Bachelors: Menace to Society or its Salvation?
Reader Mike emails this interesting article from New English Review entitled, "Bachelorhood And Its Discontents." This piece is definitely worth reading as it analyzes past and present thoughts on the state of bachelorhood. Some naysayers think that bachelors are a menace to society:
But others indicate that single men might just be society's salvation:
Or perhaps bachelors have the time to discover things that married men can't:
My guess it that a certain amount of bachelorhood is good for society, too much, maybe is not so good, depending on why men do not want to get married. If it is because men enjoy a solitary lifestyle, are more creative or wish to stay single for positive reasons, perhaps it is good. But if the reasons are that marriage is not a fair and egalitarian situation for men and has fewer rewards than in the past, then perhaps bachelorhood is chosen out of discontent for the institution of marriage and the way that married men are treated, rather than discontent with married life per se. This type of discontent may not be good for society, the former, may be fine.
Essayist George Gilder thinks so. "The single man in general, compared to others in the population, is poor and neurotic," writes Gilder in his book Naked Nomads: Unmarried Men in America."He is disposed to criminality, drugs, and violence. He is irresponsible about his debts, alcoholic, accident prone, and venerally diseased. Unless he can marry, he is often destined to a Hobbsean life--solitary, nasty, brutish and short."
But others indicate that single men might just be society's salvation:
“Certainly the best works, and of greatest merit for the public, have proceeded from the unmarried or childless men,” wrote Sir Francis Bacon (not a bachelor, but perhaps wishing he were).
Or perhaps bachelors have the time to discover things that married men can't:
Some years ago a noted Japanese researcher analyzed the biographical data of some 280famous mathematicians, physicists, chemists, and biologists and discovered that all peaked professionally in their twenties, at which point their careers spiraled downward. Married scientists suffered the worst decline in productivity. However, those who never married remained highly productive well into their fifties. "Scientists tend to 'desist' from scientific research upon marriage,” the researcher told an interviewer, “just like criminals desist from crime upon marriage." One theory suggests married men lack an evolutionary reason to continue working hard (i.e., to attract females). Though it likely they similarly lack the prerequisite time and solitude.
My guess it that a certain amount of bachelorhood is good for society, too much, maybe is not so good, depending on why men do not want to get married. If it is because men enjoy a solitary lifestyle, are more creative or wish to stay single for positive reasons, perhaps it is good. But if the reasons are that marriage is not a fair and egalitarian situation for men and has fewer rewards than in the past, then perhaps bachelorhood is chosen out of discontent for the institution of marriage and the way that married men are treated, rather than discontent with married life per se. This type of discontent may not be good for society, the former, may be fine.
posted by Helen at 7:48 AM
130 Comments:
Doc,
In your final paragraph, you NAILED it! In just a few words, you concisely & precisely summed up why guys like me are choosing bachelorhood; it's not discontent with marriage per se, but discontent with how I'd be treated in the likely event of a divorce. When viewing the risks vs. the rewards (almost none), marriage no longer makes sense for men. It's not a cold hearted, hate filled decision undertaken by men; it's simply the result of doing a cost/benefit analysis, and coming to the conclusion that there are no benefits for us anymore.
And, I agree with you too that, if bachelorhood is undertaken for these reasons, it IS bad for society! On an individual level, it makes sense for men to forsake marriage; on a collective level, it's bad in the long run.
It's like a recession that worsens. On an INDIVIDUAL level, it makes sense for people to cut their spending; after all, their jobs may be next to go, so they save what money they can, so they can pay their bills if this should happen. However, when 2/3 of economic activity is driven by consumer spending, this decision, multiplied by millions of people, is bad for everyone. What makes sense on an individual level doesn't make sense on the collective level-much like men avoiding marriage today...
Now, let me also say this: though my reasons for remaining a bachelor, multiplied by millions of other men making the similar decision for similar reasons, is bad for the nation, too bad. If any nation will make marriage & fatherhood so punitive, then it does NOT deserve to survive-end of story. Those in power have known about the harm of divorce and fatherless children that result, yet have made no changes at all. Just like those in power have known for over three decades that public schools aren't teaching Johnny how to read, they've done nothing about easy divorce. Why? Simply because they WANT things the way they are. If that's the case, then this country does NOT DESERVE TO SURVIVE. Those are my thoughts...
MarkyMark
I can't say bachelor, as I was married once.
But I just may be one of the bad reasons Gilder describes for men being single. What he has to say is some pretty mean stuff.
I would like to punch him in his face.
MarkyMark,
"Those are my thoughts..."
Interesting ones, thanks.
Helen describes George Gilder as an "essayist". What is an essayist? Does he have credentials in some sort of specialty? Does he study quantifiable data and draw logical conclusions? Or does he tap into what feels good at the moment and write as much as he can in order to sell books?
This is the same guy who was pushing hard to have creationism taught in public schools during the last quarter of the last century. When Mr. Gilder comes up with some numbers to back up his claims I'd be happy to discuss what he has to say.
I was unaware that anybody owed society anything. Marriage is useful if 2 people wish to have kids. Kids need parents, both parents. Other than that I don't see the point in encouraging people to do something that may not be right for them. Although I am female I stay single for a very good reason, I know that if I marry all my hobbies and activities I greatly enjoy in life would pretty much be over.
I can't be that much different than single men. I doubt my decision is having that much of an affect on "society". If society is concerned about the propagation of the species it shouldn't worry. We have an army of enthusiastic immigrants crawling over the borders night and day. We're good.
What MarkyMark said is true. Marraige is a huge risk for men.
"likely they similarly lack the prerequisite time and solitude."
Strikes me as a polite interpretation of that Chris Rock stand-up comedic riff on how he can't come home and just take a shit without his wife bothering him.
cham - ISTM your perspective - that marriage would be the death of all one enjoys - is pretty universal, for men and women, pre-marriage. My husband certainly believed it to be true, and I agreed to a point (I didn't think I'd have to give up everything I enjoyed, but I saw certain things going away). In the end, there was a period of putting "pursuing happiness" as we had when single on hiatus, while we sorted out our new mutual interests, but it's been followed by a much longer period of not only enjoying those mutual interests but also returning to our individual interests (sometimes with one another, sometimes not). For me and (speaking for him) my husband, marriage has been a definite net gain in every way except my career, which I didn't like much anyway (and now I face the prospect of being able to pursue a different one at much less relative cost to my lifestyle, since his financial and personal support enables me to start over from scratch rather than just try to refine what I was already trained to do). We're maybe lucky, or maybe just wise enough not to require the unreasonable of one another.
YMMV.
"One theory suggests married men lack an evolutionary reason to continue working hard (i.e., to attract females). Though it likely they similarly lack the prerequisite time and solitude."
How about a middle ground? Married men may become "less productive" in a tangible, work-related sense but they are more productive all around because they are expending some of their energy on family activities. It sounds like this article assumes that there is one standard for measuring what is an important contribution to society - ain't necessarily so.
As a newly single man, I have to say I am enjoying actually spending the money that I earn myself, rather than having my ex-wife come up with ways to divest us of it.
Considering I also helped her establish her (reasonably well-paying) career by supporting her while she wasn't making enough to live off, yes, I think you could make a case that it was unfair. Particularly since we're in the course of selling the house I paid for so she can have half the money.
We seem to have passed the point somewhere back where women got equal rights. Trouble is, a lot of women (like my ex) are pushing right on ahead as if it hasn't happened yet, and won't for the forseeable future.
I think the idea that men are brutish and driven by impulses also explains a of the revisionist history that any man not married or a womanizer must then be gay. After all -- all men have to have regular sexual outlets because we're animals and that's what animals do. So if a man's not getting any regularly from a wife (the traditional way) or known as a womanizer -- he must then be homosexual.
jamie:
All things in your post (in parenthesis) make their own case. Marriage has been of benefit for you. How about him? Has he, will he, be able to make the same choices you have been able to make because of marriage?
I would be happy being a guy on the floor in an Ace Hardware franchise, helping every homeowner with a problem. Helping them find the right screw, washer, tool, appliance, joint, piece of pipe, etc., sharing my knowledge on all things of and around the house. However, the kids and I would starve.
In this day and age, devoting the amount of time to building what it takes to OWN an Ace Hardware franchise - so you can do the above mentioned things, will usually end up causing a divorce.
She can hate the long hours, complain heavily over the fact you are never around, don't do enough of this or that, on and on. She ends up with the house - and half the business she blamed for the alienation in the first place.
As a divorced father, I regularly deal with strong feelings of anger and depression associated with the absence of my older children, and the false and vindictive means my perverted ex-wife uses to keep them from me.
Rather than repress the anger, I use the energy to prosecute my job. Because of that approach I have made several breakthroughs, that will benefit the more productive elements of mankind for years to come.
Cham,
If society is concerned about the propagation of the species it shouldn't worry. We have an army of enthusiastic immigrants crawling over the borders night and day. We're good.
Depends on what you want your society to look like. If you are fond of American culture (as in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, scientific innovation, etc., not the idolatry of material goods, celebrities, and fast food), you might not want to depend on immigrant groups or fatherless families to keep the numbers up.
I think Helen said it best here:
My guess it that a certain amount of bachelorhood is good for society, too much, maybe is not so good, depending on why men do not want to get married.
BR549: It goes both ways. Men also have pie in the sky dreams of being able to quit their jobs and find a "new career" the minute they marry an income-earning wife. Enough of my boyfriends have floated that idea to induce a healthy skepticism about the institution.
Take a look at the Christie Brinkley debacle of last week. Mr. Cook spent her money faster than she could make it, used her kid's computer to view porn, cheated with the 18 year old baby sitter, gave his girlfriends gobs of Christie's money and to add insult to injury got her to pay him $2.1 million to end the marriage. Yikes!!!! The last words uttered from Ms. Brinkley was that she didn't feel she'd remarry.
Marriage benefits opportunists.
How about single women? What do they do with their time; invent stuff, build malls, find new sources of energy?
Was Ayn Rand single?
In spite of the feminist rhetoric, it just seems a woman is essentially lost outside marriage.
A man, on the other hand, is in a different place; inventing stuff, building malls, writing "Sex and the City."
Marbel:
The only people in the US that can't call themselves an immigrant are the indians. Everyone else is either an immigrant themselves or a descendant of one. My mother is an immigrant, and she knows the Constitution like the back of her hand.
Hard to keep pressing the envelope of abstract cutting-edge physics when you got somebody NAGGING you all the time.
But anyway (yawn) I just rolled out of bed at 11 AM, and I'm sitting here deciding what to do with my day. Video games? Maybe go to the library, watch the movie I got from Netflix, read the novel. One thing's for sure, I'm going to do whatever the hell I want. I like being a bachelor.
The article suggests what has been clear to me since the 80's. Bright, intelligent men who are inherently driven to be productive and creative have no need for marriage. Indeed, marriage is deleterious to their creativity and achievement.
This observation fits perfective with my personal experiences in the space development/life extension/technology milieu that I was very much a part of in the late 80's (before I lived in Asia).
Many other men, however, lack the personal constitution to be productive achievers without the moderating influence of marriage. It is these men who benefit most from the institution of marriage.
It is the flaw of both the social conservatives as well as the liberal-left to assume that individuals do not matter (because everyone is the same) and that only institutions matter that I believe leads to their obsessive "one size fits all" mentality that dominates both political ideologies, with marriage being necessary being a very typical example of a "one size fits all" mentality.
Yes I am a menace to society.
But not all of society. I'm kind and humane to children, kittens and puppy dogs. I admire and support police officers and firefighters. I don't hit on my interns or employees. I pay my taxes. (Boy, do I pay my taxes!)
I'm only a menace to that part of society that manipulates men into marriage and then lies, cheats, and steals. The part of society whose individuals hated their father, still hate their father, and are determined to get even by seducing unsuspecting males into legally binding contracts they can then use to ruin the naive hapless males financially, physically, and emotionally.
It's as if I've been bitten by a black widow spider or something. I think I may be turning into SuperSpiderBachelorMan.
Beethoven never married, Brahms never married, but Bach married twice and had over ten children, and in terms of sheer volume, Bach produced the most. In terms of depth and sublimity, however, I think the greatest works of Bach and Beethoven are at such a high level that mere mortals ought not to be tempted to try to judge between them. Nevertheless, I give the edge to Beethoven, but admit that his place in history allowed for a higher degree of musical evolution. Get my meaning?
Also, Haydn was married to a woman who had no idea of his greatness - she was a source of constant misery for the man - and yet he managed to compose volumes of great music. Much of this was the result of his very, very stable employment situation, however, which can also be said of Bach. Beethoven and Brahms lived lives of utter chaos in comparison.
Mozart, unfortunately, died at 35, so it is not really possible to determine what he would have been creating in his forties or fifties, but we may never have heard of Beethoven if he had lived (Probably an exaggeration). Mozart did marry and he had children, however, and all indications are that family life did not slow him down in the least. In fact, the final symphonies were written in an impossibly brief window of time at very nearly the end of his days.
The point is, the issue is more complex and dynamic than an either/or answer can encompass. There are simply too many factors involved to make anything other than the grossest generalizations. This is especially true when you are dealing with genius, which is notoriously difficult to strictly define at all.
I can't speak to mathematicians, but for composers the evolution continues as long as they live and are healthy enough to produce. Schutz lived to nearly ninety, and was composing more and more fabulous and startling pieces all of his life.
Again, just for myself, I know that in this pressure-filled modern world I would not be able to do what I love if I was burdened with a wife and family. Unfortunately, there are no longer any royal courts to employ artists in a stability that allows them to focus 100% on their quest, and I find universities to be unacceptable substitutes because of having to waste so much time on the knot-headed students.
Thomas Barnett (The Pentagon's New Map, and others) identifies societies with large numbers of unmarried males as those most prone to violence, chaos, and revolution. There probably is something "settling" about supporting a household--you likely occupy your time with finding work and working for the good of someone other than yourself. You may not reach your peak as a scientist, but then again you may not become a jihadi either.
There's no contradiction in the two points of view. Men who are good scientists have more time for science, and men who are only good a crime have more time for crime. Once they married and devoting time to family life, they have the equivalent of a "second job" and haven't as much time for their first job.
The same is now becoming true of single females; it was never noticeable in the past only because most females, already married and pregnant by 14, had no "first job."
As for whether smart, creative men should marry, it depends on how much value you give to the creation and programming (it takes at least 20 years) of sentient beings to carry on your work after you. If you want to live in an Idiocracy in the future, then by all means, keep inventing wonderful toys to be used to make the descendants of mentally challenged thugs immortal.
If our species is ever to successfully compete with ants, we need millions of sexless drones to carry on the work of society without engaging in individual reproduction. I think encouraging more bachelors is the first step to this laudable goal.
No fault divorce + "equitable" distribution = a society sure to decline.
I just finished reading Dumas' "Three Musketeers", and I was astonished at their social system "back in the day" and how much it is beginning to resemble our own. A woman would marry a man for his money, which she would then turn around and give to a single guy like a Musketeer as a sort of sponsorship in exchange for getting to be his mistress.
I have to wonder what kept guys with money from just not getting married. Maybe it was the church? Whatever it was, I doubt it still exists in our society today as a strong influence.
Before reading Cham's comment, I hadn't heard of Gilder's involvement with the Discovery Institute. I was aware of his disastrous performance as a stock guru when the Internet bubble burst. Like Cham, I don't find Gilder's assertions credible on his say-so.
Iirc a number of bachelors on "Bachelorhood..." author Orlet's list were homosexual.
I hadn't known that marriage was negatively correlated with scientific productivity. All else being equal, that doesn't jibe with the caricature of wife as domestic servant. Unfortunately Orlet doesn't cite the study or name the "famous Japanese researcher" who did it.
Orlet's topic is legitimate and interesting, but, despite all the quotes that fill his piece, I'm not sure he knows his stuff in depth.
One thing all the comments gloss over is the fact that most men are too afraid to ask for a pre-nup.
Get a pre-nup, and the routine stories of the man 'losing his pants' goes away.
If you are afraid to broach the issue with your prospective wife, then should you really be marrying her?
Secondly, the main reason men get married is to have children. That, too, is not discussed in this post or the comments. A two-parent home is best for children, and both men and women want children to varying degrees. As far as 'productivity', isn't raising 2-3 good kids who become good citizens also a service to society?
---How about single women? What do they do with their time; invent stuff, build malls, find new sources of energy? ----
Ali, the article deals with bachelorhood not spinsterhood. Hence it mentions the achievements of bachelor men. I wonder how you managed to find sexism in it.
Just galnce through any peice mainstream crap..errr...mainstream media, there are lot of articles these "child-men". At the same time there are articles in these mainstreamcraps that eulogize SYF(Single Young females). It is interesting to know the reason that made you to think that the society "forces" women into marriage
---Bhanu Prasad
The problem as I see it is that many young males need to be domesticated. Marriage does this somewhat, parenting more so. I agree with leishman above who said above that "societies with large numbers of unmarried males as those most prone to violence, chaos, and revolution. There probably is something "settling" about supporting a household--you likely occupy your time with finding work and working for the good of someone other than yourself. You may not reach your peak as a scientist, but then again you may not become a jihadi either."
We see this in some of the Moslem societies, and we see it in our own underclass, esp. the Black community.
With rats, they have shown that overcrowding combined with reduced breeding opportunities results in packs of juvenile males terrorizing the rest of the population. And that is to some extent what we see with our own unpaired juvenile males (into their 20s in our case) - running in gangs and terrorizing their community.
I would suggest that this is another part of why LBJ's Great Society welfare system so destroyed underclass, and esp. Black, communities. The males, instead of settling down into marriage and raising kids, were allowed to father the kids without the responsibility of marriage. So, they continued to run in their packs (i.e. gangs), many ultimately ending up in prison or dead. And, of course, their kids grew up without fathers, and a vicious cycle was begun that has destroyed those communities.
This is part of why I see the feminization of our society so negatively. The males don't see any reason to get married, and many of the females are willing to bear their kids anyway. So, many of these males do not get domesticated, at least not nearly as early.
Of course, there is a flip side to this, as indicated by many above. Some of the best work in the arts has been done by single males. And, notably one of the biggest fortunes of our generation was built by a single male (Bill Gates), who didn't marry until that fortune was nearly the size it is today.
But I question whether it is worth the sacrifice to society.
An interesting contrast between the two types of bachelors. Those who are bachelors because they are "disposed to criminality, drugs, and violence" which probably makes if very hard for them to find a spouse. And, those who are bachelors by choice.
Bachelors by choice are increasing primarily for the reasons concerning marriage mentioned by Marky Mark, etc. This past week a co-worker of mine killed himself apparently because his wife was divorcing him and taking the kids. I wonder how often this happens to men who feel like they don't have a chance in court. It wasn't reported at all in the local newspapers, just a obituary that mentions nothing about the cause of death or other circumstances.
---The problem as I see it is that many young males need to be domesticated---
You have a serious misconception on masculinity. How logically can you prove that a male is a deranged animal, who can only be pacified and tamed by a young woman?
FYI, lot of men who abused position of power were MARRIED.
Fascists in Germany and Italy considered marriage to be essential to the nation. Mussolini's disregard for single men was legendary.
Qwerty, I agree. I know several young males who aren't running in packs creating havoc on society. When did it become the job of young women to "domesticate" them (whatever that means). If someone is in need of domesticating" I would suspect that would be the job of the parents, hence the need for 2 strong role models.
Perhaps all that nagging that men feel is heaped upon them is actually women attempting to domesticate the male species. ;)
"In this day and age, devoting the amount of time to building what it takes to OWN an Ace Hardware franchise - so you can do the above mentioned things, will usually end up causing a divorce."
Ha! The guy on the NBC true crime show Fiday night said the same thing..."Women don't realize...they all want to live the dream, but that means I work sixty hour a week, every week." He killed his wife.
Hey, cham.
I have made no comparison of jamie to Cook (judging by) your response way up there to my earlier post.
I am saying that jamie's marriage gave her the breathing room to re-access as she did, and take the paths she can now take. Her husband seems willing to keep his nose to the grindstone, plus take up the slack created by it, and fund her less lucrative career path, according to her. She seems aware it would not be possible for her to do so, were she not married. I just feel his, mine, and ours weighs quite heavily in her favor, in the way she looks at things - by what she wrote. A benefit to her via marriage. And I wondered out loud if she were willing to do the same for him.
Marriage is rarely an even yoke.
I have not followed Brinkley's situation, but if all has been as you wrote, Cook needs his ass whipped, big time. And perhaps Brinkley needs her head examined.
What a fascinating discussion!
I wonder if part of this equation is the relativly new idea that individuals who are married have all they need, from a social and emotional support perspective.
In most traditional cultures, men socialized with other men, and women with women. And in some, a man who was 'friends' with his wife was considered abberant.
In our social and emotional isolation (and homophobia), we have (especially as men) lost the social support of other members of our gender.
One reason I'm still single is I'm not interested in a relationship where I am expected to fulfil every financial, social, and emotional need of my spouse. IMO, a spouse should look to their spouse, their family, and their extended social network for social and emotional support. Too often, in today's "fairy tale marriages" if a spouse isn't getting what they need from their spouse, they don't look for that support elsewhere.
Clearly, spouses need to support each other. But they cannot, and IMO, should not try and do that job alone. A healthy marriage requires that spouses receive support from their spouse, their family, and their network of friends.
In today's climate, I am seen as selfish and unromantic for suggesting that I don't want to be everything for another person. I am disparaged for saying I want to elope (read: don't want to perpetuate the idealistic nonsense that is a wedding in today's society). Well, so be it.
"In most traditional cultures, men socialized with other men, and women with women. And in some, a man who was 'friends' with his wife was considered abberant."
Reminds me of what the Bruce Willis character said in
Moonlighting, in response to someone saying you should get married so you have someone to go to a movie, or a ballgame with: "Movie? "Ballgame? That's what other GUYS are for!"
1. Gilder is a twit. He uses whatever rationalization suits his preferences and then frames this as being somehow intrinsic a/o natural and so unassailable. He's a typical declinist social conservative.
2. If bachelorhood were truly a cause of violence and social disruption, then these affects should strongly correlate with its rate across generational cohorts; which they do not. But they do tend to follow changes in the population of young males. These males tend to be bachelors because they are young.
3. The 'boy genius' model of scientific innovation is overly generalized and fails to accurately describe the significant social and psychological characteristics of science innovators. Nor does it address the social, historical, and conceptual/theoretical contexts in which these individuals have conducted their work. Personally I suspect that its popularity is attributable to its utility as a cop-out (i.e. 'science innovators are freaks w/ extraordinary natural abilities, it's not reasonable to expect normal people to achieve such things').
4. In my experience, mature bachelors tend to be much healthier, psychologically, than women of the same age. Older single women seem prone to neurosis. You'll see this emerge even in the early thirties.
5. Contemporary women often expect a precisely equal commitment of time to housework and other domestic and social duties. But the selection of these commitments is decided almost exclusively by the woman. So she dictates your time and will almost inevitably absorb any free time that you have. This is why marriage is the kiss of death for an ambitious self motivated man.
1. Gilder is a twit. He uses whatever rationalization suits his preferences and then frames this as being somehow intrinsic a/o natural and so unassailable. He's a typical declinist social conservative.
2. If bachelorhood were truly a cause of violence and social disruption, then these affects should strongly correlate with its rate across generational cohorts; which they do not. But they do tend to follow changes in the population of young males. These males tend to be bachelors because they are young.
3. The 'boy genius' model of scientific innovation is overly generalized and fails to accurately describe the significant social and psychological characteristics of science innovators. Nor does it address the social, historical, and conceptual/theoretical contexts in which these individuals have conducted their work. Personally I suspect that its popularity is attributable to its utility as a cop-out (i.e. 'science innovators are freaks w/ extraordinary natural abilities, it's not reasonable to expect normal people to achieve such things').
4. In my experience, mature bachelors tend to be much healthier, psychologically, than women of the same age. Older single women seem prone to neurosis. You'll see this emerge even in the early thirties.
5. Contemporary women often expect a precisely equal commitment of time to housework and other domestic and social duties. But the selection of these commitments is decided almost exclusively by the woman. So she dictates your time and will almost inevitably absorb any free time that you have. This is why marriage is the kiss of death for an ambitious self motivated man.
Sigh, Is it just me, or has no one noticed that these articles, like most everything else I read now days...
Blames everything on males, especially the direct descendants of those western dead white males responsible for everything bad everywhere.
Sure, the number of men willing to remain bachelors is higher than ever before. It must be because they are criminals, testosterone laden, irresponsible and violent. And NO ONE ELSE in our society may not be at least a LITTLE at fault for this situation?
I have a theory... Perhaps men have gotten so tired of being blamed for every ill of society, they have decided to do what ever they want to do, since they will get blamed for all the bad stuff anyway.
BR549:
I found you a short article about the Brinkley divorce which sums things up.
Yes, she had an ironclad pre-nup. He felt he deserved the $2.1 million because he helped her pick out properties for purchase.
Cham said I was unaware that anybody owed society anything.
You're not the only one unaware of that.
Consider, however, that this society and all others exist because someone felt they did owe society something, and that this society degrades and will cease to exist because people think the sum total of history's efforts up to this point was to allow them an entirely self-involved life.
Blake:
People will always do what is in their best interest. A smart society will set itself up so what is good for people is also good for society. It is good for society that people pay taxes and follow laws. People see that paying taxes and following laws as beneficial to them so they do it.
The same can be said for marriage. If you make it so that adultery and fornication are illegal and immoral, people will feel that in order to have sex and have an intimate romantic relationship that it will require marriage then they will marry. Remove the legal and moral constraints so that marriage isn't necessary for sex and people won't bother with marriage.
I don't take objection to any of that.
You said you were unaware. Nobody else commented on it, which suggests a lack of disagreement.
We do, in fact, owe society something. Minimally, we owe it to propagate it forward. (Ideally, we leave it better than when we received it.)
That's all.
Dr. Helen,
An interesting post.
I read George Gilder's Naked Nomads while in medical school in the early 80's. Prescient and cogent then, even more so Sexual Suicide (revised and published as Men and Marriage), one of whose main ideas is that marriage socializes mens aggressive sexuality.
And no, Gilder is not a twit.
He is a true polymath.
As far as his notions about Intelligent Design, they do not seem to stem so much from any religious belief, but rather they arise out of an understanding of Information (as in Information Theory ala Claude Shannon.)
His essay Evolution and Me appeared in National Review (subscription only.)
Gilder's approach to ID is both provocative and thoughtful, not so much as to the origin of the species per se, but more to the point about the origin of everything (or anything.)
(Full Disclosure: I do not promote the teaching of ID.)
But back to your post: The pornification of modern society replete with children having sex, the use of drugs, and the heavy toll that single parent homes have on all of society (once called illegitimacy) can be found expressed clearly and unequivocally in the early works of George Gilder.
These days its Technology and making money that interest him.
I suspect that those who are ready to pillory Gilder haven't read his work.
You may disagree with some of his conclusions, but the evidence he sites is difficult to refute.
Then, or now.
Just sayin'.
MeTooThen
Thanks for looking for a short article, cham. How did you know I have such a short attention span?
Wait....what were we talking about?
When I think about it, were I just a man in this life entirely of and for myself, I wouldn't care what happens after I become worm food. Death and taxes, eh? And, by the way, both are regardless of whether I am a spouse and / or a parent.
I can say that with all honesty, because I have three kids and a grandson. I care deeply what happens to and around them. And they are the reason I care about tomorrow.
Considering all I have been through in my previously married life, and even as deeply as I love my kids - if I knew then what I know now, I would never have married and had children (I can safely say that because my kids don't read this blog). It is too late to think that way now, as I love them far beyond self.
What I would do, who I would be, is most likely a jack of all trades type person. I would winter in Florida one year, perhaps southern California the next, etc. I would work long enough to put together enough money to go to places I wish to go in the warm season, and see what I wish to see. As I needed more money, I would simply earn it. I would live - or die - wherever I am, at any particular time.
Granted, that may not be of stupendous benefit to society at large. But I don't care. I would probably be suspect to many, because after all, we do judge a book by its cover. But life is ever so simple when you have only yourself to be concerned with. If one is comfortable in their own skin, and able to be happy enough as a single entity, what's the beef? And don't most of us hate "beach bums" because we know they have a freedom we simply do not have? Who among us is NOT imprisoned by the things they own? By obligations of family?
What man does not understand "have to"?
If one is NOT comfortable in their own skin, not happy, not complete, unless they have someone else to take care of, or to take care of them, I see that as a problem. A problem that marriage will not solve.
Blake, beautifully said.
BR549:
When I think about it, were I just a man in this life entirely of and for myself, I wouldn't care what happens after I become worm food.
Right. Why should anyone give a damn what happens to the culture, to the whole world, if there is no one they care about coming along behind them? Eat drink and be merry, right? The future belongs to those willing to populate it.
I don't drink, marbel.
RE: "It is interesting to know the reason that made you to think that the society "forces" women into marriage" - Qwerty
Who said anything about "force"? More like biology.
Anyway, just observations, to which I'll add that single, professional women tend to prefer the company of cats.
Otherwise, I believe men and women do the best they can. Like the old woman who lives across the street; she won't believe anything unless she sees it on TV or reads it in the local paper.
But now I have a question for anyone willing to answer: Why do some of my old girlfriends keep calling to see how I'm doing? No kidding, and add another - a girl I haven't seen for 12 years. Married, single, it doesn't seem to matter - to them.
I'm not complaining, it just seems a bit strange.
marriage socializes mens aggressive sexuality
Isn't that just another example of labeling and compartmentalizing male behavior as negative and suggesting that "society" (read females and sympathetic feminist-inspired laws and courts) must discipline men in order to solve the "problem"? We all know, of course, that only men pursue sex or use it as a means to a selfish end.
I know several older single people; mostly men, but some women. Not one has ever cited fear of an unfair divorce as a reason for not being married. This is true even for those who know, or who are friends with, couples who've gone through nasty divorces.
I've actually observed that most older single men and women are terribly inarticulate as to why they are single and most of them confess to feeling they are missing out on something. My own observation is that they are simply scared of commitment and/or scared of making a mistake. It seems that the more scared they are, the more miserable they are. And the more bitter (I hate even being around a few.)
By comparison, I know several older single people who openly admit they are single by choice. Some don't want kids, either their own or step-children.
(There is one other category; those that have been badly burned in a relationship. I'm not just talking about abusive relationships, but good, even great, relationships that were suddenly ended by the other party.)
--Contemporary women often expect a precisely equal commitment of time to housework and other domestic and social duties. But the selection of these commitments is decided almost exclusively by the woman. So she dictates your time and will almost inevitably absorb any free time that you have. This is why marriage is the kiss of death for an ambitious self motivated man----
You hit the nail on its head. This is precisely the reason that made me to reject marriage.
Women, these days, want a man who can:
a)Cook with them
b)Clean with them
c)Shop with them
d)Wash,dress and feed infants
e)Watch chick flicks with them
f)Accompany them to all the meaning less parties
g)Acquire joint assets
and more glaringly
h)Be the primary breadwinner, and also give her "emotional support" to further her "ambition" and "career"(There is no guarantee that this support will be returned back).
This is more like a business deal drawn up in the board room, rather than a union of love.
BTW, man's view of house, kids is drastically different from that of woman's. Woman is more likely to desire a clean house, clean and cute kids. She forces these desires on her man under the name "equality" "patnership" "Feminist marriage" and the allied crap.
If i marry, and religiously follow(and I have to) points a-h , there would not be any time for my intellectual pursuits(History books, Bulding electronic circuits, Blogging, Contributing to Open Source Projects etc.,). Many of my friends are married. I get a sadistic pleasure seeing them struggle with their infants, mortages, "family" responsibilities, financial difficulties and demanding wives.
Often they curse me for being "free" and "unshackled"
Gosh, Joe, that is strange. See http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2002.htm
for an analysis of reasons men don't want to get married, and you will find a large number of men who state they fear marriage because of the high divorce rate. Perhaps the people you personally know do not accurately represent the entire population????
Also Google for MGTOW, heh, heh.
Personally, I met my first marriage striker in 1995, a kid I worked with. His reason was very specifically that he had seen his friends messed up by divorce judges, and wanted no part of it. Around 20 years old, a great kid, probably in traditional times he would have made a great dad/husband.
Someone commmented on pre-nups. Wrong!!! Almost all states specifically authorize judges to tear up pre-nups if he/she thinks it is appropriate. Most people who push pre-nups are lawyers who want to get paid to write them, then later get paid to defend them in a losing battle.
As far as Brinkley whining because she had to pay $2.1 million out of her assets of 60 million, few men with 60 million get away with only paying 2.1 million.
--Anyway, just observations, to which I'll add that single, professional women tend to prefer the company of cats---
So be it. If someone prefers company of cats rather than men, it is her own choice.
But she must be responsible for her choice. She MUST not blame men, with "fragile" egos and insecurity, for her childlessnes and loneliness. Unfortunately lot of career women whine through the feminized media for being single.
a)They blame men for childlessness
b) THey blame men for their spinsterhood
c)They blame men for butching up and helping them in their career's
et.,.
Dear Dr. H:
I don't know where you get your inspiration for these articles, but they are surely tuning-fork prefect!
--- The article suggests what has been clear to me since the 80's. Bright, intelligent men who are inherently driven to be productive and creative have no need for marriage. Indeed, marriage is deleterious to their creativity and achievement.---
You said it, mate. I bow toy your statement. Planning to have a drink today in your name
---Bhanu Prasad
Heaven help those wedded to the popular culture. Your choice is Gilder's straw man bachelor, or Orlet's insipid windbaggery....a thousand words that settle nothing.
Out here in flyover country, where we all cling to our shootin' irons and Bibles, a few have been known to actually read the Good Book. The case for bachelorhood is made clearly and succinctly in I Corinthians Chapter 7. Right off it states, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman.", and from there it goes on to state the right reasons for remaining single.
These bracing words from the Apostle Paul totally destroy Gilder's stupid strawman argument while making Orlet and his multitude of contradictory quotations/anecdotes/references/suppositions look foolish. More than that, they set a high and noble standard for any male.
What amazes me is that Gilder and Orlet are educated men and even the educated acknowledge the Bible as great literature. Why no mention of the Apostle's words? Why was Paul excluded from the list of bachelors? Is willful blindness now a prerequisite for being considered an intellectual...or just ignorance?
There's plenty to be discussed in that chapter and it would be time well spent. In comparison, the contributions of Gilder and Orlet look like a studies in ignoring the elephant in the room. They've just provided this hillbilly with two more reasons to cling to the Bible.
Men, in order to be right you have to do right; to do right, you have to know what's right...read the Instructions.
"3. The 'boy genius' model of scientific innovation is overly generalized and fails to accurately describe the significant social and psychological characteristics of science innovators. Nor does it address the social, historical, and conceptual/theoretical contexts in which these individuals have conducted their work. Personally I suspect that its popularity is attributable to its utility as a cop-out (i.e. 'science innovators are freaks w/ extraordinary natural abilities, it's not reasonable to expect normal people to achieve such things')."
Or, it may simply be that they can stay up later. My best thoughts occur at night. Can't be married and fall asleep at your desk every night! Much more difficult to concentrate with kids around.
"Older single women seem prone to neurosis. You'll see this emerge even in the early thirties."
Boy, is that ever true! Perhaps it just gets more noticable later in life. You had to date them when they were younger to find out how batcrap wack they were.
It's a mistake to blame men alone. Look at the demographics across generations and across nations. There is a pattern that the number of children delivered by each woman declines in direct proportion to the increases in women's literacy, education and economic self support. As the birth rates decline there is less need for marriage. So you will see an increased proportion of bachelors, both male and female.
This is bad news for the future of Western Civilization. But our 'elite' like it that way. It looks as if the 'elite' snobs who run the universities and media corporations think Western Civilization is a bad thing that deserves to be neglected to death. They want to see America weakened and humiliated, to see the end of our prosperity and abundance.
I've grown tired of opposing them. I'm exhausted with taking care of other people. I've given up on the future. I just hope the country holds together another 20 years before they turn my elderly carcass into soylent green.
And why should I care what happens after I die? Our universities teach cynicism, nihilism, atheism, to despise 'Christianists' and grovel to Islamists, that truth and morals are relative and never absolute. The culture taught by our universities is self destructive. I can't stop them and see no point in trying.
A man is free in proportion to the number of things he can live without.
"And why should I care what happens after I die? Our universities teach cynicism, nihilism, atheism, to despise 'Christianists' and grovel to Islamists, that truth and morals are relative and never absolute. The culture taught by our universities is self destructive. I can't stop them and see no point in trying."
"God has turned his back on this country, and we are leaving it."
Richard Harris, as Cromwell, in the movie of the same name. We, however, have no place to go, and like Cromwell, must find men who fear the Lord, but not the enemy. If your strength flags, ask the Lord for some of his.
Speaking of those cats...
I was introduced to a married woman a few months back. After shaking her hand she asked me a few questions about myself and then asked whether I was married or single. I replied that I was single and the next question out of her mouth was, "And how many cats do you own?"
I've never understood why we should 'fear the Lord'. If he loves us then why should we fear him? If you've lived a moral life then why fear the Lord?
I try to approach decisions with ''First of all, do no harm.'' I would rather be forgotten by history than to be remembered as a Christian who murdered other Christians because they were the wrong kind of Christian.
Oliver Cromwell is not a good example. On one hand he was a hero who executed a king in the English Revolution. But he was also a tyrant, a fanatical Puritan who attempted a genocide against the Irish because they weren't Protestant enough for him.
A lot of these comments of the "who cares what happens after I die?" reminds me of something.
A friend of mine, who believes in reincarnation, said this to me once:
"People get the idea of past lives wrong. They get all excited about living in the past and who they were.
The important thing about having lived before is that it likely means you're going to live again.
Reincarnation gives you a completely selfish reason to leave the world in a better place. You will literally and personally inherit the world you make."
"I've never understood why we should 'fear the Lord'. If he loves us then why should we fear him? If you've lived a moral life then why fear the Lord? "
Well, it WAS the 16th century.
"I try to approach decisions with ''First of all, do no harm.'' I would rather be forgotten by history than to be remembered as a Christian who murdered other Christians because they were the wrong kind of Christian. "
It's not murder if it occurs in a battle, and your a soldier. Besides, that's not the only reason people were killed, there were lots of good reasons to kill folks back then.
"Oliver Cromwell is not a good example. On one hand he was a hero who executed a king in the English Revolution. But he was also a tyrant, a fanatical Puritan who attempted a genocide against the Irish because they weren't Protestant enough for him."
Well, as long as your not judging him by 21st century standards! Back then, the church was as much a factor as an army in the field, and the Irish chose the wrong side. The Pope tried to kill Cromwell, remember. Cromewell brought many advances in what we would call "civil rights". Measure him against his enemys, who were much, much worse.
--"And how many cats do you own?"---
That's hilarious.
May be single professional women dream of a husband who can be controlled like a cat. :).
Kevin M,
"I don't know where you get your inspiration for these articles, but they are surely tuning-fork prefect!"
I get my inspiration from you, my readers, and the thousands of men I have interviewed that have taken the time to tell me their side of the story.
Qwerty:
The woman thought she was being hilarious(and insulting), unfortunately, the rest of the group that was present didn't. My friend who introduced us was mortified and apologized to me. I always like it when someone else makes a fool of themselves at my expense. It saves me the thought process of coming up with a witty response to their stupidity, silence works wonders. I guess the woman had no idea that I don't own any cats.
I liked this from Kevin: Hard to keep pressing the envelope of abstract cutting-edge physics when you got somebody NAGGING you all the time.
And this: I'm going to do whatever the hell I want. I like being a bachelor.
It's easy to understand why some men would prefer bachelorhood. They are asking a very basic question, along the lines of
WHAT DO I GET?
In the old days, men got a license to have a legal outlet for sex. And the emotional rewards that came from raising children. Now that the former is no longer an issue, and state has largely taken away the latter, the question is infinitely more perplexing.
"WHAT DO I GET?"
--------------
That's what I've always thought, and maybe that's why I'm a bachelor.
A lot of married men remain in the marriage (with a chubby, bossy, lazy nag) because getting out would be worse. You lose everything you've built up.
What a life.
I think what happens is that women bag men while they can still distort his logical thinking with sex, and then the state makes sure that the man is not going to get out without paying and paying (and losing his children) after he discovers that he is in a one-sided situation.
Women want to marry up. That is a fact, and that leads to a situation in which the man produces etc., and the woman takes. No idea why men agree to it, I think it involves sex.
Marriages in which the woman earns more on a long-term basis (i.e. not just when the man is in school or a residency or whatever) are very fragile, and the woman is downright abusive in many because she has no respect for the man.
So that's how it works - if you want marriage, you have to pretty much pay for it as a man. I respectfully decline, because I don't want to buy a pig in a poke (so to speak).
Bruce, the meme that men don't get married out of fear of unfair divorce has grown so strong, you can't do an accurate poll. Society disproves of men who never marry for many reasons, blaming it on women (which is what's really going on) makes it so easy to justify.
Earlier someone made a list of what women "expect" in marriage. Bullshit. Maybe a few women do, but most don't. In case anyone hasn't noticed, most people get married. Most people have decent marriages. Most divorces aren't nasty and unfair and are caused by two people not getting along for a myriad of reasons. This isn't to say divorce laws and the divorce environment isn't fundamentally unfair to men, but let's not get silly about it.
(Is is possible that some perpetually single men want a woman who will give them sex on demand, cook for them and generally fawn over them while not having to do anything in return? Is it possible that many perpetually single men are simply afraid of the compromise required to build a relationship? My marriage isn't a bundle of joy, but the misogyny that all too often emerges on this blog can get quite thick and annoying.)
Paint the nose, put on new wings, whatever fluffs up ones knickers. But 95% of the time people are thinking self first and foremost.
I've spent over half my life last in line out of six individuals. That being the ex, the kids, the government, myself. And I continue to pay taxes, because I'm still alive after all.
I'm not first in line yet, and know I will never reach that point. But I am finally moved up one slot.
Via confiscatory taxation, our government ensures it is first in line.
Cheer up, br549. Things could be worse. You could be this poor trapped fool. Jeez! He's not just running for president, he's trying to run away from home.
Eric and JG (and everyone else for that matter): Incentives do matter, but not just earthly ones like money, property and even children. Never underestimate the incentives created by religious beliefs, particularly as they pertain to the afterlife. If you believe strongly enough that marriage and child-rearing will be a big mark in your favor (if not an outright prerequisite, as with the Mormons for example) for eternal salvation, you will probably want to marry anyway in spite of the risks and sacrifices involved. What's a few hundred thousand dollars next to a ticket to heaven, after all?
Of course, the strength of this incentive to marry is directly proportional to the strength of one's belief in the existence of the promised reward.
Most divorces aren't nasty and unfair...
Not in my observation of my friends and co-workers. If it isn't nasty, it's unfair because the man just caved in from the beginning as let his ex have everything she wanted. If the man fights for a fair share, it gets nasty.
I'd categorize about 90% of divorces as unfair, nasty or both.
Maybe Dr. H will want to make a column or inquire her readers about this, but I have long regarded it as a key behavior in whether to marry a certain man or woman is the best decision you could make, or the invitation to a decade of nightmares.
My theory is based on the principle that women haven’t the remotest clue what men are; likewise, men have more knowledge of particle physics than they do of the female of the species (and there aren’t eight men alive who can tell particle physics from a ‘78 Dodge). Men and women are supremely equal when it comes to their respective ignorance of all things associated with the opposite sex. Men know men. Women know women. Let’s not kid ourselves!
When deciding if you should marry (insert name here), first seek the sincere and thoughtful counsel of a trusted member of the opposite sex!
When my sister introduced me to a certain boyfriend of hers—whom she later married and enjoyed a long, bitter and costly divorce—I met a guy who was handsome, quite intelligent, very charming and with impressive future prospects (a US Congressman was an extended member of his family). It took me all of 15 minutes to tell that this guy was a disaster waiting to make the headlines. I knew I was talking to a guy who kept notch marks on his willy. I knew he was a pleasure-seeking teenager to the core. And I knew him in my nose.
But my sister never asked me for my opinion, and so I kept my mouth shut. Stupid move, sis!
I’m a man, and I know every vile underhanded ploy that men exploit when trying to impress women. Women, likewise, can easily and assuredly tell when one of their members is playing her boyfriend like a Stradivarius.
Men and women are no different with regard to their ability, devotion and stamina at putting up a false front. No matter if it’s a question of getting into somebody’s pants or establishing a prospective satellite for your desired future universe, men and women quite often go to extremes to influence a mate’s perception of them by morally excessive means.
So when it comes time to shop for a ring, guys, consult your mother, sister or a close and trusted woman friend and ask her the following question: “I’m thinking of proposing to (?). Please tell me if I’m making the stupidest mistake of my life.”
If they so much as hesitate to answer the question, drop your girlfriend like third-period Latin class. You’re being played like a Stradivarius.
Folks,
To those wondering about the study of scientists whose production dropped off after marriage, here's the 411: 1) Professor Satoshi Kanizawa did the study; 2) he was at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand; 3) he studied the lives and careers of 280 great scientists; 4) for the scientists who married, their production dropped off almost IMMEDIATELY after they married; 5) those scientists who did not marry were productive well into their 40s. That is a summary of Professor Kanizawa's findings.
As for why the scientists production drops off, the reason is simple. One, if you read I Cor. 7 in the Bible, Paul discussed the pros & cons of married vs. single life. In I Cor. 7, he says that a married man cares about pleasing his wife; since he has to look after multiple people (wife & any kids from the marriage), he has more on his plate, which translates to less time for creative pursuits. Secondly, since he has his 'family responsibilities', a married man has to seek security more than creativity or risk when it comes to employment. Three, women, since the crave security MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, will nag a man who pursues what she sees as foolishness; since she's concerned about security, the sure thing if you will, then she'll nag, berate, and abuse her man if he gets too creative. He'll get an hour long nag session asking why doesn't he grow up and be like normal people. So, it's easy to see why Professor Kanizawa found what he did when conducting his study on this.
MarkyMark
The situation of young men in the anglosphere scares me (from Germany) to death. Knowing that in at least 10 years its the same here. I read many opinions here that it isnt so bad for a man to be married and most of this guys who dont want to marry are just idiots. BUUUTTTT these idiots got a point.
Every young man who THINKS before f**** and stops building the new generation of "liberated" women a home and doesn't sacrifice his dignity on women-worshipping gets kudos from me.
It's common to "vote with your feet". Meaning that if you don't like the course that the government takes you leave instead. Meaning the city, state or even the complete country. The marriage strike by men seems like something comparable. If you don't like the actions men took:
Make judges and laws concerning marriage and divorce more fair AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANTED make beeing husband and father something honorable again.
If insulting is the only thing, that women with cats and men, thinking marriage is the best invention since fire, have left...
I'd rather drink my beer, hang out with my friends and spend the money earned from me ONLY ON ME.
'So when it comes time to shop for a ring, guys, consult your mother, sister or a close and trusted woman friend and ask her the following question: “I’m thinking of proposing to (?). Please tell me if I’m making the stupidest mistake of my life.”'
Uhh, yeah..ookay. Is it totally horribly wrong to ask that question? No, those with an outside point of view often have keen insight into things that a love addled person does not. However, if you take that "trusted" advice very seriously as a man these days you're a fool.
As much as I love my mother and a few other female relatives and friends, I do not trust their judgment on relationships. A great majority of them do not see things from my perspective at all or rather, they're too corrupted by society's mindset of "woman good, man bad".
My guess it that a certain amount of bachelorhood is good for society, too much, maybe is not so good, depending on why men do not want to get married.
A certain amount of bachelorhood is inevitable in a society filled with "strong independent women who don't need no man!"
Once again the ever-present "woman good, men bad" idea crops up. If a woman chooses to remain single, she is "empowered." If a man decides to remain single, he is a "menace to society."
Men are being discussed as though the entire female half of the population, their choices and their behavior WRT marriage, never enters into the picture at all.
Marriage has been under siege since the 1960s. Only a complete idiot would be surprised that such a sustained effort would eventually have an effect.
I've seen many female commenters on this blog and many others who take the position that it isn't the men choosing not to get married, it is women. So, are single women as much of a menace to society as single men?
Those who believe in marriage will continue to get married, and a few of them will be lucky enough to remain married. But, with the majority of women unmarried and the majority of households headed by single people, it is several decades too late to be dithering over whether it is a good idea or not - social policy over the past 40+ years has guaranteed that we can have no other result.
Well, the problem as I see it isn't with marriage, per se, that is, the sacrament. Imagine a triangle: male-female-child, with the child at the pinnacle and the parents at the base. This is Man in the Image of God: Father-Son-Holy Spirit. Or the source of all creation: past-present-future. When you think about it, it's not very hard to understand. There is a reason why Jesus placed marriage as the highest sacrament in His Church, because it is the foundation of everything else. Simple, really.
The problem then is not with marriage, but with culture and the law. And who's to blame for that? Why, women of course.
The law is set up to protect women from men. There is no law to protect men from women. She has all the power in court, all of it; he has none. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, what happens when a woman is given all the power in court? She abuses it, naturally. I mean, what is there to stop her from doing so? Nothing.
The way the law is set up, if a woman were to want to sit down and have a serious discussion with me about marriage, great. I would sit down and have a serious discussion with her, because I have some serious questions that I want serious answers before I'm about to agree to enter a fully binding legal contract with her involving money.
1. Is she going to be my life partner?
2. Is she going to be my helpmate?
3. Is she going to raise our children?
Given the divorce rate, the attitudes of "superior" women and the prevalence of day care, the answers to those questions are an unequivocable NO.
Then I'd rather have the money. End of discussion.
This is the problem with women today, and it has nothing to do with the institution of marriage but rather with their own self-centered attitudes. She wants all of the benefits and security, without any of the responsibilities. Because if she accepted her responsibilities without question, that would be oppression, you see.
It's ridiculous. She ought to be more concerned with providing her future spouse with clear and convincing evidence that the return on his investment--a title, a house, a bank account, income, insurance, child support--is worth more than he puts into it. For a life-partner, a helpmate and a mother, it would be. For a roommate with a bad attitude, it's not.
The extent to which the modern American woman is incapable of understanding that is the extent to which she is completely worthless.
Buy her a tequila shot, lie to her face, sleep with her once, dump her in the morning before she wakes up, and replace her with another bar slut the next night.
That's all she's worth. That's all she made herself worth. And now she doesn't like it. Who cares? Obviously she doesn't. If she did, she would make herself worth something more. Instead, all she knows to do is whine, complain, bitch, moan, throw a fit. Like every other conceited, spoiled, stupid little girl who's afraid to grow up.
The problem today isn't with bachelors. These are men who made a rational decision to protect their money and devote their time to something productive.
The problem is with women and their attitudes. Until such time as when women decide to make themselves worth more than the investment men make in them, women won't be worth anything, not to men. And if women are so stupid they can't figure that out, then they'll never be worth more than a tequila shot and a lie to the face.
And if she doesn't like it, tough. Go home, look in the mirror, ask yourself one question: What are you worth?
A wife--a life-partner, a helpmate, and a mother--is worth everything to a man. A roommate with a bad attitude is worth nothing.
It's long past time women began to understand that simple truth, as they once did.
Sio:
"As much as I love my mother and a few other female relatives and friends, I do not trust their judgment on relationships. A great majority of them do not see things from my perspective at all or rather, they're too corrupted by society's mindset of "woman good, man bad".
A valid and relevant point, well made and taken.
The problem is with women and their attitudes.
Good God, it's never with men and their attitudes?
The problem today isn't with bachelors. These are men who made a rational decision to protect their money and devote their time to something productive.
What a load of shit. There may be some men--a small minority--who are making a rational decision to remain single. Others just haven't found the right person. Others are immature and/or assholes who think women are the cause of all their problems.
The reality is relationships are hard. They require work and commitment. They require that you put some of your selfish desires aside for the benefit of the other person. Marriage isn't a bed of roses; it's hard work even to just get it to work, let along make it good.
@Joe
The reality is relationships are hard. They require work and commitment. They require that you put some of your selfish desires aside for the benefit of the other person. Marriage isn't a bed of roses; it's hard work even to just get it to work, let along make it good.
No one says the opposite. But where is the line drawn where commitment gets to self-denial?
I grew up with the intention to make a good living with a job I enjoy, a wife and 2-3 kids. I grew up with the thought that my wife and myself stand together against everybody else. But with 6 of 10 marriages divorced (half of them initiated by women and the rest by both or men)... well, as you said my rational decision is that I'm not a gambler. And in my believe people can make very rational and good descisions. I dont do bungee jumping because of the slight chance of hitting the ground and getting injured physically. I wouldn't ever play russian roulette because of the 1 out of 6 chance of getting a bullet in my head. Why should I get into this gamble with a 60% chance of getting my life messed up and get injured psychological?
Maybe most of the men which now avoid marriage like the black plague still hope to find that special girl who would stay with them till the end of time and where he is absolutly sure to understand her and that she looks at the relationship as a we against the world and not as an opportunity to lay fingers at his wallet, but as an austrian psychologist (Freud after 35 years of research) said:
Was wollen Frauen eigentlich???
What do women want after all???
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael sez:
Was wollen Frauen eigentlich???
--------------------
Antwort: Geld. Geld und gesellschaftlichen Status (ein Chirurg oder Fußball-Spieler wäre nett).
LOL
I can't believe that some people - apparently like "Joe" - want to cover up what is really going on. I almost forgot that women can take on a man's name just as easily as a woman's name on the Internet.
It would be terrible if men actually learned to weigh what they are getting in marriage over a lifetime with what they are giving out in terms of production. And being able to see through the sexual-manipulation haze at the beginning of a relationship. That would not be good for women, right "Joe" ?
Hey Michael,
If you're in Germany, do you know the ultimate golddigger Tatjana Gsell?
She doesn't even hide it.
heh,
I live betwenn Würzburg and Nürnberg and yeah I've heard of this golddigger, but I think thats not enough. Heather Mills was a golddigger ^^.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I notice that in all of this discussion so far, unless I missed it, no one has yet pointed out the obvious fact that "Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish and Short" would be a great name for a divorce-law firm.
I think Dr. Helen and most of the commenters here miss the point.
It is not men, by and large, who are refusing marriage. Rather, women are.
Single motherhood is exploding. Fully 50%+ of births in the UK are single mothers. In the Black Community, 70% nationwide and 90% in the urban core. Among whites it is 34%. [From Juan Williams "Fathers Day" column in the WSJ].
Women, if unconstrained in choices, will ALWAYS (in the main) choose the bad boy "Alpha" as sex partner and father of their children. The Welfare State and better wages and living conditions and urban anonymity (no "walk of shame" in front of the neighbors) and endless choice (in urban environments) leads to the following situation among middle class white women:
1. College, many meaningless hook-ups and partners. Learned behavior by both sexes that sex/intimacy is meaningless, dilution of the hormonal effect of sex/intimacy (Oxytocin, etc.).
2. Post-college life, many meaningless hookups by women with lame players. Perhaps a child or two by various bad boys.
3. Either single mothers, or fairly hard, cynical, baggage laden women in their mid/late thirties, seeking finally the non-bad boy guys. Who at that point have had lengthy substitutions with pr0n and pets for sex and affection respectively. At any rate, such women don't offer the ability to raise a family of one's own, their fertility window being nearly closed and various angry attitudes from nearly 20 years of pursuit of bad boys making them unattractive emotionally.
A man who's that age won't want his contemporary, particularly if he's achieved some financial success, no matter how unrealistic his goal of landing a woman in her late twenties would be.
Let's be honest -- women find most men deeply unattractive, particularly those of higher intelligence (correlates highly with lower testosterone). Women prefer unless constrained a short-term relationship with high-testosterone men, and those societies generally are characterized by gangs of young men terrorizing everyone, and young women engaging in various promiscuity, insuring an endless cycle of one-upmanship in violence and macho behavior. Watch any rap video to see how this provokes uber-macho behavior and general contempt for all women not the rapper's mother.
Women do the choosing. If men are not getting married (and they are not) it is because women would rather be single and pursue bad boys until they are just too old.
Read Dalrymple's "Life at the Bottom" to see how this works with Britain's white underclass. Even his nurses chose abusive men because they were higher in testosterone. Women ALWAYS overestimate their control of men, Dalrymple has several telling examples of this.
Whiskey,
Let me ask you some questions: which sex has marital magazines bigger than many phone directories? Can you tell me the LAST time you saw "Groom" magazine? Who is doing all this KVETCHING about non-commitment? Who is calling the other sex names all sorts of names due to a reluctance to marry, hmmm? Yeah, that's what I thought, and I REST MY CASE...
MarkyMark
Well, unlike some of the posters above, I do not live in a situation comedy. I live in the real world. The world of responsibility, the world of law, the world of money.
There are two and only two things you can do with money. You can invest it in an asset. Or you waste it on a liability.
I do not waste money.
A woman who is an asset--that is a life partner, a helpmate and a mother--is invaluable. Proverbs 33: Who can find a good woman? She is precious beyond all things. Her husband's heart trusts her completely. She is his best reward.
A woman who is a liability isn't worth the time of day.
Exactly how does one turn a woman from an asset into a liability?
Show her a situation comedy on tv when she's in junior high, then feed her feminist clap trap all through college?
Yeah. That works. Obviously it works, since the vast majority of modern women today have absolutely no intention of being an asset to a man. In other words, have made themselves totally worthless.
And who's fault is that? Not men's.
It's not the women that bother me so much, but rather, the people like Joe.
Women will never change. And neither will men, as Joe is so adeptly pointing out.
Since the beginning, the problem has been MEN not holding women accountable for their actions... this, of course, led to the rise and fall of "misogynistic" cultures throughout the past. Google "Sex and Culture" and find detailed academic research on over 80 previous cultures that destroyed themselves by following our current path... America will never fall? Yeah, the Romans thought so too.
The eternal dillema has always been the "Joe's" who feel it is their duty to shield women from their true place beside men IN SIN!
Women DO sin as much as men, Joe, they just do it in different ways... foxes and bears both live in the same forest but get their food in very different ways... stop thinking of women as men, Joe, and perhaps your kurfuddled thinking will clear up.
“Where my exposition is anti-feminine, and that is nearly everywhere, men themselves will receive it with little heartiness or conviction; their sexual egotism makes them prefer to see woman as they would like to have her, as they would like her to be.” – Otto Weininger, Sex and Character (G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1906), Author’s Preface, p. v
Could that be you, Joe? Or any of the other readers out there?
Do you PREFER to see women as weak? Vulnerable? Needing YOUR masculinity to "save them?"
Until the law learns to treat men and women EQUAL UNDER THE LAW, there is no use for men to engage with women... at all!
Aristotle laid this principle out quite succinctly... no government can continue to exist that does not treat all "men" equally under the law... and since feminists have made our women into "men" but, still give them the typical female "preferences," as you have been doing, Joe, just how hardy do you think our state will remain?
The real problem is not the women... they are not going to change no matter what. They are who they are, in all their glory. But... they are who they are. Whales live in salt water, not rivers and lakes. There is only so much that can be changed.
The real question becomes: Can the Joe's of the world wake up from manginahood in enough time to correct the ills that feminism has wrought upon Western Civilization?
I doubt it.
And that's why I am a man going my own way. A guy like Joe will probably end up being the judge in my divorce case, and, no thanks ladies. You are on your own. Find another sucker.
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2008/02/questionators-should-women-have-right.html
Geese. These threads always seem to gravitate to the extremes.
I'm 38 and single. I'd been in a relationship from my late 20's through my mid 30's and have been dating in and around Philadelphia since then. So I've dated women in their late twenties through mid thirties and know plenty of single men in the same boat. While a few of these guys have problems that make them unattractive to women, most are stable and sane - some are very well off to boot. They're certainly not joining bands of marauders and looting the countryside.
Frankly I don't see much evidence of women choosing to remain single either. Maybe this is more prominent in certain communities, but not among the middle and upper middle class women that I encounter. If anything they're too eager. They may talk a big game, but that only lasts until you've slept with them a few times.
The fundamental problem, for both sexes IMO, is that few women are physically attractive past their late twenties, and very few by their mid thirties. This fact seems to play havoc with the gender dynamics that each sex had adapted to in their teens and twenties.
It leaves women without the leverage that they'd come to rely on when dealing with potential suitors. For men - well it means men will tend to pursue younger women. When they do date women closer to their age, they're less tolerant of behaviors they used to accept and to maintain their interest in any case. Cute goes a long way.
The result is that these women become increasingly desperate and resentful. They join bands of marauders and hunt down younger women whom they poison with all sorts of anti-male predjudices, thereby propagating the clan.
Yes I know that this is a simplistic view, but it's pretty accurate in my experience.
Wow, I point out that being a misogynistic pig isn't the way to attract women and I become part of "the problem."
There are an awful lot of good women out there who would make fine wives, but they would be crazy to marry a man who views them as manipulative bitches and who hate women as a group.
There are many good and decent marriages out there. Why is that? Could it be that there are many good people who try hard and don't wallow in their self pity?
The truly astonishing thing here, is that the misogynistic men here are sounding just like extreme feminists only with the sexes reversed. Many are just as tedious and clueless as well. And bitter--deeply resentful of all those hundreds of millions of adults who have created successful marriages and families. Sucks to be you.
The truly astonishing thing here, is that the misogynistic men here are sounding just like extreme feminists only with the sexes reversed.
Why would that be astonishing?
"The fundamental problem, for both sexes IMO, is that few women are physically attractive past their late twenties, and very few by their mid thirties."
Boy, is THAT ever true!
It seems that older women live in complete denial of their fading looks...and, to top it off, they let themselves go! They just give up and get fat. FAT. Look at any crowd of older women, and I can show you the Kennel Ration nation.
Perhaps it's genetics...their genes are telling them they are too old to bear children, so the attractive genes are switched off, so the males will look to younger women.
It's not someothing that a little investigation, some reading, and some applied willpower can cure. But, obviously, that seems to be beyond most womens reach.
Only women are guilty of letting themselves go? You need glasses, Xiaoding.
"Only women are guilty of letting themselves go? You need glasses, Xiaoding."
Looks are not important for a man. Read it and weep. Men age well.
For a woman, her looks are her chief asset. To just let that slide, without even giving it a thought? Woof Woof!
Men age just like women, often, not well.
I know several single man, in their 40's, and none of them work out and all have some flab.
And as far as doing greater things go, most of these guys stay home & watch TV in their evenings. None of them volunteer, work extra hours, or are building a better world.
Just speaking from my own personal experience with bachelors.
I didn't mean to imply that men don't often experience a similar decline, though I do think that it's less severe and less consequential.
The thing is, for women it's not simply a weight issue, though that doesn't help. It's that their features tend to become more masculine. Mens' do as well, but while this change often benefits men, the affect for women is usually quite the opposite.
While I'm usually skeptical of claims based on evolutionary psychology, I do think that these changes convey a signal which affects a mans ability to develop a physical attraction to women who display them. I know that it's not conscious or deliberate, it's like a switch has been thrown which turns off my libido.
"None of them volunteer, work extra hours, or are building a better world."
----------
They're working. Men pretty much have to work (alternatives: jail, being homeless).
Contrast: A whole lot of married women are sitting on their ever-expanding butts. And bragging about all the stuff you've got (all from the hard-working sap husband) is also not "building a better world".
What lengths you are going to in the attempt to find something wrong with older single men.
Women, by their very nature, seem to have fewer outside interests and hobbies than men. Take anything from cross-country skiing to making things in a workshop in the garage, more men do these activities than women. Also, men handle being on their own much better than women, which is why the vast majority of expats are men. Since women are less likely to do these kinds of pursuits, they often have difficulty understanding that many men derive as much life-fulfillment from these types of pursuits as they might from the relationship of marriage. This is a fundamental corundum of marriage.
I have also noticed that women, in general, have far less intellectual curiosity than men. For example, the life extension/cryonics/space development milieu of late 80’s SoCal was composed 90% of men.
Is it not likely, then, that men who have many outside interests or intellectual pursuits will be less interested in marriage than others?
Jg:
I do volunteer work. There are certain types of people volunteering you see pretty regularly depending on the event. First, young people from universities and religious organizations who show up as part of a large group. Second, women, all types, all sizes, married, single, often either older or middle-aged. Third, older men, often married, sometimes volunteering with their wives, sometimes without. It isn't often you see single or married, middle-aged men participating in volunteer activities. You also rarely see young men and women who aren't part of an organized group of participants.
Perhaps the men are busy working in order to avoid jail. ;)
Cham:
And you survey the current marital status of all of the volunteers (and past marital status to determine whether the subject is never-married or divorced). Riiiight.
You pretty much make it up as you go along.
Here's my point once again: At least single men are working for the most part. That is doing something for society. A lot of married women don't work - inside or outside of the house. There is nothing to force them to do so.
Loved your post, dudley do-right. We used to frequent the same web blog back in earlier days of the net. Over ten years ago. Ten years ago on the net is like dog years. Glad to see you are still around, having lots of great things to say.
Cham: enjoy your volunteering. Don't for a second consider that it is paid for by people who work, and don't have time, to volunteer. Even single men! By the way, when are you going to volunteer to mow my lawn, fix my house trim, put on a new roof, and pay for my car repairs?
Xiaoding:
I'm too busy mowing my own lawn, fixing my own house and doing my own car repairs. I put a new roof on my house myself 3 years ago so I don't need to worry about that. Yet, I still have time for volunteering, which, BTW, costs others absolutely nothing.
You need to get better informed.
Volunteering costs nothing? I'll tell that to the charities that keep bugging me for money. Hey, what do you need the money for, all the stuff you do costs nothing! I know, because a volunteer told me so! That Goodwill building, costs nothing...heat, nothing, electricity, nothing...trucks, zip...
I don't volunteer at Goodwill. Those that work in Goodwill shops are paid employees.
---I have also noticed that women, in general, have far less intellectual curiosity than men---
Somehow I find this to be true. I work for a Software company with 30% women, and it is very difficult to bring up a topic on science or politics or sports for discussion with these women.
Joe,
Being single is individual choice. And each individual is entitled to have his/her life in their own way.
Also, modern marriage(so called dual career, partnership coupling) is a cyanide to man's intellectual instincts. Of course you could say that it is true for women as well. But women are the ones to ask for commitment in almost all relatioships.
Refusing women as intimate parters does not tantamount to misogyny.
and it is very difficult to bring up a topic on science or politics or sports for discussion with these women.
Ah, so women are lack intellectual curiosity because they are not interested in the things you are?
I suspect that is not exactly what you meant (at least I hope not). Or maybe I missed some sarcasm. Women (overall) do tend to be interested in talking about different things than men, in my experience. Some women do like to gossip, that is for sure. And married women, women with children often enjoy talking about their families or things related to their families (speaking generally of course) because that is likely their primary interest. Although I have a marginal interest in baseball, I am not likely to be too interested in a conversation about my local team's pitching problems. I'd rather talk about educational issues, books, travel, theology, and yes, more mundane topics like cooking. Are you interested in those topics or do you lack intellectual curiosity?
Cham, you still here? What do you like to talk about?
"I don't volunteer at Goodwill. Those that work in Goodwill shops are paid employees."
Ha! But the point, of course, is at 35,000 fett above your head, and climbing. I shall assume you volunteer in some sort of vacuum, with no contact with the material world, requiring nothng, using zero energy.
marbel,
May be my definition of intellect and yours are different. Mine includes philosophy, science, technology, politics, automobile building, computer software and sports.
Believe me, I have NEVER found a female who could discuss these issues with me. Even the ones pursuing doctoral degrees had almost no interest in any other topic other than their thesis.
BTW, look at the adventurers, bike builders, computer programmers, philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, artists, musical geniuses,engineers and political activists. Even today, even in the age of post-feminism, is still dominated by men.
Solitary pursuit of intellectual excellence is a VERY VERY DIFFICULT task. May be women are not interested in them or they have better things to do(in their opinion).
I never said that all women lack intellect. I just said that more men than women were interested in
"intellectual" pursuits.
A discussion that involves logic, analysis, prediction, experimentation and reason is intellectual.
A discussion that involves just interpersonal experiences, individuals, emotion does not count as intellectual(in my book).
I would love to see your definition of "intellectual" discussion :)
I do have that silly blog about being an Adventurer, does that count? Can one be an adventurer and own a vagina as well?
I enjoy a good political discussion on a daily basis with my friends. I don't much care for spectator sports, I am more of a participant. I like discussing science and automotive maintenance. My particular passion these days is alternative energy sources. Right now I am improving my digital photography skills. I'm pretty good with HTML and can discuss that at length with my blog friends. I spent an hour yesterday morning writing a bunch of politicians about my dislike of the Sex Offenders Registry, so we will see where that goes. What I am doing in these most recent minutes is putting together my Artscape plan: Theater, Film and Visual Arts are the discussion of the moment.
But then again, I keep to myself and have a close circle of friends with similar interests. I can't be that different than other single independent women.
I don't spend much time discussing anything to do with my family, it's not my thing.
Xiaoding:
Not this weekend but next meet me near Berkeley Springs, WV. You can help construct water bars, pick up trash and cut branches with me. You will need to bring your own shovel, your own trash bags, your own food and your own gardening tools to participate. This will involve the entire weekend, and we will be working, eating and sleeping outdoors. There will be a nearby stream if you need water.
A discussion that involves logic, analysis, prediction, experimentation and reason is intellectual.
Yeah, that sounds good.
So, I'm thinking that the things I listed, and that Cham listed, can all be part of an intellectual discussion, as you say. OK, take out talking about families. Philosophy surely covers a wide range of topics; maybe it would have been better if I'd said "philosophies of education" rather than "educational issues."
And you know, now that I am thinking back to my working days, I mostly recall the guys at work talking about business, sports, the relative attractiveness of the females in the workplace, and where to go drinking that night.
As always, opinions and experiences vary.
--I mostly recall the guys at work talking about business, sports, the relative attractiveness of the females in the workplace, and where to go drinking that night.---
To me, this sort of discussion is purely unappealing. Yeah, I agree most of my male friends descend to this sort of discussion. I just hear them and leave them as soon as the discussion terminates :).
Is it safe to assume then, that people expect more out of others than they do of themselves?
I devote the vast majority of my time and resources to my children. I owe them that. I want to provide for them. I hold the door for them one by one as their wings dry, and off they go. That's hard.
After that, my priorities will change more toward me. I have thought long and hard about selfish. I believe I can, and will, do it well. And I will not drag anyone into it with me. That would be too selfish.
I noticed two themes that seem to come out in these kinds of discussion about marriage.
1) Men and women bashing each other about how one is unsuitable for marriage to the other. Mostly this revolves around men who complain about how bad modern women are and about how stacked the divorce courts are.
2) A underlying current to much of the discussion that somehow people should be browbeaten into marriage whether they want it or not.
I think that there is an element of truth to #1 and I think they way that women are described by men in these cases is applicable to SOME women. However, I think that there are many fine, decent women out there, even in America.
I think that #2 is absolutely lunacy. I think the only people for whom marriage is necessary for is those who want to have kids. Kids grow up better in stable, two-parent families. However, I think marriage is entirely unnecessary and optional for those who do not want to have kids. If you find the right soul-mate life partner, marriage can be very rewarding for such people. However, I think non soul mate marriage is a completely irrational choice for people who do not plan to have kids. It is something that should go the way of the do-do bird.
"kurt said...
However, I think that there are many fine, decent women out there, even in America."
Maybe there are, maybe there aren't. There are certainly plenty of men here who claim that their wives are just such women, but those women are obviously already taken and off the market.
The rub for everyone is the asymmetrical nature of the mating dance and the fact that is men's job to be the designated pursuers and aggressors. This unfortunate fact for men has been used to criminalize their every action in the process of mating. Thus, more and more men are simply quitting and not going through the grueling, obnoxious, and frequently dangerous effort to seek such women out.
Women are left in the uncomfortable position that "the sisters have to do it for themselves" and start sticking their necks out to start relationships, or still be sitting on their butts on the shelf ten years hence - and ten years older and less attractive.
The neat thing about bachelorhood is that no one wants anything to do with you sometimes, other times you literally feel like nothing more than a tool.
Some men probably even envy bachelors, but mostly they seem to be curiously indifferent at best.
I think some guys are just to introverted to get married. Plenty still jump right in without any hesitation.
This is perhaps the only way a woman can feel goo about themselves.
In a woman's mind...she believes that a man is only happy if he is married/committed (read pussy pleaser). No matter how well a single guy have it made, in her eyes he has to be lonely and miserable.
Its a obvious feeling for a woman. Her entire life have been a train-wreck. One bad decision after another, pushed her perceptive into a negative realm. People, in general, draws comfort from others misery. Their negativity shows them things that do not exist. It confirms her that men are miserable without her.
My point here is, book is just a validation of this theory. So, to all brothers out there, always remember the problem is in a woman's mind. She is just receiving validations from her negativity. I think this is the best way to deal with women. Accept all her shaming tactics. More you rebuke the more she has a point. Confirm her negativity and she will have nothing more to say.
So, if a woman tells u, "U r just intimidated with independent women", u reply, " Thats right!! She how much success all women have nowadays, I really get nervous"
"U cant find anyone to date" ur answer, "Yep!! Nobody wants to date me, how sad is that!!!"
Get the idea. this is the best way.
I live in Hong Kong and marriage here is utterly different. I think the problem is not marriage per se, but the unbelievable pressures of the nuclear family.
Here, almost no-one is dealing with the endless household tasks alone. Either easily available domestic helpers, or the extended family are there to help out, all the time. A wife left to do all the housework, often while trying to run her own career, is likely to become a nag. The husband feels mundane concerns encroach on his brilliance and disturb his breakthroughs, or just his fun...resentment builds to a steaming head.
So it all turns to hatred: the wife feels her youth is gone, "the best years of my life", fears getting back into the dating scene, sees herself poor and unloved while her carefree bachelor husband pulls another young bird with his nice income, "well, dammit, I'm fucked if I'm going to let him get away with that, I'll take him for everything he's got".
It's not easy for a woman to start over when a marriage ends, especially in today's relentless youth culture. Are you, after years as a mum, going to hit the clubs? Can you wear a crop top? Can you compete? What else? Amateur dramatics? Meet lonely middle-aged divorced men (probably much like your own husband is in reality) men who are not exactly going to sweep you off to a wonderland fantasy paradise? Or hang out with other divorced women and bemoan your lives like the wretched females in Tom Wolfe's books? (And there's a guy who needs a beating for his sexism, btw)
So, if you have money, at least you can make a new start. And you may feel purged of some resentment for all that housework, for all those bathmats not hung up, shelves unbuilt, and all the motherfucking ironing. Try to understand, guys, it's not just vindictive. With money, you can get a facelift, a new wardrobe, or if you have any character, a new life. Because your old one went down the drain with a million bowls of dishwater.
So. Either: Marry Asian, get the extended family. Be ultra polite to your mother-in-law and be prepared to have her move in when her husband dies. Also be super good to your own parents so they won't think you are the usual, no-account, selfish Westerner.
Or get really good domestic help. Pay well for it. Treasure anyone who can deal with the burden.
Or just let the house fall down. So what. That's what I do. We get along fine after 20 years. Of course, we are not actually married. That works too.
And something has confused me. Now I've read all the posts, and I'm kind of horrified. Nearly every remark is so entirely selfish. "What do I get? What do I lose?" I haven't seen a single mention of loyalty, kindness, mutual support.
Are these really the only models of females you men have? There seem to be 3: hot young ones who are desirable; married women who have careers and force you to do housework and chick-lit; and married women who do nothing but demand more and more material goods. Wait, there are also bitter single ones, with cats. All are bound to age, which makes them therefore hideously unattractive, and it seems, masculinized, or perhaps, just depersonalized, ceertainly of no interest.
Is this it? All you have? How about love for a woman so that as she ages you love the experience on her face for what you shared? How about partnerships of support? How do you think these great men became famous without support behind them? And that doesn't mean treating women as servants. It means two people working as a unit. If you could truly bring your mind into the modern day, you might see this could work the other way round. My sister is a great case in point. She's the main breadwinner, a lawyer, her husband is fantastic. In no way can you call him emasculated, before you start, in fact, his easy acceptance and ability to fit make him more manly, because he has confidence.
BTW, He's also really good-looking. For the person who said 'looks don't matter for a man', don't kid yourself. They don't matter if the woman doesn't like sex and regards it as a chore, or if he can overcome his unattractiveness with the confidence born of being a good lover. Otherwise it matters. No woman is going to desire you, no matter how much money you have, if you are fat. Fat and hairy and out of shape but desirable with a million. I don't think. End of story. You are just convincing yourself. Some women can stand it for the money. Personally I'd rather make my own money and have a partner I want to shag with my eyes open.
But this is off track. My point is, there are other models. These can't be the only types of women in America.( I am guessing you are American by your attitude. A culture of entitlement would naturally make you believe that all your females should never age.) Perhaps you are getting the women you deserve. Why not try to find someone who will be supportive of you if you are engaged in important work? You will need to support her in return, that does not necessarily mean financially, although it may be beneficial if you do. You will owe her loyalty and security and if you find you cannot get aroused by her after a cetain age, you will need to be very very discreet. Above all, she should not find herself discarded for a secretary, or whatever.
Chinese men are better at this. They keep discreet mistresses, but their wives never lose their respect. In older days, the first wife used to help pick a second. As the husband grew older, he naturally looked towards younger women for sex, while still loving and respecting his wife, their shared experience and her wisdom. He would rely on this to help choose a young, pretty, but simple girl who would be content as the second and never scheme to overthrow the first. Result, a contented house. (Unless the wife wanted a lover too, I suppose, but how many really do? Perhaps now it could work both ways.) My friend tells me her grandfather had 4 wives. After he died they stayed together and now live happily, the youngest taking care of the other 3. They make up a happy mahjong table.
I just think this is better than the ridiculous complaint that "my wife is aging". So you throw her away and get another, then another. It's so childish, so cruel and above all, so self-centred. When you marry, you could divorce for lots of reasons, but on grounds of age? "I've finished with this one, I want to get a newer type." Not a single word in all this discussion of loyalty. Not one. Of course you are better as bachelors. You have a totally short-term outlook. If the women you meet are such monsters of selfishness too, I am sure you would not want them for life. Why are you meeting women like this?
視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片免費視訊聊天jp成人sex520免費影片
Was Ayn Rand single?
No, she was married for 50 years, but did not have any children.
I think in a healthy marriage, you can encourage your partner to pursue their dreams.
DADvocate: This past week a co-worker of mine killed himself apparently because his wife was divorcing him and taking the kids.
My dad contemplated this, but it had nothing to do with going to court or the finances and all of us are adults. One of his co-workers did go through with it; he was only 31.
I agree with Bruce Hayden to an extent, that some men predisposed to juvenile behavior can become more responsible once they are settled into a relationship.
Post a Comment
<< Home