The Marriage Strike - Why are men reluctant to marry?

Radiofree West Hartford ^ | August 13, 2003 | Wendy McElroy

[ddodd3329]

Why do fewer people marry?

According to a 1999 National Vital Statistics Report from the CDC, 7.4 per 1,000 Americans married in 1998. From 1990 to 1995, the marriage rate dropped from 9.8 to 7.6. Different sources render other statistics but the trend remains sharply downward.

There is never a single or comprehensive explanation for complex phenomena that are rooted deeply in human psychology. Non-marriage is a particularly difficult issue to address because, as a recent paper from Rutgers University entitled "Why Men Won't Commit" explains, official sources are scarce. "The federal government issues thousands of reports on nearly every dimension of American life. ... But it provides no annual index or report on the state of marriage." Much of the discussion of the motives surrounding non-marriage must be anecdotal, therefore, relying on statistics to provide framework and perspective.

In examining reasons for the current decline of marriage, one question usually receives short shrift. Why are men reluctant to marry?

The Rutgers report -- admittedly based on a small sample -- found ten prevalent reasons. The first three:

They can get sex without marriage;

They can enjoy "a wife" through cohabitation; and,

They want to avoid divorce and its financial risks.

As a critic of anti-male bias in the family courts, the reasons I hear most frequently from non-marrying men are fear of financial devastation in divorce and of losing meaningful contact with children afterward. (Such feedback is anecdotal evidence but, when you hear the same response over a period of years from several hundred different sources, it becomes prudent to listen.)

In a similar vein, the Rutgers report finds: "Many men also fear the financial consequences of divorce. They say that their financial assets are better protected if they cohabit rather than marry. They fear that an ex-wife will 'take you for all you've got' and that 'men have more to lose financially than women' from a divorce."

Increasingly, men are stating their reasons for not marrying on the Internet. In an article entitled "The Marriage Strike," Matthew Weeks expresses a sentiment common to such sites, "If we accept the old feminist argument that marriage is slavery for women, then it is undeniable that -- given the current state of the nation's family courts -- divorce is slavery for men."

Weeks provides the math. One in two marriages will fail with the wife being twice as likely to initiate the proceedings on grounds of "general discontent" -- the minimum requirement of no-fault divorce. The odds of the woman receiving custody of children are overwhelming, with many fathers effectively being denied visitation. The wife usually keeps the "family" assets and, perhaps, receives alimony as well as child support. Many men confront continuing poverty to pay for the former marriage.

>>>Continued<<<

[MineralMan]

"To an atheist it would seem pretty strange I guess. :) But the reason FourPeas stated it as such is because biblically speaking, that's how it should be - loyalty to God first and family second, and with the knowledge that if God IS put first, your family is NEVER neglected. That goes for the wife too by the way. "

Not at all. It doesn't seem strange to me. People who have strong religious beliefs often put them first. I see no problem there, as long as there is agreement on this for both parties.

I have seen cases, however, where one spouse was very religious, while the other was not. This can cause huge problems.

Compatibility is everything.

[mattdono]

I did. I also read your additional post which clarified that.

I was confused by your use of primarily and regularly used in your first post, because they are, indeed, two different things.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Hello!

[Protagoras]

He also took alimony payments from his first wife. So I'm told. Anyone konw if that's true?

[mattdono]

I do actually move the furniture when I clean. 8^)

[Gorjus]

The divorce rate among evangelical Christians is not too far behind that of the unchurched.

To quote a very important aphorism: "Christians are not better than anyone else - just forgiven."

But, for a man, there is only one valid basis for divorce, and that is adultery on the part of the wife. Else, just as Christ - the head of the Church - gave his life for the Church, a man - as head of the family - is not justified in giving up his marriage/family until he's given up his life for it.

Which makes it a good thing for a lot of men that we don't have to meet the standard of perfection laid down by Christ - only do our best. But Christians who truly embrace Jesus as Lord and Christ need to look on divorce as equivalent to homosexuality or idolatry - sins that provide the force behind the hammer that drove the nails into Jesus. There's no such thing as 'no fault' divorce.

[null and void]

I know several couples where the husband is many years older than the wife and it seems to work fine, other than a vague fear by the women of eventually being left alone.

That "vague fear by the women of eventually being left alone" is the only thing keeping her in line...

[MineralMan]

"That's the problem. The good ones get taken quickly! What's left isn't worth having for very long. I'm looking at getting an internet bride in the near future. I've got a couple of friends that did, and they're in very happy marriages."

That does work for some folks. My wife and I courted online, but that was back before the Internet was really up and running. We used GEnie for email. We didn't marry, though, until we had known each other for a long time, and after she had moved to my community, where we saw each other daily.

Still, there are plenty of women who are looking for a man who will be a good husband and partner. The good ones are _not_ all gone. You just have to look for them in the right places. If you're religious, then church is the obvious place, of course, but there are many other venues where serious-minded women and men meet each other.

[longtermmemmory]

common law marriage. Its not as easy as you would think. It is generally invoked when children are involved. You generally can't just live together, have to use the Mrs. or Mr. and Mrs. or Mr. and Ms. Buy a house together etc.
Many states outlawed commonlaw marriages in the early 70's

BTW: Women who use Ms. are not marriage material. Friendly person to be with, perhaps.

[CatoRenasci]

Having come of age during the Great Sexual Revolution of the 1960s, for many I asked myself constantly "why indeed should a man marry?" I had some serious girlfriends, and, generally, did not find it difficult to avoid spending the night alone when I was not involved in a serious relationship. Of course, marriage has never been necessary for sex: there have always been professionals and amateurs willing to to provide sexual companionship. Of course, there were risks of disease, pregnancy, and potential loss of social standing in the event of the former.

The reason to marry, of course, is that you meet a woman with whom you want to have a children. Yet, there's the rub! Because, it is in a marriage with children that men are most often screwed royally in a divorce.

[null and void]

McElroy speaks truth. Am going thru a divorce and yes, I have been taken to the cleaners.

She's not done with you yet...

[MineralMan]

"Hmmm Loose women: 75% of women have contracted Human Papilomavirus AKA: HPV from multiple sexual partners, men are carriers but usually do not have any symptoms.
"

And they got it from loose men, seems to me. I've never been fond of the idea that it's OK for men to have sex with as many people as they could, but women shouldn't do that.

Personally, I don't think either sex should be promiscuous. It's dangerous.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

...most law makers were men; most judges were men; most governors were men.

I see... So most legislators must be homosexual. That's how pro homosexual laws are being passed, right? If they were not homosexual they wouldn't have let the homosexual special rights laws pass...

Laws like this get passed because lobbying groups like NOW have a HUGE amount of power created by a liberal press and receipt of donations.

[RinaseaofDs]

They are. They aren't marrying.

This is the invisible hand of the market again. My best man married and divorced in California. His attorney said, "You get 28% visitation rights. That's what all men get everywhere in the state." It took him 9 months and 1000's of dollars to get to 40%, and only 1/2 of 1% of men in that state get to that point.

Men aren't some sort of cartel. In LA, you don't even have to be the biological father of the child to be forced into paying child support until age 18. This legal wisdom came from the same AG that screwed up the OJ prosecution.

If women are interested in marriage, then don't ask men to fix it. My advice is make a better market for marriage. Make the courts fairer yourselves, make divorce equitable, make visitation 50/50 unless you can prove a danger to the children outright. Insist on a prenup first, spelling out what would happen if things didn't go as planned.

Your response is typical of why this is a trend on the upswing.

There are more registered female voters than male voters, and more females are interested in marriage.

[Prof Engineer]

ping

[MineralMan]

"I do actually move the furniture when I clean. 8^)"

Natch. How else do you get the dust that's under the furniture? Now I don't do it every time, but neither does my wife. Still, it does need to be done.

[null and void]

Try being male and going to court to plead for equitable settlement, child support, etc.

Occasionally a miracle will happen, spousal support and child support can be adjusted down to account for loss of job/reduction in income. Don't let anyone tell you it can't, I hemorrhaged my entire savings before I found out this little detail...

[CatoRenasci]

I remember hearing those figures, but I just don't believe that mens' incomes rise. I suspect that the loss of standard of living for many women and kids is true: even if the wife gets the kids, the house and alimony/support, it's not as much as she had before. And, for the guy, he's paying a lot more: supporting two households.

[FourPeas]

It's going to be tough to reverse without a second American Revolution.

I agree legal reversal is virtually an impossibility without a major revolution. However, I'm not as pessimistic on a moral one. More and more of my 30 and 40 something women are denouncing the whole feminist idea and desiring a more traditional role in marriage. Such women are much less likely to seek a divorce for simply reasons of boredom or laziness or "irreconcilable difference". They're also much more likely to take their role in marriage seriously and carefully marry a man who shares this. In this, I see the current situation as being part of a cycle.

[x]

Men and women are competitors today. Opposites may attract and differences complement each other, but when people are striving for the same niches and climbing the same rungs on the ladder, greater friction is inevitable.

Women certainly do have the best deal so far as divorce is concerned today. It's unfair, but maybe it's but a revenge for an earlier generation, when men could walk away with greater impunity. Tales from their mothers' generation have made women tougher and more callous about divorce, and this in turn makes men more "committment-phobic."