Kim du Toit has some more observations about why men don't want to get married.
posted by Helen at 7:13 AM
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Why are Diamonds a Girl's Best Friend?
- Finding Freedom in an Unfree World?
- For "Feminists" Only Well Behaved Women Make History
- Is Settling for Mr. Good Enough Really Good Enough?
- Can You be too Happy?
- Single or Divorced: Either way, Pass the Lo Mein
- Single Men in Never-Neverland?
- "We 'R' Not Monsters." "They Treat Animals Better!!!"
- "Pinky-Swear You'll Vote for the Guy on YouTube!"
- Thomas Sowell on Economic Facts and Fallacies
14 Comments:
It's bloody brilliant. The Instahubby also has a spectacular piece linked of a woman wishing women would quit trying to speak for all women.
Peregrine John,
Thanks for the link to Rachel Lucas's blog. Glenn had told me about that post and I meant to read it--so thanks for reminding me. It is terrific and speaks volumes about the way that people tend to project how they feel about life onto all around them. As Lucas says, we are all different and want different things.
Kim does his own generalizing of what he thinks ALL men think, for instance with this line (and there are others):
"But it takes place in every man, sooner or later, when the negatives get too much to live with."
I saw this earlier today.
After some thought I recalled something I had once heard- 'The person who cares the least in a relationship, controls the relationship.'
It seems to me that nowadays, we are free to construct relationships in which we care- or not care- about who we are with, with no repercussions.
What is a casual 'relationship'? What is a 'friendship'? What is a more 'serious relationship'? Are there easily recognizable distinctions? Are men and women taught the differences and are we all on the same page?
Managing realistic expectations plays a big role in relationships. It Seems to me that truth/skill is becoming a lost art.
We have created an environment where 'failure to launch' rather than success is a more likely outcome when it comes to relationships.
IMHO, Kim and others still fail to address the fundamental problem.
By and large, modern women harbor logically contradictory desires, and they and greater society hold men accountable for resolving them.
It is not possible. It never will be possible.
jg --
"But it takes place in every man, sooner or later, when the negatives get too much to live with."
I find that statement true, presuming ever-mounting negatives, which was the context he was presuming.
Too much negative, you leave or you die.
Good article with a couple of original thoughts, but this is the ultimate illustrated guide for any man contemplating marriage:
http://loseloseprospect.blogspot.com/
Plus, here's a new called 'The Problem With Women Today.'
http://theproblemwithwomentoday-reality2008.blogspot.com/
By and large, modern women harbor logically contradictory desires, and they and greater society hold men accountable for resolving them.
It's been that way for all time. The only difference is that feminism said it was evil.
Well, I think all the problems with relationships these days can be traced back to the 1970s. That was the decade of change; the much-celebrated 1960s were the decade of protest. Nothing really changed in the 60s; everything changed in the 70s. And what really changed? The attitudes of women.
I call the kids who were born in the early-to-mid 60s, those who came of age in the 70s, the Lost Generation. Too young to be called Baby Boomers, too old to be called Generation Xers. We were the first generation to be raised on television.
Anyone remember the Brady Bunch? It was a very popular show and a perfect analogy of the change that took place. What was the premise of this show? Well, it's a divorced, single father with three sons and a divorced, single mother with three daughters, who meet, fall in love and get married, then move into one big house so they can raise the children together as one happy family, even though they're not related.
Now, in the real world this is a recipe for disaster. Unrelated teenage boys and girls living in the same house without their biological parents? I can't even begin to imagine the problems that would create. But in tv land this scenario provides a vehicle for progressive social commentary.
The Brady's tried marriage the traditional way, and it didn't work. Because the traditional way is old-fashioned and therefore out-of-date. This is the new marriage. The new man, the new woman, the new husband, the new wife, the new father, the new mother, the new son, the new daughter, the new brother, the new sister, the new boy, the new girl.
The problem with that is, according to the traditional definition which goes back thousands of years, a marriage is a union between a male and a female. That union is fully realized in the physical body of their child, which is genetically equally half of each parent. But the Bradys don't conceive a child together. He's got his sons; she's got her daughters. They're just living together so they can split the rent and have sex while they raise their unrelated children. So they never really form a union, do they? And thus they never truly enter into a marriage. This is why it's not called the Brady Family, but rather the Brady Bunch.
That's the change right there. It was a change in the idea of what a marriage is. Of what a man, a woman, a husband, a wife, a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister, a boy, a girl IS. And the problem with that is once you deny the truth of what a marriage really is, you deny the truth of what reality is and everything goes out the window.
Remember the episode when Marcia, the oldest daughter, woke up one day and decided she wanted to be a Boy Scout? She goes down to the troop and the Scout leader asks her, "Why do you want to be a Boy Scout? Why don't you want to be a Girl Scout?" Which is a logical question.
Marcia immediately becomes horribly offended. "This is discrimination! I'm being oppressed by the evil male power structure!" And she goes on a tear. She organizes marches, protests, demonstrations, with signs, bullhorns, television cameras. She brings the entire town to its knees.
Finally, at the end of the show, the parents--the adults--just give up and surrender. "It's okay, Marcia. It's okay. Calm down, Marcia. Calm down. You can be a Boy Scout."
And Marcia says, "Well, I don't really want to be a Boy Scout. I just wanted to prove that I could."
That's the 1970s right there, in a nutshell. And that's the change that took place. It was a change in the attitudes of women. And when you really think about it, it's incredibly stupid.
This girl, Marcia, becomes horribly offended over nothing for no reason. In fact, she goes out and deliberately looks for something, anything, to be offended by, so she can throw a fit. And she can throw a royal fit. She becomes totally motivated, psychologically determined, physically committed to proving that she can do what she does not want to do.
Think about it. It's unbelievably stupid. It's completely nonsensical. But yet for some strange reason, unfathomable to the minds of men, every girl in America found this one stupid show empowering. And they all copped Marcia's attitude.
That, I truly believe, is the source of all the tension in relationships today, the stupid, nonsensical attitudes of women, believing they have to prove that they can do what they do not want to do. It's a problem, because men aren't going to buy it.
She has to prove that she can do what she does not want to do? Fine. Why doesn't she prove that she can buy her own house, where she can sit at home alone and play with her Ken doll while she complains about men?
Oh, she want's a baby to play with now, part time. Why doesn't she prove that she can do what she does not want to do? Go to a sperm bank and pay her own child support.
Oh, she wants a husband now. After all that. After all the fits and protests and demonstrations. After all the hystrionics and arguments and condescensions. She wants to keep a man around, for awhile. At the end of the day she wants all the benefits and security that come with being married.
Okay. Why doesn't she prove that she can do what she does not want to do? Dump her attitude, mind her mouth and mind her manners. Maybe then she might be worthy of some respect. And if she's so stupid she can't figure that out, she isn't worth 50%. She isn't worth 20%. She isn't worth the time of day.
This is the thing. And it really is the thing. For all the change that took place in the 1970s--the change in the idea of what a marriage is, of what a man, a woman, a husband, a wife, a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister, a boy, a girl is. What's the one thing that didn't change?
The law. The law that men are held accountable to. Particularly marriage law and the legal definitions of community funds, community property and presumptive paternity.
The modern American girl, the superior woman, Marcia 2.0, she's supposed to be so much smarter than men, but she's so stupid she can't figure that out?
Men figured it out. That's why so many are not getting married today. It isn't worth it. What, he's supposed to shell out 50% of his income and property, and accept presumptive paternity--full legal responsibility for paying child support for every child she conceives, even if none of those children are his--in exchange for bad attitude and obligation sex?
When women begin to figure out that it's their stupid, nonsensical attitudes that make them not worth marrying, then men will once again stand up and enter into fully binding legal contracts with them. And not before.
But I, for one, am not holding my breath on that happening.
GawainsGhost --
"We were the first generation to be raised on television."
Ha, not by a long shot, chum.
Damn, you watched waaaay too much BB and thought waaaaay too deeply about it. I've known families of mom, dad and mixed kids who did just fine. It's not a certain recipe for doom.
One of the main reasons people get married is stability and emotional support. Women have a valid interest in finding a guy who will not ditch them when they become less physically appealing. But men also have some valid concerns about loyalty, and female loyalty is too often conditioned on a husband's career and financial success.
If the Vice President doesn't get promoted to CEO, or if the janitor doesn't get promoted to custodian, his wife is likely either to leave him or to needle him for the rest of his life about his lack of success. The subtext in "for better or for worse" often seems to be "and it damn well better be for better."
It is very important to pick someone who does not have this attitude, or who has as little of it as possible, and one clue can be found in a woman's mother. Even women who dislike their mothers generally tend to become more like them over time.
GawainsGhost said...
"The Brady's tried marriage the traditional way, and it didn't work."
I was going to counter this by pointing out that they were single due to the death of their respective spouse's, but after checking Imdb.com apparently that only applied to the Dad.
"The Brady Bunch" is a classic situation comedy that has become a cornerstone of popular culture. Mike Brady, a widowed architect with three boys (ranging in age from 7 to 13) marries Carol Martin, a single young mother with three young girls (ages 6 through 12); the reason for her being single was never explained."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063878/plotsummary
Irregardless, the simple fact remains that the Brady's do not enter into a true marriage, since they conceive no child of their own. That's the change that took place. It was a change in the idea of marriage, and it was a change that took place primarily in the minds of women.
But marriage law did not change. That's the salient point. The law that men are held accountable to did not change. The idea of marriage, in the minds of women, did change, and obviously that change was so that they were no longer held accountable to the law. This was the precedent for no-fault divorce, which is the scourge of men and renders the marriage contract null and void.
Given the state of the law, the culture of divorce and the attitudes of women today, no man in his right mind would expose himself to the tremendous liabilities involved. That's the issue.
And what exactly are women going to do about it? Whine and complain, throw a fit, just like Marcia. It is their refusal, if not outright inability, to comprehend what being held accountable under the law means that is the problem.
And it's her problem. Not mine, nor any other man's.
I agree that there is not much reason these days for a man to marry. It would be like taking your life savings to Vegas and betting it all on '00' at the roulette table. Incredible payoff if you win, but the odds are ovewhelming that you will have a much better future if you just don't do it.
I guess the point I was getting to with Brady being a widower is that used to be (way back when) almost the only way to present a character as a single parent in TV and movies. The single parent was single due to circumstances beyond their control, not because they bailed because the relationship was no longer making them 'happy'.
Post a Comment
<< Home