Posted on 03/12/2015 7:37:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I saw this headline at Newsalert from a CNS News article and went over to read it:
(CNSNews.com) – Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”
“Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.
The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com.
It seems that Crouse and her crowd are watching too many Say Yes to the Dress episodes. So what matters is that women’s dreams are shattered? What about the bleak prospects for millions of men across the country who get very little legal or psychological protection from marriage? Now that’s what’s very, very depressing. Change that and maybe more men will be interested.
Why wouldn’t one just stop working then?
I think..it would be better to sing the pre nup....but what do I know.
This is true. In their 20's, women seem to all compete for the limited pool of especially desirable men. This results in the "most desirable 10%" getting lots of sex and female attention.
Then they get older, the desirable men have moved on to the next crop of sweet young things, and they desire some guy to marry and support their high-mileage butts. And then get upset when no man that they would be interested in, is interested in THEM.
Alimony. I didn’t say child support. I know the difference.
“Why wouldn’t one just stop working then?”
Can’t. Court determines alimony and child support based on previous year or prior years with expectation on continuation of income. Failure to pay is jail. Quitting work would have no effect.
“The fact that more women initiate divorce than men indicates little.”
It indicates that women feel they can benefit from divorce. In most cases that is true. It does not in any way indicate who should have filed. Men often feel compelled to see the marriage through out of a sense of responsibility and not divorce, yet, many women do not feel that sense of responsibility. The fact that women file the divorce more than men is a negative against women.
“Well there is a big difference between the married men at church (who are clean, well fed, and running things), vs the unmarried forty-year-olds.”
Your comments suggest the “unmarried forty-year-olds” are not “clean, well fed, and running things”, when in actuality they are.
+1+1+1
And they are setting the agenda and the rules. It's college graduates who are the most 'marriageable' from the feminists point of view. Their college experience, if the headlines indicate correctly, makes them less likely to be interested.
I think not. Modern women view children as the ultimate accessory. No father needed, just a sperm donor.
No child support. She got the house, I got all four kids and all the bills. She was and still is on SS disability.
The feminization of men, multiple generations.
>> trapped with women who couldn’t care less if he is happy<<
Not only that, but daring to get MAD at him for expressing his unhappiness.
I’m kind of in your boat. I kept the home (and all the marital debt) and my kids (the ultimate objective) live with me full time. She refuses to work or help out financially with the kids and is going for the holy grail of disability.
Fortunately, I only have to do four years alimony and it decreases when certain criteria are meat and has a non-modifiable clause in the divorce decree. I was going to go to family court for support but realized it wasn’t worth it; more of headache than anything else.
Marriage exists to honor God. This is another measure of how this country is turning away from God.
Perhaps somewhere, but not at my church. There was a single preacher once but he was a notorious slob who oddly enough felt the need to announce he was an atheist and that nobody was allowed to show him religious intolerance since he was otherwise qualified.
I do think dating after a certain point is like the joke about Alaska, the odds are good, but the goods are odd.
I think it is something in the water and treating a grown man like a child does not help.
Could be.
You hit the nail on the head there — and it takes a particular kind of arrogance for one to declare that the observation of these young men is invalid because they haven't personally experienced it
, which is somewhat akin to asserting that someone who always ensures that the power is turned off before doing electrical work is stupid because he's never personally been electrocuted prior to it.
There's a lot in society that's been perverted by feminism; I would posit that it's so much that in-general any particular masculine trait
may at any point be dismissed/devalued and [simultaneously] failure to hold to such is reason/justification for belittling. (Just look at the amount of people calling the younger generation of males pajama boy
-types, and I'll wager that most/all making that condemnation do nothing to mentor/teach real manliness to such.) — There's also a sort profit in keeping young men suppressed: learned helplessness helps ensure the superior position of the elite by making overthrowing them unthinkable.
Remember the Marlboro Man commercials? You really don’t see men who look like that anymore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.