Well if this statistic demonstrating a slow decline of marriage in this country turns out to be true (and who knows if it is as statistics are often 'played with' by various individuals and groups to make a point) I would say it demonstrates that WOMEN, who are the persons historically more invested in marriage, are finally fed up and moving onto new patterns of living...and frankly, I think this is a good thing.
Women used to have to get married in order to get any resources from men (who controlled every single resource on the planet and in many places still do). Their choices were either marriage or to live with their father and mother or some other married relative forever and this was not always desirable or practical. Not to mention they could never have any children of their own w/o marriage (and I believe most women do want children as politically incorrect as it might be to say it). Thus the evolution of the character known as the 'maiden aunt' of history who was always doting on other women's children, not being allowed to have any of her own or risk stoning, or burning at the stake, or having her baby murdered or some other horrible punishment (devised by men) for unmarried pregnancy...Anyway men used this desperate need of women to be married as a club against us (much as they now use custody of her children against mothers) to enforce their social control of women.
So any decrease in marriage I see as a sign that women have finally realized this and are seeking ways to end it w/o starting a war as men would do (ie., as in the custody wars men have incited) or some other such activity. Just quiet changes in our behavior having the desired impact like the wind or water slowly wearing down the mountain.
Last point: this probably also could explain the rising statistic of older women leading the way in choosing to become single mothers. All to the good! The fact that younger women, teenagers, used to be the main group of single women having children gave an opening to the usual suspects to frame their opposition to single motherhood as justified since they could claim single motherhood was a burden on society. I guarantee you that their panties are still in a bunch now, even if the women having children out of wedlock could afford to raise them w/o government assistance.
Why?
Because it's not about money, it's about men losing their last chance to control women, that's what it is...by holding our children hostage through the manipulation of the legal system.
The final thing that puzzles me is why a fairly well-educated man like Marc Rudov continues harping upon alimony as a 'benefit' women receive from marriage and subsequent divorce. The census shows that ONLY 15% of divorcees (either women or men, as yes Virginia men do get alimony) ever get awarded any alimony and of that 15% only one-half manage to actually collect it. So this continued fixation is a puzzlement. Most men probably have a better chance of getting struck by lightning then they do of paying alimony to a former wife.
Anyway that's by take on the whole situation.
http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com/2006/10/31/riding-the-estrogen-express/
Riding the Estrogen Express
by Marc H. RudovOctober 31st, 2006
Contrary to its intent, the United States is methodically recasting itself as a singles-oriented nation. Notwithstanding the impassioned soapbox orations from politicians about marriage as the bedrock of society, their anti-male policies and laws are, in fact, killing the family and marriage.
In my article “Will Women Halt the Death of Marriage?” I wrote that, for men, marriage is a sucker’s deal. Before you fume at me, ladies, count the number of times you’ve seen a divorced mother writing child-support and alimony checks to her mansion-dwelling ex-husband from the card-table desk of her one-bedroom apartment. Enough said.
The American Community Survey, released in October 2006 by the US Census Bureau, found that, for the first time in US history, only 49.7 percent, or 55.2 million, of the nation’s 111.1 million households in 2005 were made up of married couples — with and without children — just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent in 2000.
Yes, folks, instead of solidifying marriage and simplifying our lives, the vote whores on Capitol Hill and in state assemblies across our great country have been catalyzing a pandemic of out-of-wedlock births and spawning costly, socialistic infrastructures to deal with them. As usual, they’ve created another fine mess where one didn’t exist. In this case, the root cause is fear of women (translation: fear of not getting the female vote).
When installing new software, the subscriber must click “I agree” on the 10-page, eye-glazing user agreement, if he expects it to function. How many times does one actually read these documents? I almost never do, because, if so, I’d still be installing Windows 95. Interestingly, when installing new women into their lives, men have a history of exhibiting similar, reflexive behavior — blindly, deferentially, and sycophantically agreeing to known and unknown caveats, provisos, clauses, and conditions. Why? Habit, conditioning, resignation, socialization, and belief that no other options exist.
The typical man, traditionally, has been so deferential to — and fearful of — women that he automatically will allow one to commandeer the dating, engagement, wedding, marriage, and divorce phases of his life. Then, he will kick himself afterwards and cry into the beer of anyone sympathetic enough to listen. Surrendering these phases to her is akin to riding a runaway train — The Estrogen Express — to Disasterville. The only question is, Will he disembark in time to avert the inevitable?
When you think about it, the traditional way of dealing with a woman is to permit her to control your life. Men mistakenly believe they will have more peace that way. This moronic behavior, based on the false assumption that men must crawl through broken glass to get laid, leads to devastating consequences. It’s quite scary to realize how much control over their lives men have conceded to women, with lots of help from misandrist feminists and politicians.
But, it seems that the tide is now turning. Men are increasingly saying no to marriage and relationships, and the Census Bureau statistics prove it. Alas, the out-of-wedlock birthrate (see my article “Playing Abortion Chess”) also proves it. Men are finally realizing that they don’t have to get married and don’t want to get married. They are tired of playing a losing game against the house. To modern men, matrimony equals alimony — not safety, comfort, and love.
When I see a million women marching on the Mall in Washington, DC, demanding that our elected officials restore dignity to men and fathers and the family unit, I will become convinced that they truly believe in matrimony — not just alimony and child support. Until then, I’m not holding my breath.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 30+ articles and the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
8 comments:
First off, Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year everyone.
NYMOM, you generalize that men "controlled every resource on the planet" which is rather broad, pardon the pun. Women's history month goes to great lengths to illustrate all the things women invented, businesses ran, etc. throughout history. In addition, there were few if any feminists on the Titanic. Next, I didn't know that men had a 15% chance of getting struck by lightning (which you equate to the 15% chance of men paying alimony).
What hasn't changed is that most single mothers are still dependent financially upon men either via welfare, alimony, or child-support. So the notion that women are rejecting the patriarchy by becoming single mothers is laughable. Most are still BENEFICIARIES of it!
Regarding older women having children. Logically, if such women were rejecting the patriarchy they'd be having children when they were younger and healthier. The common sense observation, which happens to be true, is that older women are becoming single mothers because their double dipper demands for traditional breadwinners are not being met. (That's why so many of them were willing to lower their expectations and date me as I've pointed out before here! Note: I'm not saying I'm a stud. Just the opposite!)
You have often expressed the notion that women should be rewarded by society (namely, taxpaying men) to be mothers but society (men) shouldn't have any say about how these mothers raise their children. Basically, women should be housewives of the state without any limits. The reason why men controlled the resources, NYMOM, is simply because men PRODUCED them just as women today "control" their children via abortion or legal infant abandonment with one difference: The resources men produce: gold, diamonds, electricity, plumbing, houses, etc. have immediate value while starving babies, don't. Plenty of people are willing to produce starving babies for free.
In other words, men have called feminism's bluff and when women say: "if you don't give me all these goodies I won't have kids" the men said: "OK. I'm cool with that" and illegal immigrants filled in the void. Don't worry, single women can die childless paying the taxes like men for other women to have children. Isn't that great?
NY said: "Because it's not about money, it's about men losing their last chance to control women, that's what it is...by holding our children hostage through the manipulation of the legal system."
NY, you can't have it both ways. If we're "not very interested" in marriage or children as you've repeatedly asserted, then this whole claim in preposterous.
"The final thing that puzzles me is why a fairly well-educated man like Marc Rudov continues harping upon alimony as a 'benefit' women receive from marriage and subsequent divorce."
The term itself isn't important. Some states have banned it altogther. But child support serves much of the function of alimony as it has little to do with the actual needs of children.
"So any decrease in marriage I see as a sign that women have finally realized this and are seeking ways to end it"
I'll believe women are seeking an end to marriage when that nauseous "Bridezilla" crap is off the airwaves and Modern Bride, Elegant Bride, World Bride and You-Name-It Bride stop cluttering up periodical racks. Until then, I'll posit that the ones who have the most to lose from marriage are the ones opting out.
PK said: "The reason why men controlled the resources, NYMOM, is simply because men PRODUCED them just as women today "control" their children"
Bingo, PK, and just as NY was telling us all about how women can "quite simply choose not to have any" children if we assert our parental rights, then we as men can quite simply choose not to produce any resources if women keep helping themselves to them without invitation.
Nature again. Beautiful.
Happy holidays to you as well...
"Women's history month goes to great lengths to illustrate all the things women invented, businesses ran, etc. throughout history."
I'm a history major from an ivy, so no, I don't put any credence in the politically correct version of history with its claim that women were so empowered historically and could do so many things 'just like men'...
In fact, I'm just reading a book now called Thames: A Biography (title should be self-explanatory). It shows an old etching by Thomas Rowlandson circa 1812 called "Ducking of a Scold" in which a wife is legally punished by being ducked into the Thames for nagging her husband too much...
Interestingly enough I noticed that even our courts today frequently legally punish mothers for 'badmouthing' a child's father.
So the legacy of women being punished for talking is alive and well.
But you already know I agree with you regarding the fraudulent history being concocted concerning women. Yet you keep bringing up this point to argue what we already agree on.
I think you want it both ways as usual. To bring up the fraud when it supports your case and to disregard it when it doesn't. Make up your mind already...
"The resources men produce: gold, diamonds, electricity, plumbing, houses, etc. have immediate value while starving babies, don't."
Babies, starving or otherwise, are a long-term investment in society. For some reason that escapes me you don't seem to understand that society is made up of PEOPLE and if you don't replenish those PEOPLE society DIES. Which is just what is happening now in the west, we are dying...
"Regarding older women having children. Logically, if such women were rejecting the patriarchy they'd be having children when they were younger and healthier."
It's a process Polish Knight, a process that takes time. You are not going to change the responses women have evolved over time to deal with the world men have created for them.
I take the lateness of women waiting to do this as the desperate hope that they'll meet a guy who won't try to invoke his privileges and force them into an irreversible situation: ie., having their children held as hostages if they try to leave a bad marriage. It's only after a decade or two of dating and finding it futile that women reluctantly face up to the fact that if they want children they'll be going it alone.
That's what accounts for the lateness...
"NY, you can't have it both ways. If we're "not very interested" in marriage or children as you've repeatedly asserted, then this whole claim in preposterous."
No, it's not.
Men, of course, built this catch-22 themselves with their laws against out-of-wedlock childbearing...so if you wished your 'line' to continue historically you had to marry...
But historically men have NEVER wanted to marry...Rome actually had to pass laws forcing their version of the middle classes to marry since they needed more Roman citizens as soldiers, farmers, etc., their importation of these groups led to mercenaries fighting Roman wars and slaves farming their estates.
The end of that situation is already known.
"The term itself isn't important. Some states have banned it altogther. But child support serves much of the function of alimony as it has little to do with the actual needs of children."
Bingo, which is why I keep saying that if we address the issue of too-high child support ALL of the other things will take care of themselves...this is the leading cause of our so-called 'custody wars' the child abductions, etc., that are currently blighting our society.
It's connected...
But again you wish to have it both ways: to bring this up when it suits you and then to disregard its relevance when you wish to make another point.
This too-high child support or alimony, whatever you call it, is the cause of every situation involving children turning into a bitter custody battle...
"I'll believe women are seeking an end to marriage when that nauseous "Bridezilla" crap is off the airwaves and Modern Bride, Elegant Bride, World Bride and You-Name-It Bride stop cluttering up periodical racks."
Again, old behaviors die hard.
Women evolved the behavior to survive as let's face it an unmarried woman was vulnerable, not just to crime, but to living in a cave or on the streets as marriage was her 'job'...
So I think many women just can't face the fact that they might never marry. I read somewhere that women are planning their weddings from the time they are 7 years old. This shows me society's involvement in this brainwashing, as what does a 7 year old girl know to worry about her future wedding.
"Until then, I'll posit that the ones who have the most to lose from marriage are the ones opting out."
Our society has ensured that any women interested in having children is going to be "opting out" and that's going to be most women. Although I'll admit there are some small number marrying just for the companionship, so they won't care.
Over time as the changes in our laws and legal system become more widely known you will see more and more women opting out...
Thus the growth of older single mothers...
"Bingo, PK, and just as NY was telling us all about how women can "quite simply choose not to have any" children if we assert our parental rights, then we as men can quite simply choose not to produce any resources if women keep helping themselves to them without invitation."
The difference is women do not "help themselves without invitation". We have to earn our keep economically just as men do...
yet you help yourselves to women's children after contributing absolutely nothing...
NYMOM, as usual we're up against a variety of double standards where women gestate and raise "people" who do important things in society (and you want the mother to get credit for those things) but, at the same time, you blame the men for all the bad stuff they do. So apparently, bad men are spontaneously created out of thin air...
Regarding aging spinsters, quote, "hope that they'll meet a guy who won't try to invoke his privileges" but at the same time just can't seem to get around to not seeking sexism men in the first place. Yeah, men should still live up to 19th century knight standards but be Mr. Liberated and do half of the household chores (but still give her full rights to the children.) Got it.
You love to make excuses for poor, helpless damsels in disdress but you expect men to be saints and that's not terribly surprising. For people who think the world owes them a living it's natural to have a standard where they can do no wrong and other people should cross every t and dot every i.
The Reality of life is that perfect mates rarely exist and the better ones aren't just going to "meet" you and ride up in a limo holding flowers blaring opera music ala end of Pretty Woman.
In any case, as the socialist system collapses or evolves into the third world payola corruption less money is available for middle class career woman to comfortably dump their childcare expenses upon others. On the contrary, they have to work like men to pay for some other women from Patriarchal cultures to have children. Hehehehe. The problem will work it's way out one way or the other.
NYMOM, you may want to check out the history of the holiday "Valentine's Day". St. Valentine was executed for marrying soldiers who were prohibited from doing so. Also, you claim that men use marriage to oppress women but at the same time common men didn't want to marry. I agree with that paradox since the notion of men seeking to oppress women is silly. Men in power simply did things for their own private benefit and not for men in general. By the same token, most of the money in socialism is slushed over to their buddies so that career women wind up paying 2 bucks in taxes for whatever fraction of a dollar they get back. From each according to her naive greed, and to each according to their political connections...
You continue to try to excuse women's craving sexism as this kind of battered women's syndrome that they aren't responsible for ther actions because they're helpless damsels in distress. Women embrace sexism because they like it. Plain and simple. If you have a dozen health food stores within walking distance and a woman insists on eating at McD's every day, it's not because it's an "old habit." It's because she doesn't like exercise and likes fast food. It's not complicated!
You keep on claiming us men contribute absolutely nothing. Oh, except for all that money that most women still need from us lest their children starve to death or die from exposure. Oh, and the health insurance we share for those hospitals.
"Yeah, other than the aquaduct, the roads, the sanitation and peace, what have the bloody Romans ever done for us?" -- Life of Brian
I'm not terribly demanding or difficult to understand, NYMOM. Women are sexist and want men to be their protectors and breadwinners. All I want is a woman who treats me with basic human respect, keeps out of trouble and does what she can, and allows me access to my offspring. On the other hand, your paradigm for men is that we should still all poop money out of our butt without conditions, come home and do 1/2 of the housework, and she gets all the rights and goes to hobby jobs as she pleases. It's no wonder that such men are tough for aging career spinsters to find!
So I guess ordinary men didn't benefit when ordinary women were ducked in public for being nags...
Come on already. Ordinary men do benefit from these 'privileges men have given themselves'...
I am not denying that ordinary men could benefit just as ordinary women benefitted when women rowed away on the Titanic or had men fined for using bad language in front of a woman.
So what?
It doesn't show that the system was designed by "men" to benefit men but rather run by mostly powerful men to suit mostly their own personal interests just as Queen Elizabeth ran the system for her interests. What _IS_ clear is that the system was quite generous and fair towards women since, as you observed above, women are needing a LOT of time to stop craving sexism so much!
Post a Comment