Posted on 08/13/2003 9:40:36 AM PDT by 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<<<
(Excerpt) Read more at dondodd.com ...
This happened to my sister in law when she married her husband.
By the same token, when I was ready to settle down and find a wife, the women that were my age fell into two categories:
1. They still acted like giggly little teenagers, or
2. They were not looking for someone to share a life with, they were looking for a means of support.
Hence, I found my wife (8 1/2 years older than me) when I started dating older women.
We have been happily married for 19 years now.
Also, since one theory stated at least several times is that men inacted the legislation because of outside influence, whether it be from their wives, mothers or constituents, it brings me to the question of why, given that men are supposed to be the leaders, they make such decisions not on the basis of what is the right thing to do, but on the basis of what it will get them, whether that be re-elected or a lack of grief from their bedmate. That's a truly sad commentary on the state of man.
I certainly men and women both need to remember their place. I do differ a little in the way I see it (of course, I am, afterall, a woman). I'll give you that men's instincts are primal and that they should (and certainly can) "improve themselves" (put in quotations because if a woman were to write that, they'd risk a nasty flaming :) ). Still, I know quite a few wives who take grief from their husbands if the house isn't clean or the children not quiet when they get home. Men do often have other expectations, usually that a women will keep a "clean and orderly" house or provide a portion of the income or whatever. It's not necessarily that men are easier to please, but they please differently than women.
Men also tend to identify themselves by what they do, making their work and play very important to them. They are competitive and strive to conquer. Although not bad qualities, it can make them more dedicated than they should be to something outside their family. As a former engineer, I understand when Mr. FourPeas needs to work late; I don't like it, but I understand. I also understand that there are times he does it not because he NEEDS to, but because he perceives a competitive advantage. Is this important to carrying on our family? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
I had to smile over your commentary on women in marriage. Yes, women please differently. Women are generally more relational so things like "quality time" (which to me has nothing to do with sex) and having their husbands home at night are important. Women do like things in the house done certain ways and that's not as important to men. I confess to not understanding at all the whole wanting a car/house/vacation thing. I like those things, but I'm a very thrifty person.
Still these differences have been around for many, many years and marriage has still survived. Women are harder to please simply because the man is supposed to be "in charge". Allow me to speak in plain terms: men take what they want; women ask/nag for what they want. If a man wants a new gadget for his workshop he buys it. Women are more likely to ask if their husband controls the purse strings, or feel defensive if they buy it without asking. If women behaved in a relationship as a man, it wouldn't work any better. There'd still be conflict, just of a different sort.
The fact that you say your marriage is nothing like your description, and that many others of us would say the same, argues that men and women can be satisfied in a marriage. It's work, to be sure, and I'd argue that the first step is throwing out all the feminist garbage that we've been fed over the past 30/40/50 years.
If I am an in-shape, well-paid, house-cleaning, caring dad and loving husband who cooks at least 3 days a week and puts the lid down, isn't that enough?
It certainly sounds like a fabulous overview.
F/P
I know a girl who is so insecure, that she will only date the biggest losers. Guys who are drug addicts, can't even hold down a job at a gas station, etc.
General discontent---which really means that she simply doesn't want to be married anymore, nothing more.
Look at television, magazines, popular culture. Most women in America today despise men; they've been brought up that way. It's all this "I am a woman, worship me" nonsense that's filled their heads for the last thirty years.
Personally, I think that you have to be a fool to bother with women raised in this country. Maybe there is something to be said for immigration.
Many of my friends are telling me that Latino women are absolutely wonderful. They like being women, they like their men being men. One guy I know used to live in Arizona and dated a hispanic woman. Said she was great. He broke up with her because she was a bit more serious than he was, but also said that he would do it again in a heartbeat.
as much
trouble with their wives
Maybe.
The problem, I believe, is that modern females subconsciously seek in their man a substitute for their social group. In other words, her age-old tendency to socialize her wants/needs is projected onto her man, just a single person, who serves as a substitute for a much larger group that may be missing in her life. (Last I checked no single person can possibly meet her or anybody else’s needs all the time.) Thus she asks for opposites: Be well off and successful, but only work 40 hours a week; have a wide and interesting social circle, which keeps her entertained, but never want to spend very much time in it (unless she is there with you); be the world’s greatest lover but somehow settle for someone who doesn’t take care of your needs; be a ribald hilarious laugh-riot, but somehow be sensitive and caring at all the right times; be a masculine, confident, cocksure man of the world, which makes her feel safe and secure, and yet somehow retain feminine characteristics like continuously talking about your feelings.
Young women in particular want everything, and often ask for it, and they are perpetually disappointed that their men cannot deliver everything they want/need -- never mind that they are asking for opposites. To her you are lucky even to have her there, seeing as how you are such an abject disappointment.
Impossible task indeed.
They can enjoy "a wife" through cohabitation; and,
They want to avoid divorce and its financial risks.
Ain't Feminism great?
One sanction that has been woefully neglected by many evangelical churches, and for that matter, the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, is that of church discipline. I beleive fear of litigation inhibits many clergy from expelling sexually errant members and forbidding the dispensal of the sacraments. Nonetheless, it is a tool that is essential and part of the duties of maintaining the peace and purity of the church.
Nowadays, it is divorce that ensures financial stability!
Now, that might sound a little sexiest, but that agreement went right back to 50/50 when she was out of school, earning a living, and I could stop working 2 jobs. So, I think that the expectations can vary, but still be appropriate. There is something fundamentally unfair about one spouse having a significantly greater burden. And, that goes both ways. If my wife made enough money to solely support our household, I would be perfectly fine about doing all the other stuff. Unfortunately, that isn't our situation, but if it was, I would be cool with that.
The fact that you say your marriage is nothing like your description, and that many others of us would say the same, argues that men and women can be satisfied in a marriage. It's work, to be sure, and I'd argue that the first step is throwing out all the feminist garbage that we've been fed over the past 30/40/50 years.
Hear, hear.
If I am an in-shape, well-paid, house-cleaning, caring dad and loving husband who cooks at least 3 days a week and puts the lid down, isn't that enough?
It certainly sounds like a fabulous overview.
Well, it is a true overview and it seems that, perhaps, the "puts the lid down" maybe the most important element. <wink>
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.