family with nothing to loose by breeding badly; I see them as a family with everything to loose by doing so.”
So much so that her grandfather took her out of his will:
http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/paris-hilton-loses-inheritance/story-e6frfkp9-1111114069570
Now, I might be wrong about this, but I thought J was referring to Paris Hilton and her probable continuation of a non-monogamous, dysfunctional, and lacking in future-time-orientation lifestyle rather than the choices of her parents. I so, I do agree that the current generation of young adults with lots of unearned money are quite likely to be every bit as hedonistic, dysfunctional, and non-monogamous as any Ghetto or trailer park dwellers.
Many people, probably more than not, are aware of the danger of Islam, and I think having a separate marriage from the State is a great idea. What we need to do is abolish the unfair divorce laws to men or have independent marriages, not go from the extreme of feminism to the extreme of Sharia law.
“Not to digress, but this dialogue has most recently been made apparent in the various arguments for gay marriage”
Big surprise there. It’s all about individual happiness, I don’t believe gays should be oppressed or forced to change, but making their unions legal would be disastrous.
Dalrock, your article gave me reasonable hope about this disaster. Thank you.
I still believe MGTOW in todays society and current laws is the best way to go. Monogamous marriage and raising of children is the strongest base for any country. It is extremely powerful and produces enough to allow what we have today.
TFH’s description of what geaorge Clooney is doing will be the key. As Dalrock has stated a little more the 50% of the women married at fifty were still married to the same guy. I belieave the other group size was 42%. That bunch is the herd that will be mostly influenced by MGTOW. As more men refuse to marry and most importantly REFUSE TO HAVE CHILDREN with women, to actually be married and have children will be seen as high status for a woman. Today marriage 2.0.1a. is a women getting pregnant. A women really isn’t married until she gets knocked up. Many reasons for it but if you get tagged as the source of sperm for a woman’s child (true or not) she owns you and the government owns you. Clooney openly states no marriage and no children but that alpha dick is just too high status to go unsucked. In the end the beautiful women (the only ones with a shot at an alpha that can choose) will be older and childless just like his told them on day one. That is MGTOW at it’s best. That 42% riding the hypergamy hamster needs to have 20 to 30 percent of their number in involuntary childless spinsterhood and the rest on welfare with very low status fathers.
Chateau Heartiste and the concepts he has are dead on and need to be embraced understood by all from the MRA’s, christian groups, clergy,and pro marriage types to every father and mother.
@Jennifer
How wonderful! You are most welcome. I’ve written about this before, but no matter how difficult things are globally what tends to matter is what is local to us. Ask someone who lived through the great depression or a major war or other upheaval what it was like, and they will almost always tell you stories about their family and friends.
Along the same lines, the most practical solutions in the near term will be those we craft for ourselves. Right now marriage survives in spite of an antagonistic culture and legal environment and an apathetic church. It does so because like minded people pair off and somehow manage to resist the forces against it.
Absolutely correct, Dalrock; the ones who go by traditional values will survive with their biological and spiritual lineage. The confusion of the secular world has many people on the extreme sides either following feminism or going by Roissy’s and Sharia Law’s methods; it’s insanity in our midst. This is why Christian minds treasuring truth are precious to me.
“how difficult things are globally what tends to matter is what is local to us. Ask someone who lived through the great depression or a major war or other upheaval what it was like, and they will almost always tell you stories about their family and friends”
Quite right. I didn’t even know some of the craziness going on until I looked online, because the people I know are so fortunate and balanced; I remember thinking, “What, men are repressed? Wait a minute, sonme churches think women shouldn’t vote?” It was a total shock to me, the extremes at both ends. Sticking around feministic and anti-woman sites will drain too much out of anyone, but it’s important to know the main facts. Thanks again for your view here!
This is from Jennifer
“Many people, probably more than not, are aware of the danger of Islam, and I think having a separate marriage from the State is a great idea. What we need to do is abolish the unfair divorce laws to men or have independent marriages, not go from the extreme of feminism to the extreme of Sharia law.”
I hope this is a good lesson for you men here. Do not pay any mind to the hamster after she reads this. But this is a clear display of a woman looking out for herself. 10,000 articles of the destruction of men and children,the economy going to hell etc. etc. But bring up having to live as a woman under sharia law and we need to abolish the unfair divorce laws to men. She sees the madness in the UK. Now to relieve themselves of the madness they are going to sharia law. That is a women taking care of herself and looking out for her interest. Not for fairness to mistreated men or for the good of children, her interest. (This is natural and normal) I’ll take it because she has the vote and it is normal for her and any other woman to think like that. That is the best you can expect so as Eric stated eliminating women from solution is correct and this at a micro level is what it looks like.
“bring up having to live as a woman under sharia law and we need to abolish the unfair divorce laws to men”
LOL Some of the men around here really do have some of the hugest hamsters I’ve ever seen. I’ve been against unfair divorce laws from the start and have said so in various places. But if I dare say so here at the same time as mentioning Sharia Law, why, the latter must be the only thing I care about! These ridiculous projections are not even worth getting indignant over. Keep running, rodent.
Ok, I probably shouldn’t have added the rodent comment. But I do hate it when projections are made from, or onto, individual members of either sex.
Don’t worry yourself this is the internet,you are not talking to me but to the millions of Dalrocks loyal fans.
From my own firsthand experience I truly believe that marriage as we know it is on it’s way out. The form that I see in the future has been summed up by most here in better ways that i could state. I do agree that those at a higher SES will maintain marriage as we know it, all the while those men who haven’t reached that strata will still be subject to being destroyed in family court. For the life of me I really find it difficult to understand why anyone would get married unless children were the main focus of their coupling. It really is not worth it but that’s just my opinion.
As I’ve read the study (The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage) years ago it has continued to astound me how prescient the authors were. It’s like a blueprint of the situation we have today.
The women that I have been dealing with seem to prefer a model of subdued commitment. During the week they want to be coupled up, but come the weekend or extended holiday they want their own time. To be honest I much rather prefer this arrangement as well. I’m not sure when I noticed it but it just seems like most unmarried women these days prefer this arrangement.
Maybe this might be the future of relationships in the future…….
“These powerful forces are lined up against biological reality. Children need fathers; those who embrace the culture of single motherhood will tend to devolve down to the underclass.”
But the underclass has most of the children. Doesn’t that mean such traits amongst the underclass are more likely to be passed on to the next generation? 200 years ago being low class meant starving, dying, not being able to pass on your genes. Today being low class increases the chances of passing on your genes because abundance and the state means you won’t die from lack of resources.
I read this column in between a date with a new hottie from match.com and a later assignation with my married hottie closer to the neighborhood. Ah, marriage – been divorced for 11 years now, and the kids are finally teens. After all the lawyers, ex-wife and other whore issues, I intend to have fun.
And there are a lot of fields needing plowing out there. Your wife? She’s on the prowl, my friend. I have never seen so much humid married nookie in my life, and it’s all coming for me. I just need to keep gainfully employed, in shape and tidy. There is a thrill being with a single woman 15 years younger (I am 48) and a different thrill being with a married 40 year old who only has three hours for a drink followed by mutual orgasms, to be continued this weekend when she can get away.
The future of marriage is now.
TFH: even in its early days the core body of followers of Islam were disaffected men who wanted to turn to force to change the social order. Since the structure of Islam was set over the course of centuries of conquest, Islam retains that muscular anti-society appeal.
I don’t think that conversion to Islam is in any way a solution to the problems facing the west, though.
What critical point do you believe needs to be reached before women will move to seeing marriage as a status symbol and valuing an invested man enough to invest back?
As mentioned, there are constant cries from women about ‘where have all the good men gone?’, but the answer is never self-referencing. None of the women complaining about their singleness assume they have anything to do with the problem but rather, blame men. Men are called commitment-phobic, or ‘not man enough’ or all kinds of other things. The ‘where have all the good men gone?’ question in its structure defines all the available men as something other than good. I doubt any have ever turned it into ‘what is wrong with me that I am unable to find a good man?’.
If the trend were to worsen, at what point do you see women finally starting to make that turn? Will it happen at all?
mjay, your post not only reinforces my decision to never marry but to avoid women as well. You can have them all.
slwerner
No, if the institution of marriage is to be saved, what is going to be necessary will be to eliminate the gyno-centric/gyno-serving State as de facto contractual partner. That’s precisely why the appeal of the Sharia courts is starting to take hold in the UK.
That cuts to the heart of the matter. From what I can tell, Orthodox Jews do not have a problem with the whole divorce industry. They are rather a closed society in some key ways. If a Christian denomination did something like that, they would surely be attacked and ostracized, but they also would become an island of stability in the larger world if they actually stuck to whatever social structures are needed to retain the “closed” nature.
The alternative is basically this: marriage becomes something only rich people and a few religious people engage in. The US middle class continues to shrink, and parts of the US begin to look more and more like the 3rd world (a process already underway in some cities like Detroit).
Just so no one addresses me again, I’m ducking out of the discussion; the topic makes me anxious. See you guys; thanks again Dalrock.
Meh.
There have been a lot of trials run throughout human history, and it’s pretty clear that only good ol’ monogamous patriarchy produces societies that are worth a damn in terms of power and influence. Culture, custom, and practice have more to do with a society’s structure than the underlying technology — otherwise all societies at the same level of development would have the same social structure. The West has caught a form of sickness/madness that is causing it to abandon its most elemental structures, and it is very unlikely to survive without them.
Some other society will stumble onto the “magic” combination of social institutions that produce wealth and power, grow, and dominate. So marriage will do just fine in the long run — it’s just not clear in what society that will be.
Extra fun notion: The destructive evils of feminism will have been amply recorded and illustrated by the trials of the West. After its fall, this is an idea that will never be let out of its cage again.
“[D: I think your experience proves that the issues we discuss are real and that men are in many ways very slow learners. However, keep in mind that in the US at least NAWALT. I mentioned recently that 42% of ever married white women in their 50s had divorced. While this is extremely high, it also means that the majority of white women that age who have married have never divorced. There is a clear split, not all women are making the same choices.]”
But in the UK at least according to a survey 59% of STILL MARRIED women WOULD Divorce immediately if they COULD AFFORD IT. Can you imagine what the quality of the marriages are like, continuing to live with wives who are ONLY remaining married to you because their is NO PROFIT in divorce.
I know its the daily mail – could they be making it up possibly – but there are a lot of unhappily married people who only remain together because of finances or the children. I’ve heard too many stories in real life and online, to not believe that is probably not too far from the truth.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-508804/59-cent-wives-leave-husbands-afford-it.html
[D: I’m skeptical of their results. Note that the survey was done by a divorce law firm. The whole thing reads like an infomercial for divorce legal services (including mediation) and marriage counseling. Talk about literally selling divorce.]
These comments paint a grim picture. I think for the time being, Marriage 2.0 will limp along with ever dwindling participants. Men who really want to get married might opt for Marriage 2.0 with add ons: mandatory paternity testing for children, alimony waivers and airtight prenups — all in writing of course. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking but I suspect the state laws might liberalize to allow these.
I think there wlll be ever shrinking pockets of marrieds for a long time until the coming economic shakeup: Christians, tradcons, socons, those who want children, the upper echelons of the SES. The trends Dalrock is mentioning seem to be borne out. Those of higher SES have the best chance of staying married.
I tend to agree with greenlander and other commenters here that a large part of this depends on government and its role. The current system was unsustainable 30 years ago. It does not have much longer. The entire system will collapse. When it does, and the money has at long last run out, women I suspect will return to making the best of it as they did at the turn of the 20th century.
@Will
Your comment to the comment left by Dalrock on my earlier comment (thanks Dalrock) is of course very depressing for any man, but does rather suggest (as the examples of my married friends show) that with women (after some initial sex/romance) they quickly come to see their relationships with men in financial terms. (Men, of course, no matter how impoverished, NEVER see women in financial terms). Doubtless there are evolutionary reasons for this. The liberalisation of Divorce Laws just brings this into focus (and creates an unequal playing field as Dr Johnson would surely have observed). The somewhat embittered comments that one sometimes sees at The Spearhead, that all women are whores, does perhaps have more than a grain of truth. I am thus reminded of my own Second Law, that: Whenever a man and woman have sex and a financial payment is involved, then no matter which way the money is moving, it is always the woman who is the whore.
Perhaps all it really means is that women (primarily) seek protection.
Opus “Perhaps all it really means is that women (primarily) seek protection.”
Money = Security.
Hence where the state provides an alternative source of Money for Women, either through welfare, enforced child support, divorce laws etc this will conflict with/reduce Family stability or even replace Family formation. Family defined as including a Father.
Dalrock is right and you have correctly outlined the differences in class. In my experience, the upper middle class still find high status in being married, not divorcing, and having children.
At the same time the large number of children being produced without marriage or influence of committed fathers is a major concern long term.
The marriage divide between the classes will probably continue to widen, but marriage will still be a goal for many.
Dalrock,
Here’s an article from the good ol’ Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2029765/Im-childless-I-havent-Mr-Right–hurts-infertility.html#comments
This poor woman was fed the lie of feminism and is now unable to find a decent man to give her the child she wants.
“Hence where the state provides an alternative source of Money for Women, either through welfare, enforced child support, divorce laws etc this will conflict with/reduce Family stability or even replace Family formation. Family defined as including a Father.”
However, is this not where we begin to see the cracks in the facade a la TFH’s Misandry Bubble? The state is fed by the monies generated by marriage minded men raising their families, the more MGTOW and sitting on their collective duffs, the less money the state can take no? Would the upcoming boomer generation about to retire also have a detrimental effect considering there won’t be enough married men to replace their taxable income?
The State can only replace Men for so long, in fact, the state only became so powerful because men married and did their jobs. Technology and innovation was something that men invested into because of their families and their country. So this whole merry go round of a better and easier lifestyle, and more government services has been negatively affected with the disenfranchisement of men and fathers.
I think a better group to consider would be the Boston Brahmins.
Are they still what they used to be? It’s been years since I’ve heard much about them, but they were indeed a conservative group–I have no idea if they still are.
I also don’t think that Paris’ parents are thought of as having done a good job of raising their children by their own peers
Depends on whether or not your asking DIna Lohan. 😉 But seriously, I sure they have detractors among their peers as well as sympathizers. Paris tends to run with other rich kids whose parents did and equally poor job. Those parents probably commiserate with each other and then throw up their hands. The ones with better kids probably sit back and laugh at Hilton’s clique.
You see the Hiltons as a family with nothing to loose by breeding badly;
No, I see Paris as someone who gets a free ride because of who she is. That doesn’t mean that the chickens won’t come home to roost eventually or that Paris is a great gal.
The wealthy (as opposed to the middle class) can insulate their kids from the consequences of their actions in was you and I will never be able to protect our kids. That means we have no choice EXCEPT to teach our kids not to act a fool. If we were rich, our sloppiness would have fewer and less immediate consequences. At the risk of opening up a side debate on false rape accusations, think of Joseph Kennedy’s grandchildren. One was accused of rape and got off completely. Another was accused of murdering a teen-aged neighbor girl. I don’t recall if he got off completely or just easily. Even OJ got to walk. You don’t need breeding of you’ve got the cash. The ultra-rich can afford to make mistakes that you and I can’t.
@d and slw
Now, I might be wrong about this, but I thought J was referring to Paris Hilton and her probable continuation of a non-monogamous, dysfunctional, and lacking in future-time-orientation lifestyle rather than the choices of her parents.
That’s exactly what I meant.
I so, I do agree that the current generation of young adults with lots of unearned money are quite likely to be every bit as hedonistic, dysfunctional, and non-monogamous as any Ghetto or trailer park dwellers.
Yep. No work ethic, big sense of entitlement, lots of insulation from reality, lots of protection from consequences.
@slw
Enjoyed your last post on the Scarlet Letter thread. I responded, including a comment on the Anne Hutchinson heresy trial and its echoes in Hester’s character. Don’t know if you saw it.
I don’t believe gays should be oppressed or forced to change, but making their unions legal would be disastrous.
I saw an interesting interview of a Catholic author (possibly a former priest) on the Daily Show sometime ago. In discussing gay marriage, he suggested that govt. should get out of the marriage business all together as marriage is a sacrament. I found that an interesting idea. Perhaps gay couples should get all the benefits that marriage allows to straight couples through a civil union law but without the moral sanction of unwilling churches, synagogues etc. And there is the added benefit of no govt. interference into religion. In a double system, people who wanted the legal benefits of marriage would register with the govt. as an official couple, but the ritual and moral commitment aspects of marriage would be handled by the church of your choice.
I believe the future will be Islamofascist, since the Christianized west is in total collapse …
Or it may be that European Muslims are in for something that makes the Holocaust look like a tea party. If there is an anti-Muslim backlash,it will be very, very ugly.
detinennui32
These comments paint a grim picture. I think for the time being, Marriage 2.0 will limp along with ever dwindling participants. Men who really want to get married might opt for Marriage 2.0 with add ons: mandatory paternity testing for children, alimony waivers and airtight prenups — all in writing of course. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking but I suspect the state laws might liberalize to allow these.
When it is in the interests of women to allow such things to happen, perhaps. So long as women see “getting married” as more important than “being married” it will be an uphill push. I think that mandatory paternity testing has the best chance as legislation, and it would be fought by the usual alliance of feminists and trad-cons “To Protect Women And Children”, but if it was pitched in medical terms then that would steal “For The Children” away — hey, it’s genetic testing that has to do with health, can’t fight that one. And mandatory paternity testing would on the one hand make cuckolding more expensive, while on the other hand make carousel riding a leetle more risky – if a carousel rider can’t suddenly find some beta herb to raise her badboy’s kid, hmm.
Another thing to push for is mandatory shared custody of children. It should be the default, not woman custody (sure, default father custody would shut down a lot of divorce cases, but that’s for later). Since it is obvious that many women regard their children as tools to extract resources from men with, by taking even a bit of that leverage away divorce would be less tempting.
Alimony was originally, I believe, intended to support women who had no marketable skills. Given that women under 30 now earn as much, or more than men it is time for alimony to just go away. One way to do that would be to make it “blind” – the marriage partner who earned more in the last 3 years pays to the partner who earned less in the last 3 years, for some period of time. Once a few hundred 30-something women found that their AA status actually is costing them money, the screeching to abolish alimony save in very, special, limited cases would be loud and clear.
Basically, so long as Marriage 2.0 only hurts men, nobody will care. When it starts to hurt women, then it will be a crisis, and the Kay Hymowitz’s will start to pay attention. So the thing to do is to push for sex-neutral application of Marriage 2.0, for a start.
Anon Reader:
Good points. I suspect more and more women are looking at the involuntary spinsters in their lives and deciding they don’t want that. At least I hope so. We all compromise to get the best deal for ourselves in LTRs and marriage. I didn’t get all I wanted but I got most of it. Certainly I am not everything my wife wanted; but I am a hell of a lot better than carousel riding — and more predictable too.
The Kay Hymowitzes of the world are paying attention; just the wrong kind of attention. A lot of men are past the point of following her advice that “Hey, I know it’s a crappy marriage environment, but you men need to grow up and marry these women because that’s what women want”.. Were I to find myself single again, and knowing what I know now, I would never marry again.
Agree with MPT as a health measure. It needs to be mandatory so there is no finger pointing or mistrust. That way the wife can’t whine “Dont’ you TRUUUUSSST me??!!” And I don’t have to say, “uhhh, not really, no”.
Alimony should simply be abolished across the board.
So Mr. Vice President Dan Quayle, the media owes you an apology for the big stink they made regarding your comments about Murphy Brown and single motherhood.
@Dalrock
“I think a better group to consider would be the Boston Brahmins. MA has some of the worst divorce laws in the US when it comes to incenting divorce theft, yet MA also has one of the lowest divorce rates.”
I don’t know if you’ve followed it at all, but an Alimony Reform Act has passed both the MA House and Senate, and only has a small reconciliation before it gets to Gov. Patrick’s desk, and there’s no reason to believe he won’t sign it. Much of the bill is outlined here: http://www.massalimonyreform.org/
Alimony awards look like they will be significantly restricted compared to the status quo. Further, “Alimony shall be suspended, reduced or terminated upon the cohabitation of the recipient spouse when the payer shows that the recipient has maintained a common household with another person for a continuous period of at least three months.” Even better, remarriage will now end alimony altogether.
Of course, all bills tend to have unintended consequences, but everyone I know, male and female alike, agrees that these changes are long overdue. We’re so close, I’ve got my fingers crossed that nothing mucks up the works at the last minute.
Pingback: Women today assume they can have marriage merely for the taking | Dalrock
Kai:
From what I’ve both seen and experienced, the women who complain the loudest about a ‘lack of good men’ have decidedly no interest in pursuing such men. I’ve rarely known of cases where a really decent guy was dumped for a ‘bigger, better deal’. In most cases, the new b/f was a such a lowlife that even baboons would be ashamed to associate with him.
In contrast, the men I’ve known who are complete losers: criminals, abusers, histories of addiction and philandering &c—these men rarely have problems finding and keeping women; usually; several at the same time. Most of them have kids all over the place and never bother to pay child support. I’ve even known men who went from being decent, caring responsible men to being the most abominable jerks towards women. Now women fight over them whereas before they were chronically single.
detinennui32 good point about compromise, and that’s part of the issue of marriage 2.0; for decades feminism has taught women that basically not only can they “have it all”, but they deserve it, and any man who stands in the way of “it all” is an oppressor. The whole self-esteem scam has merely worsened that trend. It’s not a real compromise when one side basically gives up all legal rights, and the other side has the power to break the contract and continue to extract resources afterwards.
I’m going to quibble with you over the Kay Hymowitz’s. I don’t believe they are paying attention to the real problems at all, they are responding to the whinings of their Special Snowflake daughters. So far as they are concerned, if the entire misandric structure of marriage 2.0 remained in place, but men could be forced – even at gunpoint – to marry little Princess Snowflake, then all would be well and the “problem” would be solved. So basically all they want is for women to get what they want, when they want it. That’s not new, it’s just another variation on the same theme we’ve seen going back to the 60’s – “women are unhappy, therefore society must change to make them happy”. I do not see the slightest trace of introspection, and I’ve read her article in the WSJ more than once. The key is this: she basically asks over and over again “What’s Wrong With Men”, i.e. why won’t they grow up and marry…but so far as I can tell, Hymowitz and her sisters never, ever ask if there is anything wrong with women that makes men stay away from any committment to them.
Therefore, she’s not paying attention to the problem. She’s paying attention to the whines of special snowflake princesses, and nothing more. Women of her age group have benefited from 2.0 (although now, pushing 60, some appear to have second thoughts) so they are not likely to see the downside until it’s in their face. So let’s push it there, by varying means. The men who commented on her article in the WSJ are a good first step.
Eric:
That is exactly my experience. But a number of commenters talk about how as men opt out, women will start to value marriage again. I am curious as to at what point people think this will happen. I am interested in what people think will finally spur women to look at themselves as the source of the problem – because right now, women have that complaint already, but simply blame it on men. I wonder where it is thought this would turn around.
Traditional marriage is slavery, and the idealization of marriage is what folks here seem to want to revert to. Don’t mourn that which does not exist.
Men should be free to reap the harvest of post-feminist America. After my divorce, you have no idea how delightful it is to see another Brazilianed punani, something I never saw in my youth. And the new sexual trends – excellent! My old girlfriend insisted on my getting a morning wake up BJ every morning. Ahhhh!
The Garden is blossoming, not dying off. All you have to do to enjoy the display is remove your old, tired worn out glasses and see with new vision the delicious display all around you.
As the Russians say, ” Marriage is the tomb of love”. I have no desire to return to the crypt….
Kai “I am interested in what people think will finally spur women to look at themselves as the source of the problem”
Things would have to get pretty bad before women see themselves as the source of the problem. LOL. Seriously. De Nial is not just a river in Egypt.
Kai “I am interested in what people think will finally spur women to look at themselves as the source of the problem”
Don’t waste your time on a question like that. A woman will never see herself as the problem. Women can see other women as the problem if it makes her status higher. Classic example a women will claim she is pro choice and will vote that way but will claim that she could never kill her baby.
How you will know is when legislation comes up to change family law it will pass. Someone campaigning for office on a platform to restore marriage by bringing fathers home with rights and incentives to marry and actually gets elected. When a show like Povich’s “you are not the father” and the woman is boo’d and laughed at, that is when you will know feminism is dead. But always remember women are childish and self centered. They always have been.they are today and including my daughtees will be in the future. A woman will never show any man or any body respect,or empathy as just a humen being unless it is in her self interest. It is natural normal and has always been that way. Marriage and a husband will become special and respected when it is in their interest. The fear of childless involuntary spinterhood (cat lady lifestyles0 is a great start. Also a single women not entitled has to work and has to live with financial pressure with no man to live off of. I will add the older they get the less attractive they become and more assured of spinterhood their lives become. (this is when you see stories of women in there late 30’s and 40’s getting IVF while single.)
As you can see I’m a big fan of MGTOW and mjay is my MGTOW role model for the day. 25% of the men live as mjay and that will mean a full 50% of the carousel riding women enjoying childless spinsterhood. Women that want husbands get real polite.
@ greyghost
“10,000 articles of the destruction of men and children,the economy going to hell etc. etc. But bring up having to live as a woman under sharia law and we need to abolish the unfair divorce laws to men.”
This is what will finally pop the misandry bubble — when we see large numbers of women negatively affected by it. As we have seen, all the hardship that misandry/gender feminism has brought to men and children hasn’t slowed its progress in the slightest. But let a few women complain about it, and watch how fast things change.
“greyghost says:
Don’t waste your time on a question like that. A woman will never see herself as the problem. Women can see other women as the problem if it makes her status higher.”
It’s evident that you think women soulless from your other posts. but a number of the other men do seem to forecast that change in women for some reason. I’d be curious what those imagining a change believe would cause it.
Kai:
I think that women in our culture will only realize the truth when the facts force them into a position where they no longer can deny that they themselves are the source of the problem. I’ve mentioned that the only US marriage demographic that has consistently risen is between American men and foreign-born women. When women see that the ‘good men’ not only ignore them altogether, but actively seek alternatives to themselves, it will be difficult to deny it any longer.
slwlerner:
I think you’re misunderstanding what I’ve said about foreign women. It would be ‘wishful thinking’ if you accept the stereotype of the ‘mail-order-bride’ and the kinds of men who ‘buy’ them. But men don’t even need to leave America to date/marry women if they don’t want to. We have a large immigrant population that there are plenty of decent girls right here. Also, the Internet, with social networking capabilities gives men an opportunity to really know women in other countries before visiting/meeting them, if that’s what they prefer.
My point is, that simply marrying a non-American woman is not a panacea—you’re right about that. But if a man has serious intentions about serious relationships, his chances of meeting a suitable partner increase dramatically if he looks elsewhere.
It’s evident that you think women soulless from your other posts. but a number of the other men do seem to forecast that change in women for some reason. I’d be curious what those imagining a change believe would cause it.
@Kai
women are not soulless to me but are very child like and self centered enriched with all of gods gift of emotions.It took me a long time to be able to open;ly say and publicly post the things i do. The behavior of women today is childish and normal.
Also as stated before the question of when women will ever look at themselves problem is never (publicly) But Female behavior in general will change. The changes you see will be how you will know women have looked at themselves. The mechanics of how women will question their own behavior will not in any way look the way one would logically think.
Have you seen birth rates in the Islamic world? They’ve cratered. The avearage Iranian woman has 6 siblings, but only 1.8 kids. Turkey’s non-Kurdish population has a worse fertility rate – 1.5 kids per woman, way below replacement rate an on par with the worst of the European nations. Indonesian birth rates have declined to basically replacement level. Egypt and Pakistan are the only significant Muslim countries with population growth, but Egypt is in turmoil and can’t feed itself – a major problem considering a likely world-wide food crisis.
The future uncertain and the end is always near. Let it roll, baby, roll…
“When women see that the ‘good men’ not only ignore them altogether, but actively seek alternatives to themselves, it will be difficult to deny it any longer.”
Yeah, right. They will be more like “Those useless men only want to have a submissive slave and can’t handle a real woman” combined with “These foreign women are only gold-diggers”. This will be the future. Oh! I forgot! It is already the present.
In my 41 years of life, in three different cultures (Europe, USA, Latin America), in patriarchy and matriarchy, in religious countries and secular countries, I have NEVER heard a woman say sincerely: “It was my fault” and feel guilt. NOT EVEN ONE. Guilt is a male feeling.
The story that Dalrock links in the next post is an example of what I said in my last comment:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2029765/Im-childless-I-havent-Mr-Right–hurts-infertility.html
The woman has rejected every man who has been interested in her for two decades. Now, when she is 39, she says that it was not her fault, that she is “circumstantially infertile” and she deserves the pity of any infertile couple. Incredible.
@greyghost
This is it exactly. I have no experience with Eastern Europe, but from everything I’ve read women there perceive worthy husbands as a scarce commodity, and act very differently as a result. There will never be a collective “I’m sorry, it was my fault”. Those few who say something like this will be the women who never actually engaged in devaluing men. It may also come in the form of a mysterious generational shift, which the media will be perpetually baffled by.
Dalrock;
You’ve touched here on the heart of the issue when you said: “Women there perceive worthy husbands as a scarce commodity and act very differently as a result”. That’s been my experience with European women, and Latinas as well. I haven’t experienced Asians, though men who have tell me the same is true of them.
But the bottom line here is that women in our culture DO NOT value worthy men. That’s logically what one would expect where women are taught that men are unnecessary and inferior.
That’s the main attitude that will have to change if women here really want (and this is a big ‘if’) to effect positive changes in gender-relations. They’re going to have to jettison the superiority complexes they all seem to have.
Individual women can only effect significant change at the individual woman level. The few women who feel differently from the majority have about as much chance of changing the majority mindset as a man does.
Don’t forget the impact of virtual sex/sex robots. If you think a man is going to trade computer-aided sex with a perfect goddess for marriage with a shrill hag, you’re nuts. Sexual technology will be the final death blow to marriage.
The women will shame men for this. Men will not care. I would not be surprised to see suicides rapidly increase among females, as they realize they’ve been made redundant by digital females.
You know what if women decide to get “robotic babies” or robotic husbands as an answer?
Just hypothetically speaking I doubt feminism will survive long enough to convince women that the man they want can be custom made, and given that real dolls are more used and purchased by males already than by females (there is only one male model) I think instinctively they know that women can’t assign any status to a robot, but still what if this technology evolves?
Thoughs?
“But a number of commenters talk about how as men opt out, women will start to value marriage again.”
Men are not opting out of marriage in Australia.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/E0276E7B0392D0C6CA2577ED0014610D?opendocument
The 120,118 marriages registered in 2009 represented an increase of 1,362 (1.1%) from the 118,756 marriages registered in Australia in 2008. This is the highest number of marriages registered in a single year and continues the relatively steady increase in marriages since 2001.
Kathy is the increase in marriages in line with population growth?
I dont think robots will be where the virtual sex will go. Maybe a more effective way to simulate physical interaction will be a audio visual helmet with 3D imaging and full spacial sound. Combined with a coveral type outfit set up like a fighter pilots G-suit. Maybe use small air bladders instead of a large bladder that will squeeze the whole lower body at once. Something like that synced up wih the audio and visual would make a sensation of someone say grabbing your arm or rubbing your chest seem real.
Analyzing stats and figures ain’t my strong suit greyghost… Lol.. Dalrock I am not! 😉
Here is an ABS link
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0
Australia’s population grew by 1.5% during the year ended 31 December 2010. The growth rate has been declining since the peak of 2.2% for the year ended 31 December 2008 and was the lowest growth rate since the year ended 30 September 2006.”
.
You are up late Kathy you either work nights are are not in the US. Looks like the population went up 1.5 percent and the marriage regestration number went up 1.1 percent.
I’m Australian, greyghost. Live on the West coast of Oz.
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: School’s in Session Edition
Anywhere near Fremantle
Yeah, mate. I live in a suburb of Perth (the capital city) about ten miles from Fremantle. Why. you been there?
greyghost appears to be correct, the uptick in marriage licenses is below the population increase, so in terms of marriages per 100,000 population (marriage rate) there is no increase – in fact, it appears to me there is a decline, although the recent increase in licenses represents a smaller decline. This is the danger in using raw numbers, and why people serious about studying social trends use rates instead.
There does not appear to be a demographic breakdown, maybe I missed it. That is important, too, because it could be, for example, that the increase in marriage licenses only exists among immigrants (not saying it is so, saying it could be – can’t tell from the data, maybe I am missing something.).
Stephenie: “You know what if women decide to get “robotic babies” or robotic husbands as an answer?”
Virtual significant others / robot significant others will provide insanely great sex and a limited amount of social interaction. That will be enough for a lot of men to get by on. It’s a hell of a lot better than most of us have now. The artificial companions will not provide emotional comfort, safety, attention, or status. They will not be fathers or mothers. They will also not be able to serve as a protector or a provider. All things that women are biologically wired to desire. Women gain a lot more from marriage than men do.
As for virtual babies, maybe some women will be into that but i doubt it ever would become wide spread. Cats, on the other hand, will be abundant. Cats, and lonely women. Perhaps enterprising young men will have some success as companionship gigolos for lonely, barren, regretful women.
As for the men, we will be banging our perfect virtual mistresses. If we want kids, we will hire a surrogate (if an artificial womb hasn’t been invented.) It’s going to be great. I will laugh in the face of every woman I see.
Kathy Late reply,had to work today. Yes I had a chance to spend a few days in Fremantle. I was in the Marine Corps aboard an aircraft carrier that hit port there in about 1992-93 time period. The one thing we all notice almost right away was that the women there all tended to have larger than average breast.
Lol! You guys.
It was the first thing that my husband noticed about me. (though he wisely kept it to himself at the time) All the more accentuated by the fact that I have a smaller waist. 😉
The institution of marriage may be falling apart, yet there is not any good alternative models for the family. This model has been ordained by God, and the loss of it has caused tremendous chaos in the society. Perhaps there is some divine wisdom behind the model.
“Irregardless” isn’t a word.