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 ...
I think it's from television. Girls grow up watching shows with all of these not so subtle messages about how all men are cheating, lying, incompetent idiots and how all women are smart, wonderful, perfect beings and they can't help but develop "the Chip", especially once they get to college and encounter the groupthink leftism that pervades the environment there. This also explains why women from other countries don't have "the Chip", but frequently develop one after living in the United States for a few years.
Some insight from H.L. Mencken here: in his 1922 book In Defense of Women, Mencken points out that for women, marriage is much more an economic transaction than it is for men, they seek a good provider for themselves and any children they may bear, security and status. He also suggests that men are more romantic than women. That may seem counterintuitive, but I think it is essentially correct. Mencken also says that in marraige, typically, women are more consciously aware of settling for someone who doesn't meet their original expectations than men are. Think about these ideas in the context of the fact that most nofault divorces are initiated by women. Curious.
Or try to destroy him.
You'll make up excuses like "he's boring", "he's too serious", he's not rich enough", but the real reason is you're afraid of him. You'll tell me I'm full of crap, but I've seen your type before, I've dated them, I've made the mistake of falling in love with them. Now I know what to watch out for.
I bolded part of your comment above, and only had one short comment of my own.
Not much to add to what you said, thanks you have a handle on it.
You hit the nail on the head.
Thanks a WHOLE bunch, Kobe...
Whenever I tried anything like that I'd be accused of feeling guilty about having an affair. This from a woman who would freak out if I came home 5 minutes late from my 40 mile commute.
When would I have TIME for an affair, even if I wanted to? - Like after a few years of this sh!t, I'd rilly, rilly want another b!tchy woman in my life!
That is the truth of it, isn't it. The logic used to permit abortion and destroy a human life opens the door to terminate any form of human life deemed a nuisance to someone. I agree that I would not want to have anything to do with a women who had an abortion and did not regret or have remorse for her choice to end a life. Than again if there is any justice that women would end up ill when she is older and without any children to watch over her and the husband determines that she is expenable and terminates her when she is ill or lets her rot away in a low budget nursing home.
What doesn't kill you does make you stronger, doesn't it?
Too true, and in many cases so self-absorbed they don't see their own self-destructive nature.
Nearly 2000 years of Church teaching disagrees. Jesus said that "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so". Such people might not technically be committing adultery (assuming that they divorced because of adultery on the part of their wife, and for no other reason), but they still fail the explicit requirements for church leadership given by scripture in Timothy.
Nothing I would advocate conflicts with the Bible, but some areas as are open to interpretation. If, for example, Jesus had never explicitly said that adultery is a basis for divorce, then I would agree with your understanding completely
In this case Jesus's words are irrelevant to the question at hand. The qualifications for church leaders are far more strict than those required of any believer. Even if you were to ignore (or deliberately mis-interpret) the explicit requirement that he only have one wife, the requirements also demand that he rule well over his house, and have a good reputation outside the church (i.e., even with non-believers). The act of divorce is incompatible with these requirements as well.
When the Bible provides room for interpretation, I try to be as tolerant as I hope Jesus will be with me.
Despite the modern attempts to insist otherwise, tolerance is not a virtue; especially when it means deliberately ignoring scripture in order to pretend someone is qualified for a position for which he quite clearly is not.
Not even a year ago I would peruse these threads and think to myself: thank God I'm married and how awful it would be to get divorced.
So this is what hell is...
But in a twisted sort of way, having kids has made this more bearable. Oh, I've spent many a night screaming into my pillow because I can't be with them like I used to. But by the same token, I've come to realize that I no longer need to a woman to be a man. Being a dad is all that matters.
Too bad the courts don't see it that way.
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.