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<<<

[Windcatcher]

Hear! Hear!

The first thing I look for when I'm introduced to a young lady is an attitude (my friends keep trying to set me up with their friends--you'd think they'd know me well enough by now that a risk taker *I am not*). If she sounds bitter, paranoid, or just "bit**y", it's bye-bye. I remain polite, but walk away once the conversation's over and never return. I'm 33 and still single, but suffice to say I trust my instincts. If a red flag goes up, I walk away.

[Windcatcher]

"Women are finally waking up and standing up for themselves and not allowing men to walk all over them.

Men walk all over women everywhere you look and treat them like $hit.

My motto is if you can't beat em join em!

but I also want a man who is rich good looking and sexy"

It's statements like that that make me decide that, though I'm 33 and single, I'd rather keep my 70k+ salary, my circle of friends, my free time, and stay celibate than lose it all just for some sex. True, the hormones aren't what they were when I was 18, but geez, who can't see what would happen?

[natewill]

Why would anyone put up with a woman's crap? They take over your life, make you feel guilty about having an extra beer, think they can mold you when they won't change themselves, ad nauseum.

as a single man with NO plans for marriage, I can say only, AMEN!

[xrp]

Hah, heck yeah.

[honeygrl]

"That's crap! How about all those happy marriages out there, of long duration and children and grandchildren? How about looking for a partner with whom you'll have a long, happy marriage? "

Because they are too busy looking for a reason to call all women money grubbing whores based on the few they've seen to make them feel better about not having one. Unfortunately, the truth is they are either attracted to self centered women on some level, or they are self centered themselves. -flame suit on-

[honeygrl]

"and stay celibate than lose it all just for some sex."

Viewing marraige as "just some sex" is the heart of the problem.

[Windcatcher]

Agreed. It was this last line that pointed me in that direction:

"...but I also want a man who is rich good looking and sexy"

Right off the bat, this screams "shallow" to me. I saw no indication of anything otherwise, so I figure there's no point in expecting anything more from this person.

[honeygrl]

You are definitely right about the way that person comes across. All women aren't like that though. In fact, I really don't believe most women are like that. You just hear a lot more from the men who have experienced the bad ones than you do from men who are with (or have been with) the good ones. Many of them avoid these sorts of threads like the plague because it makes them mad to see other men talking the way many here do.

[nobdysfool]

***"That's crap! How about all those happy marriages out there, of long duration and children and grandchildren? How about looking for a partner with whom you'll have a long, happy marriage? "***

Because they are too busy looking for a reason to call all women money grubbing whores based on the few they've seen to make them feel better about not having one. Unfortunately, the truth is they are either attracted to self centered women on some level, or they are self centered themselves. -flame suit on-

No flames from me. I've tried to find good women, and since my divorce 12 years ago, I've dated 20 different women, and none of them made the grade. A couple came close, but wouldn't accept what I had to offer. It's frustrating, because I've met many other women who have turned me off with their attitudes toward men, their chip on their shoulder, and their general "bitchy-ness", and I never got past the first meeting. I realized after the fact that a few of them were clones of my ex, so I have worked hard to eradicate any desire for that type of woman.

I haven't given up, but it's slim pickin's out there. The most often heard comment I've gotten from women is that I'll make "some woman" very happy. It sounds like they're saying I'm too good to be true. I don't believe that for a second! I have my "man days" like anyone else, I can be a stubborn, obstinate, know-it-all. but I do love women, I do listen, and I do try to give them what they say they want, even though they rarely do say what they want. They say the opposite!

[Buggman]

For me, it was long years of study of all the religions of the world, followed by the conclusion that each of them thought they were the _right_ religion. Either all of them are right, in my opinion, or all of them are wrong.

If I may respectfully say so, that doesn't logically follow. It is logically possible that all religions are wrong. It is equally logically possible that only one is right, as I believe. It is not logically possible that all religions are right.

Take Christianity and Buddhism for example, since they are so often favorably compared to each other. Christianity stresses that we can each have a personal relationship with God because He sent His Son to be the way.

Buddhism, on the other hand, teaches that we can avoid pain and attain Nirvana (annihilation) by overcoming "desire." That's actually a bit of a misnomer; what Buddha really taught was to avoid pain by not having any attachments, any relationships. If you are not attached to your house, your family, your dinner, you can't miss them if they are gone.

So on the one hand, we have Christianity, which stresses living in right relationship with God and our fellow man, and Buddhism, which says that we should have no relationships/attachments so that we can avoid pain. It is logically impossible for both of these religions to be true. It is possible that neither or only one is.

Therefore, I would suggest that you went about your search the wrong way. Your task should be to determine first which belief systems fail, either by obvious internal inconsistancies (which should always be checked by reading the best apologetic of those who hold the faith, to see if an apparent inconsistancy has a logical reconciliation), or by external ones (i.e. the belief system does not accurately describe the universe we observe, both the physical and the moral). Once that is done, you take those that still stand, and see what evidence each can present that it is not only not false, but that it is true.

I personally also recommend asking God, on the off-chance that He exists ;^), to guide your search if He wants you to find Him.

If you're interested, I'll be happy to point you in the right direction where Christianity is concerned, though you'll have to look elsewhere for fair and adequate help in researching other faiths--I've done my own study, but I'm hardly unbiased. Just freepmail me if you have any questions. If you're not interested in renewing your explorations, we'll just part amicably on that note and get back to bashing radical feminism's assault on the family. ;^)

[null and void]

It's statements like that that make me decide that, though I'm 33 and single, I'd rather keep my 70k+ salary, my circle of friends, my free time, and stay celibate

I never realized how happy I was until I got married.

But by then it was too late...

[xrp]

I admit, that is accurate as well.

[null and void]

Against Marriage
Cutting and Running, and Why Taipei Is Better

Mostly when I hear one of these radical feminist ladies squawking and clucking about whatever is disturbing her system at the moment, I don't listen a whole lot, because most of them have the insight of flatworms and run on pure bile. But I have to agree with them about marriage. It's probably a bad idea.

For a guy, I mean. (If you're a woman, listen to the feminists. They'll tell you why marriage is a bad idea for women: Men are rapists. All of us. We batter women like cannibal tempura chefs. We don't have feelings. We're no damn good. Stay away from us.)

But let me tell you why marriage is bad for guys. If you're a young fellow thinking about tying the awful knot, read this carefully.

Guys marry for bad reasons. When it comes to women, we have less judgment than bugs in a moonshine bottle. Guys marry charm. They marry a sweet smile, a perky toss of the chin. They marry clear skin and bright eyes, soft lips, warm hands. They marry curves in a pretty print dress and silken hair that smells like warm milk and new-mown grass. (Maybe that's straining the language. Steinbeck or somebody said it.) Men marry necking on back roads with crickets creaking in the woods and warm breezes and Sally is just so unspeakably wonderful they can't do without her.

Men marry illusion. Sally marries a pre-med.

We males have an infinite capacity for deluding ourselves. The charm of women doesn't last, any more than flowers in a mountain meadow. A requirement for a marriage license should be that the guy spend fifteen minutes thinking of Sally as twenty pounds heavier with crow's feet and PMS and no further incentive to control it. In five years she won't want to party. Little Richard will give way to easy listening. In a decade she won't even slightly resemble the lissome damsel he married. She won't like his friends unless they're boring. The fun and excitement will fade and life will be just life.

Charm has a short shelf-life. A fellow should ask himself: Is her mind such that he wants to spend forty years talking to her?

Maybe so. Some women are great that way. One was reported in San Francisco a few years ago, and I know of one in Canada. (Actually a fair number of gals are seriously bright. But Willy Bill probably won't marry one. Anyway, ask yourself the question.)

However, the overarching aspect of marriage, the one that ought to be part of the dictionary definition, is that Sally will get the children. She'll get the house too, but the world is full of houses. The kids are the killer.

Women have a mysterious power to fog men's minds. I hear Willy Bill saying, "Divorce? Impossible. Sally's adorable. Even if it happened, we'd still be friends." There was a case of this reported too. In central China. Pre-Confucius. Scholars debate its authenticity.

Willy Bill very likely will get divorced, which will very likely be Sally's idea, and she will get the kids with virtual certainty. Further (and he won't believe it in the full flood of hormonal misjudgment) she will in all likelihood use them against him. Even if not, she'll remarry and move to the other end of the country, and he will be lucky if he sees the kids a week at Christmas. Willy Bill now faces fifteen years of child support for children he will barely know. At best Sally will be heartless about it, at worst vengeful. The courts will support her every step of the way.

If you think this doesn't happen, regularly, think again. Think several times.

The way to avoid the morass is simply not to marry. Thanks to the Sexual Revolution, guys don't have to. Find one you like and live with her. If you get along, keep on living together. Maybe you will have a long, happy life together. It happens. However, most women give the marry-me-or-leave ultimatum in about two years max, which means that you'll have to find another. This is unpleasant, but then the variety is nice. Serial monagamy isn't too bad. (I personally prefer parallel monogamy, but it isn't real practical.)

Once you tie the knot, your house is toast. But the for-keeps breakpoint, the one that really hurts, is children. Dead serious, guys, watch this one. Here, Sally holds all the high cards. I talk to a lot of men who are going crazy because the ex just remarried and went to Oregon with the kids. They do this. All the time.

Remember that after the divorce, Sally is going to hate you. The divorce will have been your fault. You will have failed her in every way. You won't have met her expectations. That's the opening hand.

She will want to remarry. Fine. If you're crazy, maybe you will want to remarry. How much do you think she's going to want you around, after she has re-daddied your children? Is she going to tell New Daddy he can't take that promotion in Oregon because of your rights to see your kids?

As a rule, she won't concede that you have a right to see your sprats, or that they have any stake in seeing their father. Her rationale will be the passive-aggressive formulation, "Well, he's so insensitive I just can't believe he really wants to see them, blah blah blah."

This is Sally, remember, with the perky smile and soft lips.

Don't do it, guys. At least, don't do it unless you have a bomb-proof pre-nup saying that when the divorce comes, either party who leaves the region has to leave the kids with the other.

It's a hell of a way to begin a marriage. But do it. Do it because you can count on one thing: The courts will be absolutely on her side.

Better yet, if you want kids, go to Asia and marry. The women are feminine (consult your dictionary), beautiful, agreeable (consult your dictionary), and don't have cellulite.

Don't marry,guys. Stay single. The feminists are right on this one. And when you get married anyway and lose the house and kids, remember that weird columnist who said it would happen, and he was right.

Source:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/marriage.shtml

[msru]

good post. I just turned 31 and don't even have married on the radar screen. I'm single, educated (MBA,CPA) and a homeowner. Why would I want to throw all that away?

Actually, I have thought about the marriage prospect when I turn 35 or so. I thought about maybe a nice girl from the Phillipines or maybe eastern Europe, the Urkraine maybe. Any thoughts on this?

[null and void]

After my experience, I'm a firm believer in Asimov's Law.

Issac Asimov was once asked about going into a career in writing. he replied:

"Going into a career in writting is like getting married - anyone who CAN be talked out of it SHOULD BE."

FWIW, I got married at 38. Don't rush into it...

[Feldkurat_Katz]

I thought about maybe a nice girl from the Phillipines or maybe eastern Europe, the Urkraine maybe.

This replaces one set of problems with another, somewhat different set of problems. You really don't know if she loves you or the green card. Also, immigrant women eventually figure out how the system works.

[msru]

good point. I have thought about those pitfalls. I always wondered how to keep her away from the "Sisterhood" once I got her over here to the US.

[US admirer]

****NEWS FLASH****

Scientists identify the most potent anti-sex food in nature: wedding cake.

[null and void]

Go here:

Legal Tragedy for Unemployed Divorced Men & Fathers

[Cyber Ninja]

Many of my friends are telling me that Latino women are absolutely wonderful.

I dated a Cuban woman for a couple of years. She was wonderful.

Given the opportunity, I might try to relocate and see about finding one that is serious about being a woman, a wife, a best friend and a mother.

Go for it xrp.

CB^))