Summary: Gender roles are changing at a rate not seen since the invention of agriculture. Marriage, the institution most affected, must also change or wither away. Here are reports with facts about marriage today and speculation about their meaning. All we know is that the future of marriage will be different than what we think of as “traditional” marriage. {This post was revised slightly in Nov 2015.}
Contents
- Marriage: an institution in flux.
- The facts about marriage.
- One theory about the cause: men are “going Galt”.
- Will it be the end of civilization?
- Clear thinking about the problem.
- The 1st shot in next phase of the gender revolution.
- Conclusions.
- For More Information.
Available at Amazon (2012).
(1) Marriage: an institution in flux
Marriage has been an institution in flux for centuries, but the rate of change accelerated after California Governor Ronald Reagan signed the revolutionary Family Law Act of 1969, retroactively abolishing the “traditional” binding contract of marriage and replacing it with no-fault divorce. This created our present system of serial monogamy (a series of monogamous pairings with the pretense of being for life). The feminist revolutions which followed forced further changes in marriage. Since then we’ve slid along the slippery slope, and still cannot see what lies at the end.
Let’s start this examination at an interview with Janice Shaw Crouse. She gives a status report on marriage today: “Bachelor Nation: 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married“…
“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” … 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 … They’re not understanding how important it is for the culture, for society, for the strength of the nation to have strong families.”
Crouse sees the present but only in terms of yesterday’s norms. Today many young men reject the “normal progression into adult roles”. Many young women no longer “dream about a wedding day”, or are unwilling to make the compromises with a man to make that happen. As for the effect on society, it is just another of great experiments that we’re conducting — with our society as the lab rat.
Janice Shaw Crouse is a senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America. She is the author of Marriage Matters: Perspectives on the Private and Public Importance of Marriage (2012), Children at Risk: The Precarious State of Children’s Well-Being in America
and The Strength of a Godly Woman: Finding Your Unique Place in God’s Plan
.
(2) The facts about marriage
For more about the facts Crouse describes, see the Pew Research report “Record Share of Americans Have Never Married As Values, Economics and Gender Patterns Change” (September 2014). It’s weak about the causes. For example, they don’t mention that increasing rates of obesity take many young people off the “market” for marriage, that the increased availability of sex outside marriage reduces men’s incentives to marry, or the increased “competition” of games and porn as alternatives to women.
Pew’s research shows that men’s weakening economic status vs. women renders many of them unmarriageable. The widening education gap guarantees that the economic gap will continue to widen. We already can see the effects rippling across society as women are moving on top of men in America.
But although the role of each of these factors remains obscure, the results are obvious and even predictable.
(a) More young people remain unmarried
(b) More young people will never marry: a 5x increase between 1960 and 2030
(3) One theory about the cause: men are “going Galt”
Available at Amazon (2013).
In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged the wealthy “go Galt” and stepping away from the rat race to let the rest of society fend for itself. But now, in one of the most unanticipated turns of history, it appears that young men are doing so, preferring the easy enjoyments of porn and computer games instead of pursuit of career advancement and women.
Hundreds of websites for men espouse these new values. It’s described by psychologist Helen Smith in Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters (2013). From the publisher’s description…
American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a vacation from responsibility simply because they can. But why should men participate in a system that seems to be increasingly stacked against them?
As Men on Strike demonstrates, men aren’t dropping out because they are stuck in arrested development. They are instead acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands and providers. In addition, men are going on strike, either consciously or unconsciously, because they do not want to be injured by the myriad of laws, attitudes and hostility against them for the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century. Men are starting to fight back against the backlash. Men on Strike explains their battle cry.
For a more explicit version of this thinking see “Why men won’t marry you” by Suzanne Venker at Fox News and “Why You’re Not Married” by Tracy McMillan at the Huffington Post.
Available at Amazon (1986).
(4) Will it be the end of civilization?
Left and Right offer us competing visions of a post-marriage (traditional) society. The Left hopes for a more egalitarian society, with government assistance substituting for the family (as is happening in Scandinavia).
The Right fears that continued decay in the current family structure means the decay of civilization — as George Gilder explains in Sexual Suicide (1973). These trends continued for another decade without an apocalypse, so he reissued the book in 1986 as Men and Marriage
. It’s time for a new edition! But we should not ignore Gilder’s warnings. Perhaps he was just early, not wrong. From the publisher’s description…
Drug Addiction, lack of education, welfare, children in poverty, violence, unemployment, single-parent homes-these critical problems facing our country today. Many ideas have been presented regarding the cause of these problems, but only George Gilder speaks directly and with authority about their one undeniable source: the disintegration of the American family.
Men and Marriage examines the loss of the family and the well-defined sex roles it used to offer and how this loss has changed the focus of our society. Poverty, for instance, comes from the destruction of the family when single parents are abandoned by their lovers or older women are suddenly divorced because society approves of the husband’s new, younger girlfriend.
Gilder claims that men will only own up to their paternal obligations when the women lead them to do so and that this civilizing influence, balanced with, proper economic support, is the most important part of maintaining a productive, healthy, loving society.
(5) One woman’s clear thinking about the problem
Unlike the above analysts, who see the decline of marriage as resulting from men’s weakening interest and ability to marry, here’s a woman warning that women are a cause of falling marriage rates.
When people complain of men not marrying (even they who are able), they forget how little women offer in exchange for all they get by marriage. Girls are seldom taught to be of any use whatever to a man, so that I am astonished only at the numbers of men who do marry! Many girls do not even try to be agreeable to look at, much less to live with. They forget how numerous they are, and the small absolute need men have of wives; but, nevertheless, men do still marry, and would oftener marry could they find mates — women who are either helpful to them, or amusing, or pleasing to their eye.
This is from The Art of Beauty by Mary Eliza Joy Haweis (1883). Concerns about the state of marriage — like worries about the younger generation — are a commonplace of history. That doesn’t mean her worries were foolish. A stable functional society requires constant thought and effort about its basic institutions.
To see women building a post-marriage society, look to the Nordic nations with their high numbers of single mothers. For example, Denmark — with its strong government financial support for single mothers, where donated sperm to single mothers is a rapidly-growing trend because women don’t need men — or perhaps men don’t want to become fathers (expressed in that article with a feminist spin: many men are “not ready for parenthood”, at least on the terms women offer).
(6) He fired the first shot in this next phase of the gender revolution
The Myth of Male Power (1993).
To understand what’s happening I recommend the book that started the backlash to the feminist victory: The Myth of Male Power (1993). Here is an excerpt from a review at Amazon by Pradeep Ramanathan (Former EVP, National Coalition For Men)…
The Myth of Male Power explains how almost all societies (American society in particular) are both matriarchal and patriarchal, how men’s and women’s roles provide unique benefits and limitations on each gender. Both men and women may be seen to be privileged and disadvantaged, each in different ways. The focus of the book, as the title suggests, is on the male role. This is done not to slight women’s issues, but rather to supplement the ever-growing body of literature and research on gender issues which tends to frame the problems from an essentially female perspective.
(7) Conclusions
Today every society grapples with these questions. Saudi Arabia, Japan, Denmark, America — there are scores of paths to new structures for the family. I recommend learning from the successes and failures of others, remaining open to new ideas, and only slowly making changes to the legal structure of our core institutions. But I predict that America will do none of these things, and instead drift thoughtlessly into the future.
It is too soon for predictions, other than that interesting times lie ahead.
(8) For More Information
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about women and gender issues, especially these about marriage…
- Do we want to bring back traditional marriage? What is traditional marriage?
- The feminist revolutionaries have won. Insurgents have arisen to challenge the new order. As always, they’re outlaws.
- The war of the sexes heats up: society changes as men learn the Dark Triad.
- The revolution in gender roles reshapes society in ways too disturbing to see.
- A look ahead at the New America, after the gender wars.
- Books to help us see the strange new world following the revolution in gender roles.
- Love in the new world, after the gender wars.
Straight off the MRA (Male Rights Activists) trope…nonsense of course.
There are huge class differences in this. High class people are marrying at high rates and have low divorce rates, albeit at later ages than in the past. High, ‘alpha’ sucessful males marry high ‘alpha’ sucessful females. Not doormats…..
Lower class people have lower marriage rates and higher divorce rates, overall.
Therefore, there are big economic forces in this.
Now, men doing a Galt, is laughable. It is women that are no longer prepared to sacrifice ther lives for a ‘boy’. A man that has not grown up. That treats them terribly that is not capable of a good working relationship. Why should they?
Being more independent and self sufficient than males, most women would rather be on their own than put up with that nonsense. And they do increasingly.
As all men do, they blame women for this..instead of having a cold hard look at their behaviour and society. Questoning it and their programming that they have been given…. and becoming a man… Like sorry your sexual urges are actually controllable, like (my Grandfather) sew, cook and fought at the battle of the Somme …and bring up 3 children on his own……and filled the house with books and learning and taught me chess and was great engineer…..
There was, lost the link, an article in the Melbourne Age newpaper just recently about a guy going around schools trying to teach boys to be men. Unreal. Part of this is self discovery, asking young boys (14 years old) to go through their facebook pages and describe them….they classsified people into ‘sluts’ and ‘fags’…. that was their world. The only way they could express themselves was through violence and prejudice.
What is wrong with them and they way they have been brought up?
So the problem is not females they are just walking away from this, even though they want, desperately, a good partnership with a man. The problem is boys not growing up…… filled with prejudice and anger and hatred. That treat women like a piece of meat and a domestic slave…..
Despite all the MRA propaganda, those males who treat female like equals, that work together in a partnership…well they have no problems finding and keeping relationships…Probably great sex lives too….lol.
Being fairly right wing here, older and mostly ex military…the standard narrow gender roles are attactive to people like you. Did it work for you? Did you ever queston it? What about your wives? Did you ever appreciate that they threw their lives away and all their hopes and dreams and talents…just to make you feel better…and the bitterness so many of them feel now because of it. They gave everything and in many cases got nothing back
Still catching up wth your buddies for beers? .Flirting (trying to, they despise you) with young women, telling your sexist ‘jokes’, whinging about your wives? Quick trip to a brothel now and then? Maybe secret, no one knows this, ‘kinky sex’…..?
Oh, you are statistically are more likely to use domestic violence. 1 in 4 overall in the US, 1 in 2 for police officers…male military?
Hey I am trangender I lived amongst you ‘men’ for decades I know all your secrets. I know how you think and act……. I know what what you tell other ‘men’ when you get drunk.
LikeLike
I have held off on commenting on this theme for lots of reasons but now I am going to break my silence in a small way and see if I can contribute to the dialog.
I interact with an increasing number of people in their twenties, mostly men, these days and have observed the following things:
1. Young people are frequently not ready for parenthood at ages 20-25. I am not sure if this is because we have raised the requirements for being parents over the last 50 years or if they are slower to emotionally mature than 50 years ago.
Either way, I am very content with fewer immature people having children. Raising a child has never been a good choice for the faint of heart or for the thoughtless. Yes, there were a large number of success stories where people turned their lives around when they suddenly became parents and there are a much larger number of stories where the new parents screwed up themselves and their children even worse than if they had never had kids.
2. It is not like the young men are ALL hiding in their parents basements playing online games and watching porn in a self-imposed solitary confinement. They are interacting with and exploring the world in their chosen way and seem to be getting greater satisfaction from it than if they had conformed to the mores of the 1950’s society and gotten married and had children quickly. The first few years of raising a child is very isolating because the little nipper needs so much of your time. Taking care of a baby and multiple younger children at the same time is even more isolating.
3. Women are now much better able to bear children in their 30’s and 40’s than they were 50 years ago. It isn’t physically ideal to wait to have your first child until after you are 35 but the compensation to the baby in having parents with vastly more monetary resources and greater maturity goes a long way, possibly giving the children better resources to deal with the world than if their parents had had the children in their 20’s.
4. With the population closing in on 8 billion people, does this world REALLY need more children? Especially from people who are not necessarily well-equipped to deal with the great emotional challenges of raising a child? I think that people having babies when they are not well equipped to do so is a major cause of many of the other problems your website investigates.
5. Young women, who mature more quickly, really should investigate the joys of raising a career before they investigate the joys of raising children. Those that choose to have the career over children are probably are not temperamentally well-equipped to raise children. In spite of all the complaints about people’s careers, it is vastly easier to deal with your career than it is to deal with your own children.
6. I understand your intent with the quote from 1883 but when I compare the current situation with the situation at that time, I cannot find any relevance. The society ideal of the time was that women were supposed to be totally financially dependent on their spouse and do nothing but make the spouse happy and raise the children.
This made a kind of sense when the average wife had 5-6 children and keeping the house attractive and hygienic enough to live in, and prepare healthy meals was a full-time job that was extremely challenging both mentally and physically. It makes no sense when an increasing number of married people choose not to have children, keeping the home tidy and hygienic does not consume a lot of time or require special knowledge, and the amount of money spent in restaurants is greater than the amount of money spent in grocery stores.
7. I suspect a large part of the changes you have identified are partly due to society dealing with a vastly increased lifespan. If I recall correctly, the average life expectancy of a white male in 1933 was 63 years old. Now it is 81 and increasing at a rate of 3-4 months every year.
Summary of my comments:
You have identified a very large and largely underreported phenomenon but I think it is mostly healthy and will lead the next generation to be smaller but vastly better equipped to rationally deal with problems.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pluto,
I agree with most of what you say, and have written about most of these things. My point about these things is not (it’s almost never) to ask are these “good” or “bad” (I consider the poular fascination with this question somewhat odd). Rather it is to understand what’s happening and make projections as to the future.
I think we’ve just begun the former, and are nowhere near being able to do the latter. The best projection possible at this point is, imo, future society has high odds of looking different from anything previous seen.
“I understand your intent with the quote from 1883 but when I compare the current situation with the situation at that time, I cannot find any relevance.”
Then you don’t understand my point. The relevance is that concerns about marriage are a commonplace of history. I added some text to make that clearer.
LikeLike
I recall the Romans had to pass laws pressuring people to marry.
LikeLiked by 2 people
dashul,
That’s a powerful observation, rich with lessons for us! Roman patriarchs had strong control over their daughters, so marrying them off was no problem. But Roman widows had a high degree of social and economic independence, and were (as a group) reluctance to surrender those by re-marrying. Due to the high death rate, there were lots of widows. By the time of the early Republic Empire, Rome was having a problem with low fertility — which grew worse. Hence the laws encouraging or pressuring widows to remarry.
LikeLike
I should add, before this gets deleted….How many more times have I been more right than you bunch…..what us it now? Economic, military..etc, etc , etc…
And, grudgingly,bit by bit…yes, the ultimate anti CO2 induced global warming site…..is getting getting there…..as per my prediction…you can look it up…… Go back a few years.
Never mind you will delete this as you did my past posts…then in a few years you will agree….lol…..
Welll US military people…what can you say…….
Lets put my military historian hat on: How about you are are, useless at warfare, very good at violence, killimg innocents… and lying…..and bribing . You love killing innocent people, hate fighting..well … actual fighting. And you cannot trust the US, make an agreement as it is broken in a minute. This also is a part of the US DNA..,,,,lies and deception.
The ‘war nerd’ in me loves to think of the idea of Russia against the US/Nato forces,and watching the US/Nato attacking first being slaughtered…the sensible person in me knows that NATO will go nuclear first..and then the Northern world dies,,…
The funny thing is that the people who might save the US …are all those black, hispanic, etc, GBTI activists, trying to make things better.Not your your kind…..
The US Marines will go down fighting to the last man and woman and gay and lesbian and transgender person in front of the Goldman Sachs buildng…..
LikeLike
Lida,
“I should add, before this gets deleted”
I have never deleted any of your posts. They may have gotten swept up when running a spam sweep. To avoid being overrun I have it turned up to the max, so it eats a few valid comments — but it sweeps up hundreds every day, and that’s after deleting the most obvious ones. If you post a note about an eaten comment, I can usually retrieve it.
“How many more times have I been more right than you bunch…..what us it now? Economic, military.”
I have scanned your comments in the past. You are usually wrong. Unlike you, I track my forecasts — and have a strong record. But then I am more careful than you, and make far fewer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Straight off the MRA (Male Rights Activists) trope…nonsense of course.”
I love how feminists denigrate men’s rights groups. They do whatever they can to silence anything to do with men standing up for themselves. I’m shocked that men’s rights speech hasn’t been censored yet by declaring it hate speech. It’s already censored on college campuses by feminists and the ‘progressive’ PC police.
I for one think it’s great that marriage is dying. Why? It’s long past time that women start carrying their own weight and add to the tax base. For far too long, men were expected to carry women due to their ‘delicate nature’. Well, now the mask is off and we can see women for what they really are – and it ain’t all sugar and spice and everything nice. No, no. Women only started to enter the workforce after jobs became far less dangerous, less life threatening, less laborious and more life enriching. That tells you everything you need to know about women.
With each woman that decides to remain single for life, that’s one more man that will not have to endure the life altering and often life destroying consequences of divorce on men. My favorite fairy tale:
Once upon a time, a prince proposed to a princess. The princess refused. The prince lived happily ever after. The end.
Where will it all end? It will end in socialism. Feminism is Marxism in panties – a socialist government being the end goal of progressives. If you don’t believe this, then you haven’t spent too much time on campus lately. Sweden is the future of the world. What does that mean? Low marriage rates, high out of wedlock birth rates, sky high taxes, quotas for women in all high paid positions and cultural misandry from birth to death. An oppressive socialist/feminist government bent on destroying the patriarchy (destroying men) and transferring men’s earned wealth and power, by force of misandric law, to women. All one need do to prove this to oneself is to ride the New York transit with his legs too far apart. If that doesn’t work for you – then just have sex with a college girl who’s had a few drinks and see where that gets you. Feminism isn’t about equality of opportunity but rather equality of outcome. What is equality of outcome? Marxism. It means you take things earned by one and forcefully redistribute it to another. Obama calls this “fundamental transformation” and ‘You didn’t build that.”
Read ‘The Manipulated Man’, ‘The Myth of Male Power’ and ‘Stand by Your Manhood’. Everything about women, especially those like Lisa, becomes crystal clear after that. That women are opting out of marriage is a God send for men. That women somehow believe this to be punishment for men is hilarious. Thank you, ‘ladies’. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Tim,
I agree. Got to love comments like “Straight off the MRA (Male Rights Activists) trope…nonsense of course.” God-like confidence about major social issues, a reliable indicator of shallow thinking — a prisoner of the “narrative. But a useful indicator, showing that there is little point to continue reading, or engage in discussion with the author.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Free women will destroy civilization. Except, the problem is not free women; it’s men who can’t deal with or adopt to free women. Traditional men whining about the evils of women being equal and free is like southern slave owners whining about blacks being free and equal. Their man-hysterics is a sign of genuine progress, an end to oppression. The society they want, built on people being in chains and controlled by others, should never have been allowed to exist in the first place.
LikeLike
finn,
You appear to be ignoring the data cited here and elsewhere about the rapidly deteriorating situation of men — most notably in education, which predicts future education.
Also, do you have any evidence for your theory? It sounds like one of Kipling’s “Just So Stories” — like “how the elephant got his trunk”. Of course, those were for children.
LikeLike
“The rapidly deterioriating situation for men” – which consists wholly of the fact that women do just fine in life and business – even better than men, sometimes – when no longer rammed into a limiting “obedient Susy homemaker” gender role BY men?
Men’s situation is not “deteriorating”. It is simply no longer artificially *inflated* by limiting women’s choices and liberties for men’s benefit. You are not being “torn down” – you are simply no longer allowed to reach higher by forcing women to act as your stools.
LikeLike
Looking at some of the comments posted here on this article just goes to show how difficult it is to think through and discuss these important issues without being shot down as some kind of retrograde sexist who wants to reduce women to a state of barefoot pregnancy, such as feminists believe all women were in before the advent of feminism.
On one of the posts from yesterday I mentioned why I thought so little of government workers, particularly those that I have had the misfortune of knowing back when I was in the DC area. Well, one of those government workers I had in mind was this otherwise fine and upstanding woman I dated for a while, and I remember that one time when I brought up the fact that one of the consequences of the economic mobilization of women–that is to say, the introduction of women into the labor force–the labor force doubled and therefore wages went considerably downward, she berated me for blaming feminism for the destruction of the middle and working class. Of course, that was not my intention at all, I was simply trying to point out a basic fact; but, sensitive as she was about these issues, she could not help but jump to the conclusion that I wanted to oppress women or something.
Without question, it really is the case that the earning power of most men who work for a living were and are set back significantly by offshoring, automation, mass immigration and, yes, the fact that women now are expected to work. It is just unfortunate that people cannot point these things out without incurring the kinds of unjustifiably hostile responses from people exhibited by people more interested in political correctness than they are in coming to a better understanding of the world as it is. For instance, there are plenty of people who, when one points out that offshoring, automation, mass immigration and the introduction of women into the labor force, will accuse one of being some sort of anti-globalist, racist and anti-feminist luddite. This, I think, is sad.
More broadly speaking, however, men are indeed facing some serious problems, and not only economic ones. This isn’t true for all men, but it does seem as if post-industrial modernity, which incidentally men created, is not so salubrious for men at large. These days, I tend to have some sympathy for those men who decide to opt out entirely, who deliberately forgo higher education and settle for low wage jobs so that they can subsidize their addictions to video games and porn.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Some men’s rights dude in a suit saying women’s rights is a problem because biotrooths, is in essence no different than a zealous IS warrior shouting that women being slaves is the will of Allah. What differs is rhetoric and presentation, not the end result of their argument. They both want women’s roles and place in society decided and defined by men, for the benefit of men.
And no. It’s not “political correctness” to react strongly to someone who considers your rights and freedoms to be a *problem*. For outside forces, that’s why we has a military – for internal forces, it’s why we have police and anti-terror laws. It’s the major reason why I support the rights of individuals to own and bear firearms. Women will only go back to the kitchen at gunpoint. We already have isolated incidents, like Elliot Rodger, of men going homocidal out of frustration of women living free.
LikeLike
finn,
Please reply to some sort of specifics, otherwise readers have no idea to what you’re referring to. Also, characterizing other positions by reference to the lunatic fringe — present on all sides in every dispute — is a bit odd.
Perhaps you’d like to try again?
LikeLike
”Also, characterizing other positions by reference to the lunatic fringe — present on all sides in every dispute — is a bit odd.”
Guilt by association. Which in this case is used of particular ideas no matter how true they are to de-legitimize those ideas. As if truth is no longer truth because of who speaks it.
For example if a conspiracy theorist or a madman says: 1+1=2. Solely by this person’s logic. Therefore because a crackpot or lunatic said this 1+1 does not =2.
LikeLike
infowarrior,
Yes, guilt by association and judging by who said rather than what said are standard tools. We all do them (like steriotyping), since life is too short to absorb the nearly infinite stream of info in which we live. The key is to void overuse and misuse.
However, “characterizing by reference to the lunatic fringe” is a different and explicitly distortive tool. It’s is a primary tool of climate activists. For example, “lukewarmers” (dumb lablel, imo) point to the large peer-reviewed literature on the pause in atmospheric warming since aprox 2000 — activists call them deniers, lumping them with the fringe who say there has been no warming during the past 2 centuries (per the IPCC, more than half of the warming since 1950 due to anthropogenic factors). It’s propaganda, politicizing and polarizing the debate.
Since Nature’s god has a sense of humor, it’s worked to their disadvantage — potentially crippling the Left’s largest project of this generation.
LikeLike
“Except, the problem is not free women; it’s men who can’t deal with or adopt to free women.”
Love how you distort history. It’s the feminist way. It’s long past time women stepped up and started carrying their own weight. Prior to current times, men were forced to carry the weaker sex both physically and financially. Glad those times are coming to an end.
Men aren’t doing worse than women. Women figured out how to use the law to destroy the patriarchy (destroy men) and use the white knights in the state and federal government to enforce the anti-male laws and policies women enjoy today. The white knights will continue to throw the majority of men under the bus. Why? To get elected/re-elected by the gynocracy – through extortion and blackmail. Men in power dare not stand up for men or they’ll find themselves out of work very quickly. To wit:
Title IX
Yes Means Yes
No-fault divorce
The VAWA
Alimony
Child Support (alimony light)
Affirmative Action
Quotas
Feminist control of academia
False rape, domestic violence and harassment
Majority of discretionary state and federal funding for women and women only programs
Exclusion from selective service
WIC
SNAP
Women only scholarships
Coming soon: free childcare for women, paid maternity leave for women, quotas for the highest paid positions for women.
Women are doing well because of extortionist, misandric laws and policies that give women preferential treatment over men, the power to blackmail men and force the transfer of wealth and power from men to women.
The next time you see a woman or white knight point to the heavily debunked dictionary definition of feminism (that feminism is about equality) – consider this: The women’s movement is about (1) destroying the patriarchy – which means using misandric laws to force the redistribution/theft of wealth and power from men to women, (2) liberating women sexually – which means making it acceptable for women to cuckold their husbands/boyfriends and (3) freeing women from the slavery of marriage – which means making the state the father so that women can sleep with whom they choose while still transferring men’s wealth to themselves via taxes, child support, free childcare, paid maternity leave, WIC, SNAP, etc, etc, etc.
Everything feminists claim as truth is the opposite of the truth. Ever wonder why the false ‘1 in 5’ rape stat became defacto truth? Because if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Those that can’t/don’t take the time to look deeper into the facts are duped/intimidated into believing the lie. That is the feminist way – ignore reality, shame and intimidate detractors into silence and ruin the lives of those that don’t support your misandric cause.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Get a tin foil hat. Most of the stuff on the list has been made necceccary as a REACTION to women being discriminated and getting the short end of the stick, simply for being women. They are in place not as “misandry” – but to combat MISOGYNIST practices. And no, it’s not “oppressive” that men have to pay for their own children, even if they are deemed less fit than the mother to have custody.
And ending Patriarchy isn’t about destroying men. It’s about freeing women from men’s control. And the few men who are “destroyed” by no longer having a priviliged position over women by default… deserve about as much considerations as southern slave owners “destroyed” by having to free their slaves. I.e. none.
LikeLike
finn,
Again you are ignoring the point of this post — and this series — which is that women are quickly moving ahead of men. Eyes tightly closed is not a useful debating method.
As for the list, I believe Tim was saying that these measures seem inappropriate when women are rapidly taking the lead in society. For example, women-only programs, learning aids, and scholarship are wildly inappropriate in an education system in which they’re doing so much better than men.
LikeLike
I forgot absurdly lighter sentences for equal crimes when compared to the sentences men get. In many cases, women are simply let go on probation where men are convicted and do hard time. Feminists are truly full of it. The war has always been on men – not women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And “Yes means Yes”??
Sure, actually expecting men to keep it in their pants unless the woman consents, is much oppressive towards men… Are You Serious?!
LikeLike
finn,
I don’t know if you’re just unusually closed-minded or a troll, but that’s absurd. A wide range of people — men and women, laypeople and attorneys — have discussed the weirdness of the “yes means yes” program. It is a large step beyond “no means no.” If you are ignorant of this debate, we’ll just consider you a troll and move on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And my argument is, that it’s absurd to see this as a problem. Women are doing better because they now have the opportunity to – and because feminism is finally changing society to where women are encouraged to act asserive and assured (young girls FINALLY have female action heroes who are REAL action heroes, to look up to).
No one is holding men back. We are simply no longer holding women back. Of course men will not reach as high – both relative to women who are encouraged to compete – and objectively, now that women no longer are forced into a gender role specifically designed to support men in what they do (at the expense of women’s own accomplishments and self-actualization).
Yes. Women are doing better. Better than many men, even.
No – this is not a problem – because it’s not a result of discrimination against men, but of ending discrimination against women. You can’t expect women to limit themselves, pretend to be weak, helpless waifs in desperate need for a man to lead them, just so mean can feel big and in charge – and want to marry again.
LikeLike
“Get a tin foil hat. Most of the stuff on the list has been made necceccary as a REACTION to women being discriminated and getting the short end of the stick, simply for being women. ”
Women didn’t even bother entering the work force until jobs became less laborious and less life shortening/threatening. Watch “The Men Who Built America” to see why women preferred to work at home. You’re a typical feminist liar that hopes to distort the truth for anti-male gain. Everything that comes from your man-hating mouth is going to be an outright lie. If what you say is true – why are there no women screaming about women’s dominance on college campuses, you hypocritical buffoon! I already know what you’re going to say (lie), to wit:
“As women were discriminated against for centuries (a lie twisted to hide the fact that men carried women financially and physically for centuries) it’s only fair that men experience the same oppression.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Women COULDN’T enter the workforce equally until feminism had somewhat eroded the social requirement of women to stay at home and NOT work. Even then women STILL had to face discrimination and sexual objectification in the male dominated workforce.
You never carried women. You kept them down and dependent for your own benefit. It was men who kept women away from business and society at large – and women who had to fight their way in.
The only one sprouting lies, is you. As expected from a history-revising woman hater.
And why would women see problems with women doing well at college? Women get an equal chance, they use it well – go figure. Women don’t discriminate against men like men did against women, when women first were even allowed to attend higher ed in numbers.
LikeLike
finn and Tim,
While this debate about the obvious past is perhaps enlightening to those just emerged from caves, it is totally irrelevant to this post. I’ve let this run because I am too tolerant.
This post is about trends of the present and their effects of the future. Please attempt to stay on topic. I very much dislike having to moderate discussions.
LikeLike
FINN,
There is little evidence to suggest that women were ever actually forced to be ‘helpless child bearers’.
The only nation that I can think of where that would apply would be Athens.
In most of Greece, they either didnt care or they wanted women to be
strong and independent. The best example of this would be the Spartans.
The
Spartans let their women do what they want, and even encouraged strong
independent behaviour in them as it was believed that strong independent
women were both a benefit to society as well as fine mothers to strong,
independent daughters and strong, confident Spartan males.
And
if you look at the intrigues, courtly goings on and other such things
throughout the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, you can
see that women were far from been ‘forced’ to do much of anything and
were in fact large and influential forces throughout those eras.
In
the late medieval era and the Renaissance, especially in Italy, for
every Niccolo Machiavelli, there was a Caterina Sforza. For every loud,
attention-grabbing, war veteran king or noble, there was a cunning,
intelligent and manipulative queen or noble lady.
Women are far from been the victims they are portrayed as.
Females are keenly aware of their surroundings and won’t hesitate to exploit them to their benefit. They are no different than men, when exploiting things to their advantage. Quit putting women on a pedestal and look at the context of situations.
Another example: – I’d like to mention Maria Theresia of the Habsburg dynasty. She was the ruler of The Habsburg dominion and as such, she was the sovereign of Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bohemia, Mantua, Milan, Lodomeria and Galicia, the Austrian Netherlands and Parma. And By marriage she became the Duchess of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany and Holy Roman Empress.
She reigned in the middle of the 18th century from 1740-1780. To be more precise, which means she sat upon the throne for 40 years. And when death parted her with her throne she left the dominion in a far better state than she found it in when first sitting upon it. Before her ascension to the throne, the dominion was ruled by 2 rulers, one Habsburg and one Bohemian. Through her efforts she made sure the dominion was unified under one ruler, her. And she never allowed her husband to interfere in matters of ruling her states, unlike todays “strong independent” women that can’t wait to hand over the wheel to a man.
She was also a mother of 16 children, which is yet another example of her superiority to todays feminists who fail at both fronts. Both in career and as mothers. LOL
(as all books have an agenda, for, as Derrida famously observed, “there is no text without context”
LikeLike
“Women COULDN’T enter the workforce equally until feminism had somewhat eroded the social requirement of women to stay at home and NOT work. ”
BULLSHIT! Women didn’t enter the workforce BY CHOICE and EXPECTED men to provide for and protect women – UNTIL work meant women didn’t need to RISK THEIR LIVES, MUSS THEIR HAIR OR BREAK THEIR NAILS. Back then you were shamed as a man if you didn’t proved for and protect women – BY WOMEN AND MEN!
MARRIAGE WAS SLAVERY FOR MEN – NOT WOMEN!
LikeLike
Tim,
No profanity here. Let’s try and keep this on an adult level.
LikeLike
From your reaction, I guess you’ve been lying as much to yourself as to others. I could dig up links that show how women were legally and socially discriminated in regards to working, in ye olden days…. but let’s keep it simple; If you were right, there would be nothing hindering women from doing “men’s work” other than herself; any women could enter a male dominated workplace and expect to be treated as one of the guys – with no comments due to her gender, no objectifying slurs thrown at her, no unwanted looks, slurs, etc.
I’m guessing even you realize that this is not the case.
LikeLike
“No profanity here. Let’s try and keep this on an adult level.”
My apologies.
Tis okay. I’ve made my point. finn is a feminist liar and can’t logically dispute anything I’ve written. Instead, I’m attacked with shaming language (Google ‘feminist shaming language’ for the full list). That the patriarchy was an oppressive institution is the biggest of all feminist, man-hating lies.
Hey finn – here’s a question for you! If the patriarchy was such an oppressive institution, then how did all of the policies that you claim as necessary for past oppression come into being?! Exactly who voted in those laws, FINN? Wasn’t it men that voted those laws and policies into being?
You’re full of it finn. You and I both know it. The world is waking up to feminist misandry. Your time is coming to a close. Eventually, the truth always prevails. Every wonder why hatred towards feminists is growing? Now you know.
LikeLike
“From your reaction, I guess you’ve been lying as much to yourself as to others. I could dig up links that show how women were legally and socially discriminated in regards to working,…”
So can I, finn! gynocentrism.com is a site you should really visit. Why? Because it thoroughly and completely breaks down the feminist lies. Ever hear of the white feather campaign, finn? If you didn’t, there’s a reason for that. What’s that reason, finn? It makes women look really, really, really bad. Like cowardly and monstrously oppressive bad. Feminists don’t talk about things that make women look like monsters. Instead, they focus only on those things that make women look like victims and men look like monsters.
gynocentrism.com, finn. A one stop shop for a full debunking of your feminist lies.
LikeLike
You couldn’t come with any explanations, then. As for white feather. How much actual political power was behind it? How much force of law? Exactly none, I’d wager, because women didn’t have that kind of power in those days. The entire white feather thing was based on women hurting men’s feelz by calling them cowards. With the power balance in general being solely in favor of men… that is nothing – literally – nothing, to complain about.
As for how “monstrous” those women were for causing men some hurt feels… well, seeing as women were second-class citizens. Subjugated and expected to submit to men by law…. yeah, you get in your hits where you can. I don’t blame them for inflicting what “harm” they could on their male “masters”.
And the site? Sure, sounds about as objective as Fox – like visiting Stormfront to learn the “truth” of Jewish history. The ranting might be good for a laugh, but that’s it.
LikeLike
Tim and Finn,
Please knock off the schoolyard bickering. This website is for discussion of complex important matters on the edge of the known. And this kind of chatter drives off serious people, Last warning.
LikeLike
So that everyone here knows what a man-hating, lying, full of it feminist finn really is:
The White Feather Campaign
http://www.angryharry.com/Men-Are-Worthless.htm
Once you understand how deeply feminists distort reality for purposes of destroying good men (the patriarchy), you can more fully appreciate their underlying sociopathy and penis envy.
That the patriarchy was anti-female is the biggest and best feminist distortion of reality ever told. You need a genius feminist sociopath to come up with the brainwashing and distortions of reality with which feminists now claim as truth. Need more proof? Here you go:
http://www.facebook.com/ExposingFeminism
LikeLike
Tim,
It’s like a zoo. The sign says “Don’t feed the Trolls.” The guards enforce violations.
I suspect you probably have some interesting things to say about this post.
LikeLike
Lol. I have a reply in mind, but will respect EotFMw, so I’m dropping the debate.
LikeLike
finn,
Thank you. You probably have some useful observations about this post, and the future. It’s the unknown country.
LikeLike
“I suspect you probably have some interesting things to say about this post.”
I love the trolls. Why? Their lies are so simple to defeat – but only after you’ve studied feminism, gynocentrism and misandry. They come in and spout their lies and then people like me debunk them with the obvious truth. Not everyone is prepared to deal with the trolls. Why? Little to no debating experience with feminists. Many are intimidated by feminist trolls. Not I. What I showed here was an important step in male progress. I didn’t kowtow to a feminist.
Marriage is dying because its more profitable for women to maintain the illusion that marriage is good for men, dupe men into marriage, transfer men’s wealth to women through divorce and then claim that men are evil oppressors so that every law and policy is geared toward privileges for women. Marriage is dying because feminists ruined it with their lies. Feminists are the enemy, not the patriarchy.
The gynocracy isn’t going to give up their ill gotten privileges over men – so hypothesizing about a future in which men and women work together again is a waste of time. The 1950s are gone for good.Just like most people stood by during the Nazi destruction of the Jews and during the KKK destruction of blacks, those that benefit from the denigration and destruction of men will sit idly by. They will not act in any meaningful way until it becomes abundantly clear that the destruction of men offers little in return. Until then – you’re only going to get lip service. I’m not talking about just the feminists here. I’m talking about most women and also the cowardly, naive white knights that kowtow to women to remain in power.
I know that this will never happen, but there needs to be a men’s studies course in high school and college. “The Manipulated Man”, “The Myth of Male Power” and “Stand By Your Manhood” are three books with which every young adult male should be exposed.
Men need to understand that the destruction of the patriarchy – the primary feminist goal – means to destroy men and the transfer of their power and wealth to women through force of law. This destruction isn’t a game. It’s real – and women are out for blood. This redistribution of wealth has been going on for several decades and has been monumentally successful for women – leaving hundreds of thousands of men dead from financial annihilation and suicide.
While women were busy being taught how to dominate and control men by feminists, boys were left unschooled in how men have been brutalized by women over the past several decades. Young men need to be taught that women are not their friends and are instead their competitors and adversaries – even within marriage. Mothers – rather than teaching their sons the supposed joys of marriage – should introduce their sons to the all too common, total life destruction men undergo through divorce. As that doesn’t serve the gynocracy – that will never happen. Boys will continue to be sent out naive in the ways of women. Why? Because boys and men are disposable; hence male-only selective service.
Feminists own the colleges now. The reason they’re going after the fraternities is because being a member of a frat – especially the Greek frats – means you have a huge advantage in life. Feminists don’t like that – so they’re trying to either destroy the frats or force them to be co-ed. It’s all about destroying the patriarchy and transferring men’s power and wealth to women. They will win.
The Rolling Stone piece didn’t have anything to do with rape. It’s all about money, power and control – and the Greek frats have lots of it. Because of this – feminists will do everything in their power to destroy them. The Rolling Stone debacle was a laser guided attack against Greek frats to force their closure or force them to become co-ed.
Feminists control all of academia now and actively discriminate against men and boys. Boys are having a tough time in school because the girls are favored by their feminist teachers and the boys are denigrated for being male. You’d think the feminists would want all girl schools. Know why they don’t? That’s easy. Because they can’t run the men’s schools if they’re all male. Having co-ed everything ensures they can use false rape, sexual assault and harassment to get rid of all the male management and teachers. This is why fewer and fewer men become teachers and why many quit the profession. Feminists do want female only STEM classes however. They already have many and will get more and more.
“Yes Means Yes” has nothing to do with rape. It’s all about the redistribution of men’s power and wealth to women. It’s literally legalized blackmail and extortion through use of fear and/or false accusations. This is the real “rape culture”. This is the gynocracy’s method of choice in redistributing men’s wealth and power to themselves.
Lest we forget – it was the white knights of the patriarchy that brought “Yes Means Yes” into being. Obama himself spearheaded this particular destruction of college men. All legislation that discriminates against men in favor of women was put in place my powerful male leaders at the behest of the gynocracy. Why? For purposes of garnering votes from women to remain in power. These men gladly threw the majority of men under the bus to maintain the favor of the gynocracy – leaving a path of destroyed men in their wake.
If I had a son – I’d tell him to never get married nor cohabit with a woman and to avoid unrecorded intimate encounters with women like the plague. If I had a daughter – I’d tell her to do whatever she wanted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Intriguing take on the situation (from a woman): “Why You’re Not Married.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thomas,
Thanks! I’ve added this to the post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wouldn’t it be fair to say that many if not most of these statements could apply equally well to men? I know from personal experience that there are just as many men as there are women who are angry, shallow, selfish, insecure, sexually indiscriminate, or dishonest with themselves and others. I know that there are plenty of women in the world who have one or even several of these faults — but the point is that these are HUMAN faults and not limited to one gender of the other, suggesting that women are not the only ones responsible for the failure of marriage. I’m all in favor of people of both genders developing an appropriate level of self-awareness so that they can acknowledge their own faults and accept responsibility for what they contribute to their own problems including their marital problems.
LikeLike
Some comments in this post like Jinn’s are whats wrong with America. Where is the Argentina guerrilla guy when we need him? Let’s hope he fixes and finnishes
LikeLike
David,
I’m bored with “what’s with America” article. They’re just entertainment for the outer party, an outlet for their feelings of apathy. Boring.
More interesting is to speculate about the future, and discuss ways to influence it.
LikeLike
Over the past 40+ years, tens upon tens of millions of men’s lives have been destroyed through divorce. Hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of those men, upon realizing that their future was destroyed, committed suicide. How did this happen? No fault divorce. As a bread winning man, your wife can cheat on you, cuckold you and then walk away with most of your assets and future income. While she’s off writing the next chapter of her life with the pool boy or bartender, you’ll be forced by law to finance her life goals through alimony and child support – else go to jail. Did you know that child support is another form of alimony? Why is that true? Because child support is based on what you make. It goes up exponentially based upon what you earn – and is tax deductible to the recipient (your now deeply hated X wife), not the payer (the man fool who will die homeless).
There has been a deep decline in marriage rates over the past several decades, that perfectly aligns with the implementation of no-fault divorce.
Feminism has never been about equality. Feminism is about the destruction of the patriarchy. What does that mean? It means the destruction of men and the redistribution of their wealth and power to women. It means better outcomes for women and far worse outcomes for men. In other words, feminism isn’t about equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. Feminism is about female superiority. In the US, thanks to their dead husbands, fathers and divorce raped X husbands, women now hold the majority of US wealth.
If you think the feminists are crazy – you’re kidding yourself. The feminists will win. They’ve been winning for several decades. In the not too distant future, women will be far more privileged members of society than men than they already are. In the US, women already receive the majority of state and federal funding for heath, education and welfare. Men are the majority of poor and homeless. Laws are already in place to specifically privilege women over men and to give women easy access to destroy men’s lives (no-fault divorce, Title IX, Yes Means Yes, Affirmative Action, the VAWA, etc). These laws and policies have nothing to do with equality and everything to do with ensuring women’s privilege over men and the redistribution of men’s wealth and power to women.
The pope recently made the statement that men need to stop blaming feminism for their problems. THE POPE SAID THIS! Know why? For the same reason white knight politicians pander to women for their votes. Gotta keep the meat in the seats, keep the birth rates up, keep men stupid, married and divorce raped, keep the money rolling in and keep the gynocracy voting for socialism/Marxism.
The last thing you want to do as a man is get married.
Yes. It’s very important that everyone recognize that it’s all about divide and conquer. Unfortunately, the majority of women will sit back and watch men be destroyed. Why? Because the denigration of men and the redistribution of wealth from men to women suits them. The bonus is – so long as they don’t claim to be feminists – they really had nothing to do with the plight of men. It’s no different than the mass silence of people during the slave days or the mass silence while the Jews were being slaughtered. There was an unacknowledged, unspoken gain being had – and those having it weren’t going to rock the boat. Sure – there’s a minority of women out there working for true fairness and equality, but the vast majority of women will sit idly by as men are pushed further and further down the economic and social ladder. What we get most right now is what I like to call “equality lip service”. “Feminism helps men, too.” LOL. See any women fighting against women’s dominance in college? Nope!
Now that men are opting out of marriage in record numbers and the birth rate is collapsing in Westernized nations, even the pope is getting his white knight on. Unfortunately, that means more male shaming and pandering to the gynocracy. That in turn means more division and more men opting out of marriage and family. Tis a return to the days of the fall of Rome.
With all the evidence we have to date, it’s clear that feminism is about privileging women at the expense of men’s lives; which is why you don’t see a strong, organized effort to nix male-only selective service or any other federal or state program that is unfairly funded or targeted at privileging women over men.
I can definitely see where the rich would want women to have power, privilege and carefully disguised, man-hating authority over men. Why? Women create the next generation of wage and tax slaves. To the rich, keeping them happy and men subservient to women works in both women’s and the rich’s favor. For these reasons, every effort will be made to either boost the marriage and birth rates or to divert even more wealth and power from men to women. These “programs” will be extremely stealthy. Examples are the “cohabitation rights bill” in the UK, which was specifically written to give women rights to alimony and asset division upon breakup, “Yes Means Yes”, which is a back door method of opening men up to civil law suits, a way to give women totalitarian control over sex (See Brian Banks and other high profile athletes) and a way for women to attack and destroy patriarchal power structures (see Rolling Stone and the Greek Fraternity attack) and female only STEM classes (they already exist).
Feminism is all about money, power and control and the transfer of such from men to women. As the video in question indicates, one way or another, feminists are here to make sure that redistribution of power and wealth happens. Men opting out of marriage and family will not stop that redistribution. No-fault divorce isn’t the only way to “get er done”.
I don’t think most men realize what feminists are talking about when they talk about the “wage gap” – including the white knight pope. The point women are making isn’t so much that men make more than women. The point women are making is that men make more because the things with which they choose to endeavor are more financially valuable (STEM fields) in the open market. To women, the jobs in which they normally endeavor should be paid more to compensate for the intrinsic lower market value of those positions (the not so STEM fields). Yes, this is most certainly socialism/Marxism. This video makes that ABUNDANTLY clear.
If you want to see the future of the US and all Westernized nations, look to Sweden. Converting all Western nations to Sweden has been the goal of progressives all along.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The video to which I refer can be found at the following link. The woman in the video is proposing that men be actively discriminated against. Why? Feminists are the greatest of the narcissistic sociopaths. Read and judge for yourself. Keep in mind, this is a UN speech:
http://stgeorgewest.blogspot.com/2015/05/un-advises-women-need-more-in-order-to.html
LikeLike
Tim,
I was looking for something more focused on the points made in this post. Also, long general comments imo don’t accomplish much. They state how you feel, but cover too much ground for debate and provide little or no evidence. The FM website has had 39 thousand comments; on that firm basis it’s clear that long ones are seldom read. Yours is 1200 words, longer than most posts here (and these are long-form articles by internet standards).
I suggest shorter comments, making a specific point with some supporting evidence.
LikeLike
Editor,
Thanks for your reply. What I wrote is being read the world over. It’s being discussed and dissected in exactly the way I just described. It doesn’t matter if what I wrote fits the desired format. What I wrote is the next big thing. What I wrote is the future. Those that read and comprehend will dissect what I wrote and dispense it in the appropriate quantities. What I wrote will become the national conscious of many nations.
Thanks for giving me the forum in which to express my views. There are many such forums – and I’m a major contributor on each.
I’ve been writing voraciously for several years. I’m among the unknown that help drive the metamorphosis you’re witnessing.
Men are “going Galt”. Marriage is dying. I’m going to dedicate the rest of my life to make sure that happens. Why? To save men from the horrors of marriage for men.
LikeLike
No fault divorce is the worst of them. I know someone personally who lost a year’s salary to a woman after only 4 years of marriage. With him there on the couch a blubbering mess with “how to commit suicide” pages open on his browser, it convinced me that there is such a thing as “lawful evil” and no fault divorce provides the best vehicle.
The language is incredibly destructive. It sends the message “it’s not her fault she cheated on you, it’s not her fault she is extorting you, it’s not her fault you paid her way and then gave you a bunch of legal bills in return.” If you apply Hitler’s wisdom here, eventually these statements will hold true for the victim giving way to Stockholm syndrome.
LikeLike
Tony,
Thanks for the comment. I had not thought about that. The usual critique of no-fault divorce is that it unilaterally (without consent of both parties) changed the marriage contract. Women who had invested decades in marriage could be tossed aside.
On the other hand, women initiate 85% of divorces — so the system does not look tilted against them. And, judged by the complaints that so many men have the “peter pan syndrome” (i.e., will not marry), women believe that the institution of marriage works well for them. So they’re happy with both ends of the family-making social machinery.
The numbers suggest that increasing numbers of men are not. When I have time I will write a follow-up to this. It’s one of the most important yet undercovered trends in US society.
LikeLike
“Will society survive?”
I smiled when I read this Post; knowing a bit about the Editor, I smiled. The answer is …why of course. Pendulums of social changes swing over time back and forth. And over generations, that is why these ideas are so fascinating if you wish to engage with them. Sure some men are being faced with diminishing opps, some women are benefitting from some favorable trends and gifts if they so avail themselves of them. Yessiree some ambitious women are discovering a bit late they want a marriage and are hard pressed to find a partner. Some guys will skateboard as long as dad writes the check,
And on and on.
More’s Article is terrific for most of these women enmeshed in a dilemma. But biology is premier.
No Society has, is and will change but will not dissolve.
What a silly thought.
Breton
LikeLike
Breton,
Yes, the title was clickbait.
But survival is a pretty low bar to set for ourselves. It doesn’t mean prosperity or stability (i.e., avoiding disruptive internal conflicts). My point was that we need to think about themselves. Only fools count on the “invisible hand” to see that changes are always pleasant — as in TV shows, with fun, educational, morally uplifting lessons at the end.
LikeLike
See the white cop suspended for arresting a black woman at a pool party in TX? If it had been a black man or white man resisting, no one would have questioned an officer taking down the man resisting arrest. The vid would never have made it to national news. But in this case, because it was a black/woman being taken down, all of a sudden, it’s a national issue. Cops dare not take down a black – nevertheless a black woman. Does that sound like equality to you? It doesn’t, does it? It sounds like preferential treatment for blacks and women – especially black women. It sounds like preference based on gender, right? It stinks to the high crack of gynocentric preference, does it not? Someone please pass me the feminine deodorant.
See – Lisa and women like Lisa don’t want you to notice these things. Tim and men like Tim do. Why? Because what you see on TV regarding the black pool party girl resisting arrest is representative of all man-hating feminists. Lisa is my new, biggest man hater, next to the most useless of misandrists, finn.
Feminism, like socialism and Marxism sounds great – until you see it play out in real life. Lisa and finn are useful, man-hating idiots.
LikeLike
A note to Lisa and finn:
If you want to eliminate men’s libido and free men from their undesirable, cursed fetish for women, all you need do is administer 50mg of Spironolactone in the AM and PM. This simple daily dose – think of it as a “medication” – will free men and boys from any want or need of women.
The single greatest enemy of men is their desire for women. The single most harmful aspect of a man’s life is his cursed desire for that which will eventually ruin his life. This desire is fueled via testosterone. Eliminate testosterone’s effect and you free both men and women from men’s desire for the manipulative, cunning, hypocritical sex.
I’ll be the first to sign the petition to make the administration of 100mg of Spironolactone, in divided daily doses, mandatory for all men and boys. Think about it, Lisa and finn. No more men to desire you. This is just as good an idea for men as it is for misandrists such as yourselves.
Please, please, please say you’ll support this effort.
LikeLike
Tim I am on 50mg Androcus. But I do get pissed of by the FM crew for their 1950s….misogyny.
Here is something esle, in all my years ‘passing as a male’..the good men, lots of them, maybe even if that can’t know at time how to be good:
Again, men only spaces, lots of grog and the truth comes out. Yes there are the ranters, blamers and the closet misogynsists.
Bit there are also really nice guys, though some stuggle to express it because of ther conditioning. Sometimes they can only do it when they are blind drunk. Good hearts, warm, caring, worried about the world and (if they have them) their children. Really love their partners. The most common statement I have heard from men like that is “my best friend”, my “soulmate”.
Hearing some of them (again usually only drunk) worrying about their wives who have serious health problems could break your heart sometimes. When they pour it out,, after being ‘strong’ and so on. But inside they are dying. “I just wish it was me suffering, she doesn’t deserve it” is not an uncommon statement.
There are those who have broken their restrictive programming, some never do entirely but manage to weaken it.
Maybe we should call feminism, ‘humanism’. Because there are no losers in this in the freedom to be yourself and free from expected roles of behaviour, man or woman, boy or girl. Just be a good human being..
I have noticed something, of all the couples I know, cis hetero males/famales, cis gay males, cis lesbian females, trans and…well whatever….it is complex…the ones that make it, the ones that are happy together…are just good human beings first and foremost.
LikeLike
Lisa,
“But I do get pissed of by the FM crew”
Funniest thing I’ve read today. There is no crew. There are only a few frequent commenters, most of whom are not on this thread.
LikeLike
I wholeheartedly agree with you that this is at least one way in which Western culture has done and continues to do men great injustice and injury — we give them very little freedom to express their emotions. This is particularly true of emotions which are critical to maintaining a happy and healthy partnership (such as affection and vulnerability) and also of emotions which have the capacity to become destructive if they are not allowed expression (such as grief and sadness). This is almost certainly at least part of the explanation behind the higher rates of completed suicide in men — women are more likely to have suicidal thoughts and to attempt suicide but men are far more likely to succeed in killing themselves if they attempt it. (That and the fact that they’re also more likely to use methods which have a high degree of immediate lethality, such as firearms, which makes it very difficult to save them.) Western culture has always allowed women a much greater degree of emotional expression than men (with one exception — the emotion of anger) even though this has also been used in the past as an excuse to keep women “in their place.”
I’m inclined to agree with your earlier assessment that it’s unrealistic in the extreme to think anything other than brute force will compel women as a group to return to “kinder, kuche, und kirche.” As the song from WWI said, “How Ya Gonna Keep Them Down On The Farm (After They’ve Seen Paree)?” These days, only someone who feels contempt for women would argue that women do not deserve any say over decisions that directly affect their own lives. You don’t need to look too far to realize that the essential nature of the universe is growth and change, and that stasis is unnatural and unsustainable — anything that remains static tends to stagnate, and anything that can’t adapt becomes obsolete or goes extinct. That being said, the kind of dramatic paradigm shifts such as those which have been taking place over the last fifty-plus years — not even the blink of an eye on a human scale — with regard to gender roles take a long time to settle comfortably into place, usually more than just one lifetime. It’s becoming fairly obvious that a growing number of people (women as well as men) no longer consider the traditional concept of marriage relevant to their own lives — they might still want to be married because the culture continues to glorify it, but they also know many marriages don’t even come close to measuring up to the images that the culture presents to us. If marriage is going to survive, it will have to adapt to the other changes that have taken place within our society…and if it can’t, then it will be increasingly viewed as antiquated and eventually replaced with something else.
LikeLike
My apologies — I mistakenly attributed the quote from Finn about women only being forced back into the kitchen at gunpoint to you. I do agree with the sentiment, however, even though I was mistaken regarding the source — I don’t think most women would consent to surrender the right to have control over their own lives except at gunpoint and I think it would be unreasonable and unfair to expect them to do so.
I do find it rather ironic that men are beginning to get a personal taste of what women have experienced for centuries…and realizing that it was not exactly a bed of roses, just as women have been discovering that self-sufficiency in the man’s world is not quite everything they had thought it was cracked up to be either. Both genders have experienced their own particular form of suffering — like it or not, pain is a part of the human condition — and it’s a bit self-serving as well as too simplistic for them to blame each other for the problems between men and women. This is the one point — but the only one — which I will concede to the female authors that FM has cited. Women can’t simply blame men for the decline in marriage — we also have to look at the ways in which we’ve contributed to the pattern, One of the reasons why marriage may be on the decline is that feminism (I prefer personism, myself) has sent men the message that we no longer need them — and the plain and simple truth is that we don’t need them in exactly the same way or to the same degree that we once did. If marriage is going to survive, we may need to help men find their sense of value and self-worth in something other than what they do for a living and how much they earn — especially as the “Robot Revolution” takes hold — and women will need to adjust their own priorities accordingly.
That being said, I’m no longer as much of a believer in marriage myself as I once used to be — historically, it has always been first and foremost an economic contract in which a woman traded her sexual favors and her fertility to a man in exchange for financial support for herself and her children. The idea of marrying for love is actually a relatively modern idea — a woman’s family played a much greater role in deciding who she should marry, and often discouraged her from marrying anyone whom they for whatever reason considered inappropriate even if she loved the man. Historically, love was not considered a very stable foundation for marriage — whether a man was capable of supporting a family was far more important, so much so that whether he was actually a nice man or not was often of secondary importance.
LikeLike
We go on and on about gender roles. Being transgendered I am , just, a bit interested in this…..lol.
But it is all a weird combination of genetic, natel hormones and social prgramming.
The most violent, and good at that too, person I ever knew was a women…..I married her. I was the person who talked her down. Now she was 5’3″ and a man who tried to rape her in Melbourne..she put him in hospital. So what does that say about gender/social roles…nothing whatsoever.
I know men who are wonderful writers and painters, I know women who are total capitalists (in all the bad ways) swine. So what does that say about gender/social roles…nothing whatsoever.
After you get rid of the social prgamming there are:
Wonderful, horrible, complex, intelligent,stupid, cruel, kind, sociopthic, empathtic ..etc men.
Wonderful, horrible, complex, intelligent,stupid, cruel, kind, sociopthic, empathtic ..etc women.
On average, about 93% to 98% of those cis/’straight’ people want to get together and share a life.
Of those 3% to 7% , who are different (GLBTI) they also want to get together and share a life. We are so different …not.
Personal experence, just a week ago, young lesbian woman talking about her love and hopes…. and you would have to be a horrible person to not want her to have a good life filled with love, with the person she loves.
LikeLike
Speaking as a woman, FM, I find it very strange (and frankly, a bit insulting) that you choose to include a quote — and one which is quite dismissive and contemptuous of women, if I may be so bold — from a book written more than one hundred years ago as “one woman’s clear thinking about the problem.” Surely there were a number of more modern books which you could have quoted? i find it hard to understand why you felt it necessary to reach that far back — it’s not as if Mary Eliza Joy Haweis is the only woman to have ever written something critical about her own sex and supportive of men and marriage, is it? Wouldn’t something by Phyllis Schlafly (who unsuccessfully ran for Congress twice and whose own mother supported her husband during the Great Depression) have been at least a little more up-to-date?
If such a statement had been drawn from a modern book (unless it was not representative of most of the rest of the text), her remarks would very likely receive widespread criticism from all but the most conservative of women and a great many women (perhaps even most) would probably perceive her as something of a self-loathing throwback — not all misogynists are men! Mary Eliza Joy Haweis is rather obviously a product of her time — a time in which the idea that we’re capable of the same level of intelligence and competence that men are and that we deserve equal consideration under the law and the opportunity to utilize our talents to the utmost was still widely regarded as preposterous. However, we live in a very different time now — one in which society no longer holds the idea that the only thing women are entitled to aspire to are marriage and children and a life of subservience.
LikeLike
Bluestocking,
“i find it hard to understand why you felt it necessary to reach that far back”
These discussions tend to repeat themselves generation by generation, each time unaware of what was said in the past. I find it a bit odd that you don’t see that was my point, since it was clearly stated.
The “clear vision” was meant somewhat ironically. I don’t take sides in these disputes, certainly not in one among women about the desirability of marriage or how to get married.
LikeLike
I was halfway to going Galt before I knew who John Galt was. 2007 when I saw “the fix was in” I went the rest of the way. All my income is under the table or internet based, I exist under the radar and I semiretired aboard a cruising sailboat. My one bill is for a cellphone whose GPS says “Atlantic Ocean” if the NSA is interested. Basically getting ready for when helicopters start falling from the sky, then adios…
LikeLiked by 1 person
anton,
“Helicopters start falling from the sky”
Alien invasion? Change in the laws of physics? I don’t understand.
LikeLike