"...the percentage of unmarried mothers has jumped 11 per cent to a record 41 per cent in less than a decade."
Daily Mail: Women are waiting longer to have children in the U.S. - and a record 41% are unmarried:
Women in the United States are having children later, and fewer of them are married, according to a new report.
The Pew Research Center has found that, since 1990, the percentage of new mothers over the age of 35 has risen by five per cent, while the percentage of unmarried mothers has jumped 11 per cent to a record 41 per cent in less than a decade.
posted by Helen at 11:51 AM
107 Comments:
Women make a virtue of necessity.
Increasing numbers of men refuse to marry.
Women have enobled single motherhood because...well...they have no choice.
And that number of men refusing to marry is mainly due to the way that women behave in marriage.
Funny how all these caring mothers have no qualms in starting out their children's lives with a strike against them.
I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of unmarried mothers is divided between the financially well off and the lower economic strate with the lowest percentage in the middle classes.
DADvocate, it is more like three strikes against them. Their children will be addicted more often, jailed more often, and have more and more children with no dads. These kids will not grow up to contribute, they will grow up consuming valuable resources, and way too many of them will never contribute economically.
Thems the facts.
Trey
For the middle class and well heeled, when you popularize insemination methods that don't include a partner and single motherhood as being "brave" and ennobling, why bother to get married to have a family? Pick the nationality, race and hair color of the sperm donor and start baking. Hollywood is rife examples of single mothers with kids. Kids are ultimate accessory for the glitterati. Who needs pops, you can hire one for a day.
For the poor, the government as well as many organizations supported by our tax dollars heavily support single mothers so getting married is strictly an option there too.
Once they get around to making sperm last indefinately or cloning it, men will be completely disposable and the "new men" like Chastity/Chaz Bono and Thomas Beatie (the pregnant Oregon "man") will rule the roost.
What a brave new world.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Women make a virtue of necessity.
Increasing numbers of men refuse to marry.
Women have enobled single motherhood because...well...they have no choice.
I think this is true. The solution would be to change the legal "slope" so it's not tilted so heavily against men, of course, but I don't see that actually happening any time soon.
The sad part is these gals will use the government to force the rest of us to take care of their children anyway, so we may just as well have married 'em.
"Increasing numbers of men refuse to marry."
The real question's aren't even being asked.
What percentage of these women actually stay home and raise the children they're forced to have out of wedlock?
I'd posit a guess: maybe 10%.
The rest of these illegitimate children are being raised in day-care (and I use the term "raise" very loosely here).
If you're married to your career, enjoy your single motherhood. Men are making choices whether you're intelligent enough to realize it or not.
Why do you think you're marriage-worthy if you make clear you put career above family?
Nobody wants a wife who puts anything above family.
Men refusing to marry is mainly because they have NO incentive to marry when they can get sex anytime they want.
I just wanted to note that there are millions of great women left in the USA. Millions of loving women with great values who put family first and even have what it takes to work out a career with the right man involved. These women simply aren't the vocal ones. You don't see them on Sex and the City very often, and when you do, they are parodies of real people.
Plenty of wonderful happy moms out there. I know 40 of them, right off the top of my facebook list. Now, I live in a smallish town in a red state and go to church, so perhaps that skews my circle. But don't think it's all women who make the wrong choices or are selfish or act terribly in marriage.
I admit, the court system is rigorously sexist, but if you really want a great wife in your life, I think the best way to get one is to accept that women probably don't really look like those magazine covers. Once you ignore that concept of beauty, you find that beautiful women with great values are not so difficult to come across. I felt like a few here didn't know it, and that's a shame. If there aren't any where you live, why do you live in such a place?
Also, I like sex quite a bit, but sex is not the only reason men want a wife. And I'm certainly not referring to chores and children, either.
Are the feminist happy now? If not now, then when? Most divorces are initiated by the woman. Aren't children better off being raised by two parents than by one? With two parents, one parent can say to the other "Tag, you're it. I need a time out. I'll call you when I'm ready." Single parents rarely get that luxury. By being in a household with a father and a mother, children learn how to deal with people of each gender.
The expression is "Didn't your mother ever teach you to come in out of the rain?" because dad's don't teach their children to come in out of the rain. Dad's teach lots of useful stuff, and putting on a rain coat is one of them.
Make all the bullshit rationalizations and excuses you like:
Single parenthood is not a good thing for kids. Some people who divorce for good reasons, and who do the best they can for their kids, manage to raise kids who do okay. Men who abandon their pregnant girlfriends, or abandon the legally married mothers of their children (and this same goes for women who abandon), OR women who choose to have children without including the fathers, are doing a vast disservice to their children.
Children deserve to have two stable parents that can provide them with adequate role models in ethics and gender orientation (this does not rule out gay couples, but simply puts a special obligation on them to provide the correct guidance for the child's innate orientation). The two-parent model is a truncated version of "the tribe", but it's still viable in these modern, disconnected times.
Men and women will still pursue sex whenever and wherever, but that's got nothing to do with child rearing. Once the decision to have a child is reached, some adjustments (re: sacrifices for those hedonistically inclinded) need to be made in order to provide the optimal environment for the child. That's nature's way. Otherwise, don't have children, unless you want to raise the next serial killer.
Yes Nancy is right. Men used to marry as part of a social contract: I will support you, help raise the kids and protect the family if you promise to be faithful and be a ready sex partner. Now, with females giving away their sexuality on the first date, why should men seek commitment? Why buy the cow when the milk is free? Old-fashioned I know, but some things never change. Human nature certainly hasn't.
My wife put on 40 pounds during our marriage and still managed to convince herself that it was not only okay but THE RIGHT THING TO DO to find herself a boyfriend and leave with half my money. It's what she needed to do to realize her goals or empower herself or some other crap that she heard on Oprah.
Men refuse to get married? Not really -- but I'm in no hurry to repeat that experience.
Men refusing to marry is mainly because they have NO incentive to marry when they can get sex anytime they want.
That may be true at, say, 22, but most men who are a bit older and interested in having children would certainly rather do so within the context of marriage. I don't think that's the driving force here.
Hey Helen,
The paragraphs you quote aren't in the story you link to. Did the story change or is the quote actually from somewhere else?
The reason I went to check is the use of this kind of, I believe misleading, language. "...the percentage of new mothers over the age of 35 has risen by five per cent."
Maybe they do it differently in the UK but I believe the accepted practice here is to say it has risen by five percentage points, which is a much larger increase in this case. The story says that in the earlier period 9% of mothers were over 35 and now 14% are. That's five percentage points but it's an absolute rise of more than 50 per cent (5/9). Similarly, the overall rise in unwed motherhood would be more than 33% per cent.
Hey all,
I don't want to be the language cop, here, but there is something I'd like to propose: let's stop calling children illegitimate, and start calling their parents that.
It's not the kids' fault.
I've heard some single mothers say they don't need a man to raise their child. Perhaps, but what message are they sending to those children who happen to be born male, that you're not necessary, that women don't need you?
No social problems would come from that, now could they?
The economics have changed. Birth control and modern technology have made single motherhood possible. Therefore there is little reason for men to invest in marriage. Why?
This also accounts for the fact that women now greatly outnumber men in college. For a woman, $50K/year salary is necessary to support herself and her children. But for a man ... it's chump change. He gets it just as good with $12K/year.
There's not much percentage in marriage for either sex anymore. From the female point of view, a woman does not gain any greater guarantee of financial support for herself and her child from the father by marrying him. The law makes no distinction between the obligations of wed and unwed fathers.
From the male point of view, a man does not gain any greater guarantee of his woman's emotional and sexual fidelity by marrying her. The social morality of the present does not condemn the infidelity of the legally married woman any more or less than the unmarried but cohabiting woman. (That is, a cheating woman is condemned, or pardoned, based strictly on the emotional factors of her actual relationship -- i.e. does he "deserve" it -- her technical legal status does not matter at all.)
The only remaining rationales for marriage are purely aesthetic, whether you want a "piece of paper," as they say. As it turns out, relatively few people give a damn about state sanction. What a surprise.
Also bear in mind that unmarried mothers save a pile of money on taxes compared to their married sisters. That helps.
Of course it's exploded. Isn't being a single Mom the most glorious and glamorous thing to be. If you watched any MSM news program or even any prime time television show you'd think so. Don't you know all Dad's are morons like Homer Simpson.
But real single Mom's know it's a lot less glamorous than it is on TV.
Ultimately look to the life time fertility rate of women across society. Women with less than 2.15 children each will disappear in a few generations. One child at 35 means no grandchildren at 70, game over. There will be another culture.
First...I ws 16 in 1969, the heart of the "free love" movement in the US. I have no children by choice. I figured out how not to become pregnant.
Second, feminists who support the position that abortion should be a choice cannot then justify asking for child support. Women who become pregnant without benefit of a supportive partner are idiots.
Third, the government is not responsible for the well-being of children who are born to irresponsible women. Women can't have it both ways.
Last, take away the bennies of being a teenage mother, and watch the young single mom rate drop.
First...I ws 16 in 1969, the heart of the "free love" movement in the US. I have no children by choice. I figured out how not to become pregnant.
Second, feminists who support the position that abortion should be a choice cannot then justify asking for child support. Women who become pregnant without benefit of a supportive partner are idiots.
Third, the government is not responsible for the well-being of children who are born to irresponsible women. Women can't have it both ways.
Last, take away the bennies of being a teenage mother, and watch the young single mom rate drop.
Given the American paternity fraud laws relating to married couples, why would any sane, intelligent man ever want to get married (sorry Glenn)?
can't remember the author or the title of the book but there was a feminist several years ago that dressed up as a man and dated women. one of the thoughts she had after it was over was "modern women have an overblown sense of self-entitlement". i've dated too many women that fit that description.
This video is great! The No Apology Song: http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/05/07/no-apology-song-the-case-for-american-greatness/
The more people that hear this, the better. It’s not too late to wake up Americans so we can bring America back! Let’s spread this everywhere we can!
Never posted here before (hi folks), but I wonder what the percentage of the 41% are in stable "spousal equivalent" type relationships? With all the negativity surrounding marriage & divorce possibly many are forgoing the certificate & the legal & social millstones of marriage. Common law. Not that I know those stats, which is why I ask. Not married does not by default mean single parent.
popville:
depending on jurisdiction common law is the same legally as marriage as to your financial responsibilities. Usually you cannot co-habit with any woman. She gets the house married or not though some women do not exercise their full legal powers.
Child support alone will break most people financially if they have lower middle income. Unemployed males have the best deal as there is no income to attach.
15-20 years of this has caused suicide for the earnest low income, honest guy.
Well, I had to go to Japan to find a great wife. I was there 8 years. When I met my wife I knew she was the one. We've been in the states for 5 years, have 1 child, (more soon) and have a wonderful home life.
1. I made a good choice.
2. I have rebuffed any opportunities to be unfaithful because the consequences always outweigh the benefits.
3. I made a good choice.
4. Japan divorce laws are much less slanted towards the female.
5. I made a good choice.
I see many friends dating and marrying girls that I know will be terrible wives. They have been conditioned to think otherwise.
Invariably, their wives / girlfriends have "fixed" them from whatever faults they have.
What has actually occured is that the manifestation of thier unique points has been rubbed out to conform to some mold.
I wish people could actually find thier partner that would accentuate their uniqne qualities.
And individual women are not 100% to blame. They have been conditioned to demand a certain mold of a man.
They get what they ask for.
I'd like to know how many "single" mom's are raising children in a gay relationship and reporting single motherhood either because they are not out or can get benefits they otherwise wouldn't. Since such cases have become much better tolerated in the last few decades it might account for a decent percentage of the explosion.
Or it might not... just a hypothesis.
"You're always an outsider, and many women don't WANT you to be a father, it's THEIR kid. Not yours. They just want you to help with the bills and take care of them."
I have seen this attitude with divorced women towards the kids' actual father - she thinks she is the _real_ parent and he is just a babysitter who comes around on occasion and writes her checks.
Wobegone the man who dares disagree with her parenting decisions; he is just making things harder for her because he wants to hurt her more (always the projection).
I am always suspicious of a woman who says she is "raising my child by myself." If Daddy lives in the area and has visitation, he is raising the child too, even if he is doing it poorly or against her desires.
Her insistence on everything being her way probably has a lot to do with her divorced or single status, come to think of it.
"if you really want a great wife in your life, I think the best way to get one is to accept that women probably don't really look like those magazine covers."
Zzzzzz. Please don't dump on us again with this fallacious logic that "all you unhappy men are judging a woman by the size of her tatas."
It is a regular if infrequent line of argument here, and it's just baloney. Most of the guys here are decent, hardworking people who aren't asking for a Playboy model as long as she would view a husband as a person and not a human wallet and emotional punching bag.
Good women come in all shapes and sizes...and so do bad ones. Looking for homely women is no hedge against princesses and wenches.
I must also say that some men are refusing to marry because they've taken the feminist imperative to heart, and THEY are eschewing commitment and partnership to "find themselves" or, more nobly, develop their talents rather than spend their spare time on marriage and family.
I for one think the reduced pressure to get married or have children is a good thing for society.
In the current economy, and given the avoidupois of current American women, American men are unable to buy enough food for potential wives. Coincidence?
'bennies for teenage mothers'
What benefits does a teenage mother actually have? And what is the point of punishing teenage girls who already have children? Pregnancy is not a crime, ya know!
I'm not sure how to advise you guys who are disappointed in women in general except to say that the majority of my friends (we're all around mid twenties now) definitely wanted to get married before kids. A lot of them did have kids before marriage, unfortunately, due to failed relationships and picking the wrong guy, but I think so far most of my friends are happy in their marriages and try to be respectful, affectionate, not demand their own way all the time, etc., etc. A couple have put off marriage voluntarily (and then there are some of us who have remained unwillingly single until now) so far in order to do career/fun stuff, but they don't have kids yet, either. I do frequently run into the types of women the men here are upset about and I sympathize, but there are still a lot of great women out there.
Nancy said...
Men refusing to marry is mainly because they have NO incentive to marry when they can get sex anytime they want.
Thank the Maker for the Internet.
"Men refusing to marry is mainly because they have NO incentive to marry when they can get sex anytime they want."
This comes up a lot and I think it's shortsighted and negative to men. Putting aside the horifically biased family court system, it's not just the cow and the milk theory, it's the overall image the woman is selling. Men, like women, enjoy regular sex...but a man wants a lot more in a wife. In fact, as more women do the "you go girl" "expression" of their sexuality, more men have no interest. (If you think this is an unfair mindfu**, then just consider the disappointingly regular conflict of a woman nagging a man to change and then resenting him as a beta male because he rolled over for her.)
As the typical (median) American woman is somewhere between a decent person and a harpy shrew, the typical American man is somewhere between a honorable master of the hearth and a locker-room frat guy trying to bag lots of chicks for social status. The less men stand up for themselves the more the women will act like the latter, and the more women behave like unpaid whores the more men will act like the latter.
Men don't want to marry sluts.
They will sleep with them, just as women will sleep with men unfit for husbandry (in this respect men tend to make slightly better decisions than women, as it is typical for an immature woman to confuse the gina tingle for true love and push for marriage.) Feminists can harp about slut/stud double standards, but nature is nature and men don't respect someone who doesn't respect herself.
Men don't want to marry sluts.
kcom,
It seems they switched the story from the link I used which was this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1274405/Women-waiting-longer-children-U-S--record-41-unmarried.html
7:10 AM, May 08, 2010
Topher,
"Men don't want to marry sluts."
Are you referring to women who like to sleep around? Because most women have before marriage. So either, men love "sluts" or being a "slut" is no big deal.
Just how are the boys of these single mothers supposed to learn how to become men as they grow up?
Isn't it obvious that Western Civ is falling apart in part because the boys of modern relationships are never learning how to become men? Having not learned this role they prolong adolescence, join gangs, etc.
If large portions of women proposed, and celebrated this proposition, to create families with little or no contact with certain racial groups it would be obvious what kind of damage they are doing to their children's future. Yet these women, baby daddies, and society are do far worse than denying children influence of a racial group but something far more fundamental, the male half of the population.
Let me assure the Oprah audience members that having an uncle show up at a ball game from time to time, or having a neighbor drop by from time to time is no substitute for a father. You can't schedule th thousands of learning moments in a child's life. Even regular visitation is a sorry and weak excuse for having a father's influence.
On not marrying sluts. Most men like sex. Most men expect to have a sex life when they get married. Many women like sex, and many women have sex before marriage. But if a man considers only women who aren't having premarital sex for marriage, then they should not expect a woman who has purposely avoided sex for most of her adult life to turn into a dynamo in the sack the minute they are wed. There is usually a good reason why a person avoids sex and often that is because the don't like it.
I always feel our culture is strange in that way. We expect people to save their sexual selves for marriage, but once they are married they are expected to have sex 4 times a week minimum. One is expected to go from no sex at all to frequently. And if they don't then there is seriously something wrong with them and they need counseling. Crazy.
Feminists can harp about slut/stud double standards, but nature is nature and men don't respect someone who doesn't respect herself.
I second Dr. Helen's question.
Why do men so often equate a woman's natural sex drive with "not respecting herself"?
Do we women lower or demean ourselves by wanting and desiring men? I don't think so.
...if a man considers only women who aren't having premarital sex for marriage, then they should not expect a woman who has purposely avoided sex for most of her adult life to turn into a dynamo in the sack the minute they are wed.
Best. comment. ever.
I have had friends who did save themselves for marriage and yet ended up loving sex and wanting it frequently. But that's because they waited from religious conviction rather than disinterest in sex.
I'm not sure how much one can tell from the mere fact of having had premarital sex. Character is a bit more complicated than that whether one is male or female.
Face it, Dan Quayle was right about "Murphy Brown." Whether he can spell "potatoe" is irrelevant.
A not uncommon theme above is that men need not marry because they can have sex whenever they want without tying the knot, so what is the point of tying one's self down?
That is not accurate. Adult men want to marry; they want a warm and loving companionship- but one that is leavened with frequent sex. They like family life, as long as adequate sex is also involved. Modern women are taught to indulge their sexuality in the manner they prefer- Do It When You Want To, married or not. Because of the biochemical difference between the sexes, this doesn't work. Most often, men are ready to go, and women simply are not; it is biochemistry- the "want to" for most couples doesn't match. For most men, it turns out to be a bad deal.
There is a huge difference between a predominantly physical drive, like hunger or testosterone-driven libido, and emotional responses, like looking for reinforcement of one's desirability.
Therefore men have learned (often through sad experience) not that they can have sex whenever they want even if they don't bother to get married, but that being married doesn't make it any more LIKELY that they will be able to have sex. It still completely depends on moods and whims, no matter what else typifies the relationship, good or bad. So they rationally, and ruefully, ask, "Why bother?"
here come the moralizers. i knew the minute this guy used the word "slut" even the somewhat traditional and conservative women here would swarm him.
let me play the devil's advocate for him.. why is it that most societies developed gender roles? what caused most societies to value chaste, demure females as "good wife" material and women of loose behavior not so much?
being a "slut" presents a man with a dilemma. can i trust a woman i slept with the first night i met her to be faithful to me and have my children or will she sleep around, get pregnant by another man, and use me to raise another man's child? women who use the "sauce for the goose" defense to wish this away are being dishonest.
Whether you like it or not, sex has different consequences for men and women. men have the right to judge you on your fitness as a wife based on your lack of chastity.
men don't only get married for sex however it is a large part of our mental activity. i see a lot of mental gymnastics by the females here claiming that if a woman would wait till marriage, she might be fridged or something so why marry her. only in the mind of a woman would anyone think this is a defense for their behaviors. it's a self serving defense. there are many acts besides coitus that a woman can preform before marriage. but you can't take back losing your virginity. that only happens once.
also, being chaste gives woman a chance to evaluate a perspective mate. how better to tell if someone is serious about being with you than not having sex with him? many men are an the prowl for sexual conquest and have no intentions of spending their life with you. too easy. it's the ultimate filter but willfully ignored because you want to justify your behaviors.
If a man has sex with a woman the first night he meets her wouldn't that make him a slut too? Why are only women sluts who have sex on the first date? I'd spend less time worrying about evaluating the speed of sexual interludes and a lot more time looking at character, values and track records of the people one chooses to have romantic relationships.
Helen and others,
You should all know what I mean by a slut, and it's not synonymous with a woman who has premarital sex.
Men don't want to marry a woman who is so insecure her entire being is caught up in how attention she can get from men. Nor do they want to marry a woman who does not connect love and sex, and thus gives herself away to men she meets that night, or men who actively display no interest in commitment (frat-party hookups and all else).
Men don't respect women who don't respect themselves.
cham,
you are almost there. now go back and take everything i said in context and i think the light bulb will come on for you.
Therefore men have learned ... that being married doesn't make it any more LIKELY that they will be able to have sex. It still completely depends on moods and whims, no matter what else typifies the relationship, good or bad.
Given that the very nature of female sexuality is that most of us need to feel loved and secure in order to fully enjoy sex, how is it helpful to characterize the way we're made as "dependent upon moods and whims"?
Why not treat women the way you want to be treated - with respect and understanding?
Instead of depicting female sexuality as irrational and unreasonable, try understanding that people generally won't try very hard to meet your needs if you constantly denigrate theirs.
Male sexuality isn't "right", and female sexuality isn't "wrong".
Marriage is a process of give and take that only succeeds when both parties work hard to make sure the other one is getting what they need from the partnership.
Our very differences make it hard to understand each other, but it's so worth the effort. I love my husband and enjoy the physical part of our marriage. I'm eager for it because he respects my needs and tries to make me happy - not by giving me what he thinks I *ought* to want (male sexuality) but by learning about female sexuality and using that knowledge to give me what I actually want.
And because he does this, I'd do just about anything for him.
"Given that the very nature of female sexuality is that most of us need to feel loved and secure in order to fully enjoy sex, how is it helpful to characterize the way we're made as "dependent upon moods and whims"?"
I don't think you are addressing the question. Part of being married is accepting that the team is more important than yourself, and that sometimes - not always, but sometimes - it's your spousal responsibility to put the other person before your "moods and whims."
The typical fear, which unfortunately plays out in many marriages, is that if wifey doesn't "feel like it" the man goes without. If you don't want to do it every night that's probably not unreasonable, but the use of sex as a strategic bargaining tool, or putting everything else before pleasing your spouse (pervasive "I'm too tired from work/kids/whatever"), or just not wanting to bother with the effort, is not what anybody signs up for in marriage. If that is not your marriage, that's great, but exceptions are not disproofs.
Lest you think I'm a sexist, I include in this men who are neglectful of their wife's needs for intimacy.
Part of being married is accepting that the team is more important than yourself, and that sometimes - not always, but sometimes - it's your spousal responsibility to put the other person before your "moods and whims."
I agree - strongly.
I may have misunderstood the comment I cited - that's not uncommon when trying to interpret a comment in isolation.
And I love that you recognize that a wife's need for emotional intimacy is just as important as a husband's need for sexual intimacy. I agree that women shouldn't withhold sex as a bargaining tool or punishment. It's just that I also believe men shouldn't withhold emotional intimacy as a bargaining tool or punishment.
I also think that we often interpret the other person's behavior as intentional when in fact it may just be a response to perceived rejection: i.e., men feel sexually rejected and naturally withdraw emotionally b/c that's how men are wired.
And women feel emotionally rejected and withdraw sexually b/c that's how we tend to be wired.
I've seen enough situations where a couple enters counseling b/c they are both convinced the other is hateful and unreasonable only to find that changes in their own behavior produce huge changes in how their spouse responds to them. Marriage is a feedback loop - positive feedback usually (not always) produces positive results and negative feedback more often than not produces negative results.
Anyway, great comment!
Cassandra,
if you are happily married for over 7 years, you are a statistical outlier. congrats.
for the rest of us that have struggled with the new reality of relationships after the interjection of feminist liberation ideology in to our culture, it isn't as simple as you put it.
in my experience, one of the difficulties of pre-marital sex is it can be a trap for guys. guys assume the same level of sex will continue after marriage (wishful thinking of course). however, also in my experience women lose a lot of interest in sex soon after marriage. even if a guy is providing for his wife everything she needs, they still get cut off from sex. simply put, many modern women are selfish in this regards and expect the man to do something to earn it. that something tends to be greater and greater as time goes on. men get frustrated and turn to unhealthy, risky behaviors to get their needs met. divorce soon follows.
even in your post, you make it clear you are physical with your husband because he mets "your" needs. too often, women use this as an excuse to not have sex and from a man's point of view it smacks of a woman trying to control that aspect of the relationship.
as a man, i don't need to be happy with you or in love with you to have sex. why can't i make that requirement of you? why do i have to live by your metric for access to sex? there are going to be days where you aren't happy with me, but i want sex.. so i have to wait until you stop "being moody"? of course not.
many men resent being turned down by their wife. resentment in a relationship must be managed by both partners. women that occasionally have sex whether they are in the mood or not will be happier in the long run. sometimes it isn't about "enjoying" sex but enjoying happiness, peace, and a family that lives under the same roof.
Patti said...
'bennies for teenage mothers'
What benefits does a teenage mother actually have? And what is the point of punishing teenage girls who already have children? Pregnancy is not a crime, ya know!
What benefits can a single teenage mother actually receive? How about Food Stamps, WIC, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, housing assistance, Medicaid, and welfare cash payments for a starter? Depending on the location, they may also get assistance with utilities, phones, and even cars. They can get education assistance if they want it.
If you add it all up, they'd have to get a job paying over $20 a hour to break even with what they get from various forms of welfare. Then, if they have another child, the payments increase. Getting pregnant is not a crime but it shouldn't be a ticket to ride the gravy train, either. The more you subsidize a certain behavior, the more of that behavior you'll get in the end.
Cassandra,
Glad we've had a meeting of the minds. It is useful to remember that most of the commenters here are men who are fulfilling what we have been told are our "obligations" to women in our lives, but not receiving the other half of the bargain (getting no sex, getting disrespected in public, paying alimony or some other undeserved emasculation).
...or have been in such situations in the past. So forgive us some bias, it's nice to have a place to go to vent.
BTW, I think there's another factor at play...there's less social pressure to have kids at all, or to have kids quickly after getting married. Ergo, the family-bond incentive for marriage is weakened, which weakens the social pressure to marry at all.
This has the collateral-damage effect of reducing the incentive for "accidental" parents to get married.
About fatherless children, it's not just the boys who suffer from the lack of a male role model.
The flipside is that a husbandless woman is also often lousy role model for her daughters...
The daughters have no example of what a future husband should be like, instead only being exposed to mom's parade of boyfriends, seeing the crap she puts up with (or seeks out) and doesn't develop any better taste in men.
The other downside is that by not seeing their mother in the give and take of a functioning marriage, the daughter learns nothing of the compromise required to make it work. They end up like spoiled brats (so many of the black girls in particular).
If a decent man did come along somehow, the grown daughter wouldn't be fit to live with.
ABout the other topic of differing sex drives in marriage, their really is something to be said for the old concept of the 'wifely duty'. Not that she should feel obloigated to 'put out' everytime he wants it, but that in a true compromise, the partner that wants it more sometimes goes without, and the other would *sometimes* step up to the plate. Instead it only happens when she wants it, and he goes without, SOL. It's all one sided.
You can see it in Cosmo and the other women's rags wrt oral sex -- they guy isn't worth a damn as a lover unles he does it well and frequently (and she should train him to please her ), but as to her doing it for him, the advice is always "feel free to just say 'no'."
I don't want kids. But if I did I think I would have seriously considered the single parent route. I'm not sure I could have pulled off having a job, making sure the bills got paid, raising children and meeting the needs, sexual and otherwise, of a husband all simultaneously. I know myself, I can't be that perfect and pleasant all the time, something would have to give. I kind of understand why women do what they do with the single parent decision.
Cham:
...yes, but all of those things are absolutely essential to the optimal rearing of children, in particular seeing their parents relate to one another.
It's not just that kids need material provision - they also need the example of a good mother-father combo to show them how to treat each other.
In any event, I realize you are playing a thought experiment but lots of women carry it through. They are just too damn selfish to consider the well-being of the kids. Why? Because she wants a baby and she is what's important. Voluntary single motherhood (I refer to sperm-donor motherhood) is an unforgivably selfish choice.
...as a man, i don't need to be happy with you or in love with you to have sex. why can't i make that requirement of you?
In other words, why can't I insist that my way of looking at things is the only one that matters?
You can't require women to act like men because we are not men. We're women.
If you want to marry another man, go for it. If you love and marry a woman, you need to understand that women are not men. Just because it's easy for a man to divorce sex from liking or love, it's NOT easy for a woman to do that.
You seem to be saying, "Hey, I can do this and it's easy for me. Therefore, it should be easy for you."
Except it's not easy for women, just as it requires real effort for men to satisfy a woman's need for emotional intimacy. If you care about your partner, you make that effort.
ABout the other topic of differing sex drives in marriage, their really is something to be said for the old concept of the 'wifely duty'. Not that she should feel obloigated to 'put out' everytime he wants it, but that in a true compromise, the partner that wants it more sometimes goes without, and the other would *sometimes* step up to the plate.
Dennis Prager wrote something about this a while back. I defended him (IOW, I said that a loving wife would make that effort even if she's not feeling the desire herself b/c it makes her husband happy).
There were a lot of interesting comments on my post. The most disturbing (to me) were the ones from guys who constructed a "tit for tat" that went like this:
"I go to work every day, therefore you should put out whenever I want you to".
My point was more like, "Women need emotional intimacy, men need sexual intimacy. Since both these things are uniquely personal and can't be compelled, *that's* the real tradeoff - not "I buy your sexual services with my paycheck".
That's a pretty obscene formulation that turns love into prostitution. I can't compel my husband to talk with me, but I can let him know how much I need him and value his willingness to satisfy a need in me that he doesn't share to the same degree and doesn't always understand.
I think the same is true of sex. Women like it, but may not fully understand how important it is to guys. We don't get a pass on trying to understand, though.
And it's just plain insulting for a man to insinuate that he can "buy" access to his wife. But if he is considerate and tries to meet her needs, she's going to be far more likely to be considerate and try to meet his needs.
even in your post, you make it clear you are physical with your husband because he mets "your" needs.
That's your interpretation of what I said. I am physical with my husband because I love him and enjoy that aspect of our relationship.
I make a special effort to see things from his point of view because he makes a special effort to see things from mine. Different thing entirely.
Steve said..."Once they get around to making sperm last indefinately or cloning it, men will be completely disposable and the 'new men' like Chastity/Chaz Bono and Thomas Beatie (the pregnant Oregon 'man') will rule the roost. What a brave new world.
8:05 PM, May 07, 2010"
I know some will automatically dismiss what you said as nuts but I personally know two women who popped out some kids with a husband then decided they were lesbians and divorced. In one of those cases, the couple had three kids - all girls. TWO of the girls are lesbians and the other is kind of lost and, understandably, confused. I'm sure liberals dismiss this with a faux-enlightened "so what?" but imagine for a minute how the father/ex-husband in this equation feels. He's the real "so what?" in society.
I know it's been said here many times before but why in the hell would a sane man want to marry when most American women see the Y chromosome as a birth defect and men themselves as crude, interchangeable appliances for dispensing money or children or social status? Women don't love anymore, at least not men, they just calculate self-gain for money and prizes. And they completely adore themselves and each other.
This comment has been removed by the author.
casandra,
But if he is considerate and tries to meet her needs, she's going to be far more likely to be considerate and try to meet his needs.
my experience is that this isn't always the case and in fact, men that are the less than considerate get more sex. men that fall all over themselves to make a woman happy bore many women. women want a challenge and when a man gets hooked they lose interest. when they lose interest.. the sex life goes out the window.
Cassandra,
you are making a requirement of your man. i simply called you on it. i don't know who you married or what drives him. i only know what you've told me about him and your relationship with him here. it would seem to me that you control him and he behaves as you wish him to. good for you. he seems to be a beta male.. i'm not and neither is the average man.
as for your strawman of me requiring women to act like men or that a man should get his way every time, i never said such and thing. don't be ridiculous. it's childish and irrational and it is an obvious manifestation that i hit a nerve with you. i was very clear... i don't have to play by your rules. i'm a man. i want sex and i don't care whether you are content, moody, happy, etc. i don't have to marry a man for that, i simply have to keep my options open which is what men are choosing to do because of childish attitudes like yours.
marriages aren't easy and i'm not saying they are in the least. it's work. as i said before.. both parties have to manage conflict in the relationship.. and as you said.. it's a give and take.
"My point was more like, "Women need emotional intimacy, men need sexual intimacy.""
You are setting up a false dichotomy, and I think it's motivated by a myth of male sexuality that is propagated by our cartoonish culture.
Men need emotional intimacy too - but men can handle sex with or without emotional intimacy. I will take it for the sake of the argument that women in general can only handle sex when accompanied by emotional intimacy.
Men WANT emotional intimacy from their wives. A wife rejecting sex is as much an emotional rejection - "you're not worth my attention" - as a sexual one.
This is where my point that men don't want to marry sluts comes in. When women start to act either slutty, or entitled and princessy, (using a man as either a sexual tool or a human wallet) men STOP viewing them as targets for intimacy and go into a competitive mode where the job is to get laid. They will take the sex for its own sake, but not consider her a wife candidate. (Men have two ladders, "do" and "date," while women have two ladders "do" and "don't do.") They don't view her as a full woman, just a self-defined sex object.
(In fact, by your definition, a slutty woman - who gives her junk away without love or commitment - IS a broken woman, because she has decoupled sex and intimacy unlike how she should be wired. I think that's an extreme view and not what you intended, but this is a problem with these cartoonish Mars and Venus stereotypes of how men and women do the sex thing.)
There are a lot of women who are not broken who DON'T require a long, orchestrated romantic wooing before they are ready to hop in the sack. Their sexual and emotional intimacy proceeds in parallel, more like typical male sex (male sex with a woman he loves). That doesn't make them slutty, and men can tell the difference.
Cassandra,
Many Western women have extremely high expectations that the husband (hereinafter called the "John" or the "stupid money source") damn well better meet or he doesn't get any sex at all. But he is still going to pay for the Princess, by court order if necessary.
I get what you are from your statements up to now, and I wouldn't personally touch you with a 10-foot pole (you may charge me for it).
You found a stupid American man who bought all the chivalry stuff hook, line and sinker. Look a few posts below at another clown who is being humiliated by his wife (the sausage casing post).
If you are earning less than 50% in the "relationship", you are yet another user.
And I've seen enough Internet arguments to know that you are now going to say that ...
... You used to earn more than him. In fact, you still earn lots more than him. Well, kinda. Sorta.
In any case, it is NONE OF MY DAMN BUSINESS how you organize your finances, even if he does pay more.
But it is ABSOLUTELY YOUR BUSINESS to push your concept of marriage onto other people here.
I have absolutely had enough of women like you.
And what is this thing about random Internet people talking about how wonderful their marriage is? Will I ever meet any of you? No.
And still we get the wonderful, wonderful, wonderful Cassandra (just ask her - she'll tell you what a great gal she is!).
And then we need Chuck Pelto to tell us how his wife is worth the weight of her hefty butt in rubies, or whatever his thing is.
Hey, here's a chirpy cheery story that fits with what I just posted.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/08/BA001DB4KS.DTL&tsp=1
"More lesbian couples becoming moms"
"Frederique Clermont and Ximena Delgado chose the father of their two children from a list. They know his height, his education (Delgado wanted a man with a post-graduate degree), his ethnic background, and whether his hair is curly or straight.
But they don't know his name...."
And I've seen enough Internet arguments to know that you are now going to say that ... You used to earn more than him. In fact, you still earn lots more than him. Well, kinda. Sorta.
Well so far you're batting zero.
I stayed at home and raised both our children for 18 years at my husband's request. So much for "controlling" him.
I guess that makes me a parasite.
I get the impression that women really can not win with you. If a woman supports a man's career and makes a loving home for him and for their children, she's a parasite.
If she gets a job, she's an evil, controlling feminist.
I can't even begin to respond to that level of weirdness.
tether,
cassandra will continue to take you out of context. it isn't worth it. i've been involved in several unhinged feminist "discussions" at her blog. if her marriage is really as she says it is, she has an inability to relate or empathize with others that don't and it is obvious from her comments she is disconnected from the rest of us. good for her BTW. we should all strive to have her wonderful, rosy life with the perfect man or woman. she seems incapable to accept that people don't have what she says she has. personally, i've lost track of how many strawmen she's created and i don't care to count. once i see someone resort to that tactic, i know they are beyond reasoning with.
I really enjoy reading all the comments but can't we just stay with the numbers? What % of marriages actually last? Look at your family and the people you know.
Currently the odds that the male will be crushed by divorce might be going close to 2 out of 3. If we include the wives that just like to sleep around but not divorcing you will be pushing 100% loss.
This is not going to work.
Women can go to sperm banks or use seed from other anonymous males off the street if they want a child.
Personally, I have never met a woman who would not sell herself for a meal at a restaurant , a weekend away or a vacation.
Cash is an insult of course - I mean $$ goods and services and compen$ating women for sex seems to never stop.
If you are considering marriage you are not in touch with reality.
Dr. Helen,
Do you agree that for most women "dating" is a kind of soft prostitution?
Women may enjoy sex but they have also learned that they can get paid in goods and services for it if cash is considered too open. It is a form of commercial sex.
I simply cannot afford sex with the good girls at today's rates. I do not make enough money.
The best deal today is to be the guy the wife cuckolds her husband with for a little revenge but encourage her to stay with him for security. Claim a very low income, musician is best. They are known to be broke and yet have high approval at the hen party.
Mike,
The classic figures on divorce (1 in 2 or whatever you choose to believe) are statistically mitigated by certain factors, such as if both parties come from intact homes and have been together for a significant period before marriage. Still though, we're talking 15-20% risk in those cases, which is incredibly high for something that's supposed to be "till death do us part."
Your point is well-taken by me - divorce is common enough and the risk high enough that anyone considering marriage has to protect themselves against the failure of the marriage.
Of course then you have to deal with all sorts of silly arguments like "prenups aren't ROMANTIC!" and the counterargument that no one buys car insurance expecting to get into an accident.
However, the numbers are just as bad in most of Europe, worse in some places. So I am starting to wonder if American women's entitlement is a major cause worth fixing or simply a highly unpleasant secondary sclerosis on top of a trans-continental systemic sickness.
Topher,
Thanks, appreciated. I am looking in my area here in West Canada. For my purposes I exclude marriages from the firmly religious who DO seem to have long life marriages.
So my view among mainstream types with secular outlooks I am thinking about 37-38% might be good marriages and that is a stretch.
I know too many guys who have been totally broken by marriage.
Typically the guy winds up in a basement apartment wiped out.
The wife gets the house with your kids and her boyfriend who doesn't need an income because he has yours.
Perhaps you are correct and a really sharp guy could design a failsafe program though I have seen
lawyers who did family law taken down the same path.
The risk ratio is completely out of hand,
If the unmarried mother rate is 41% it has no place to go but up. It could move to 70% soon especially when Daddy is put out at the curb when the kids are all in school. Many marriages are just for convenience like immigration scams only the husband does not know it.
My concept is to abolish the civil status of marriage. It has been so degraded legally as to have no further force or meaning. The State considers all citizens as individuals.
If organizations want to supply their own certificates stating that the undersigned are married that is fine but there are no legal issues.
Women simply have children however they like and they are the custodians in partnership with the government which is the true underlying relationship anyway.
The mothers can hire helpers or invite friends or family to help out financially or even move into the home.
If the help leaves or is asked to leave that is it.
It is essential to recognize that the power is all on the mother's side with instant armed police support and the full weight of the law.
The father is no better than a petty criminal who has not been apprehended, yet. ;-)
I say this as a person who has escaped this grinder personally but who has seen many friends wreck.
Topher,
IMHO compared to elsewhere US numbers are better since US society is more religious so there is some strength there.
Britain is possibly the worst case right now. Some interesting books on UK culture by Dr. Dalrymple are available.
Don'y forget to include proof of paternity in your
pre-nup either. Getting another man to raise your kids unwittingly is the ultimate cuckold.
here's a nice post about how the birth control pill has affected society.
http://theothermccain.com/2010/05/08/the-pill-at-50-unhappy-un-birthday/
I remind everyone that any single man can get Donor Eggs + IVF + Surrogate mother in India for just $20,000. These are clinics with top-flight facilities and a track record of catering to Westerners and Japanese.
So the main value a woman provides can be displaced for $20,000. You can even get a two-fer (2 kids in parallel with 2 surrogates) for $35,000.
Equality is a bitch, bitches.
Hurry! Before feminism-driven government spending weakens the dollar and drives up the USD price!!
Each additional man a woman sleeps with, her value as marriage material goes down. Even if no one finds out about a one-night stand.
There is a reason traditional cultures made sure women were virgins at marriage - cultures where women had 5 or more lifetime sexual partners simply died out and were replaced.
The same is happening here.
Gentlemen,
Please read "The Contract Between the Sexes".
http://www.inmalafide.com/2009/08/06/george-sodini-and-the-contract-between-the-sexes/
Women are about to suffer the hangover of their 'feminist' partying.
If anyone wants to know what happens to 5-year-old girls raised by single mothers, see this school dance skit :
Any society that subsidizes and encourages single motherhood devolves into barbarism in two generations.
"Each additional man a woman sleeps with, her value as marriage material goes down. Even if no one finds out about a one-night stand."
Feminists have tried to remove the "damaged goods" idea with all sorts of rationalizations, but they can't get around nature, especially when it comes to women who all of a sudden want to change from weekly clubbin' to settling down.
I explain the stud-slut so-called "double standard" this way: nature has granted primate women the rarer gamete, the egg, and thus benefit of sexual choice.
Meanwhile, nature has granted primate men the burden of pursuing sex. His challenge is to convince some woman to take his genes and mix them with hers.
When a man sleeps around, he's doing what nature wants; when a woman sleeps around, she's defying nature's way and abusing the power of choice she's been given at birth. With choice and power comes with responsibility, and when power is not cared for you _should_ get a reputation.
Don't get me wrong: I find promiscuous frat-guy culture pretty gross, and I have little patience with unmitigated male infidelity, but from a biological perspective pursuing sex is what men are supposed to do.
Again as I said above, slutty is not the same as sexually active; it can mean a woman who partakes in lots of sex without commitment, or a woman so desperate for male attention she trades sex for it. Either way, go to a club sometime and you can spot the slutty women pretty easily. They are disgusting.
Feminism has tried to remove the obligations of female-hood from the equation, leaving only the benefits, while removing the male benefits and jacking up the male responsibilities. Men are not marrying because they seen it goes both ways, and they are dropping out of the equation as well.
Cassandra makes some good points, but for the wrong reasons IMHO.
What has changed in the last fifty years? Not men. Women have changed, or rather the society of women has changed. Women have come into emotional conflict with their own nature.
Often, these conflicted women blame men for their condition of permanent dissatisfaction.
I suggest the women here do an experiment. Sign up for a free trial on a dating site - as a man. You will then be able to read women's profiles. They are typically composed as couplets of logical contradictions.
She wants a handsome rake, and a good provider. She wants adventure, and no risks. She wants riches, and lots of leisure. She wants respect, without accomplishment. She wants the freedom to choose, but wants to share the responsibility. She wants to attain equality, and retain special treatment.
Women are complex but not complicated. They operate on an unsound logical principle that’s simple to understand, but the flurry of behaviors that flow from that principle are wholly inscrutable. The fickleness of women is legendary.
Men cannot satisfy women. The roots of female dissatisfaction do not originate in men but in the self-conflict of women themselves.
Men can appeal to women. The basic pickup strategy is to offer hope of satisfying a woman's self-conflict. But only stupid, unhappy men really believe this is possible.
Cassandra complains of tit-for-tat. She's right to do it. There is no tit-for-tat here. The problem is with the modern woman not the modern man.
Men need do nothing about it. Even the lowliest beta male, the most effete omega male, even these men have easy access to sex from women and the comradeship of good men.
Men just don't need women anymore. Generally, modern women provide very little value - emotional, sexual, intellectual, or otherwise. For example, every man knows that you'll get more pussy single than married. It's no secret.
Making a virtue of single motherhood is just the latest of the modern women's attempt to resolve her logically contradictory desires. Like all other attempts, it won't work.
"Men just don't need women anymore."
I want to amend this - men can fulfill their primal sexual desire for women _without taking a woman as a whole_.
What's ironic about this is that it's a paradox that doubles over on itself. Women created the situation of men not really needing women when they decided they wanted to be free-sex beings, "like the guys are." In reality a small subset of desireable men were free-sex beings and the rest of guys were beasts of burden who exchanged their labors for sex within a marriage.
However, now that feminism has glorified female free sexuality, men have taken it at face value. They can take women in the bedroom without committing to the fickleness. And the more feminism demands a Sex And The City lifestyle, the less men will be interested in relating to them or marrying them.
What is funny is that most men, including commenters at Roissy's, would happily still partake in Marriage 1.0, if such a thing actually existed (it does exist in some countries still).
But it is natural for men to avoid Marriage 2.0. Men who still enter into a Marriage 2.0 contract usually do so uninformed.
Women, being eternally solipistic, still use pleas like :
"Don't you want companionship?"
"Don't knock it until you try it at least once."
Those pleas might have had merit in a Marriage 1.0 era, but women want to use Marriage 1.0 assumptions while getting Marriage 2.0 benefits.
That can't last too long.
Topher, work on your reading comprehension and your amazingly thin skin.
You don't understand a pretty basic point because you have some kind of problem. I'm sure most of the fellas here don't have that problem at all, but each man is unique. Some really are woman bashing assholes, and those few have been used to stereotype everyone and skew the debate. I have no idea if you just need new glasses or if you're really some kind of generalizing moron.
If you can't find a woman with great values in the USA, you're probably a major part of the problem. That's my point, it was obvious, and that you disagree with it means you have a problem. Every time Dr Helen points out how some women attempt to dominate a docile man, a bunch of nutcases come in to point out how all American women are terrible. I feel very sorry for them.
Many American women are terrible. Many are not. It's really not complicated. I don't begrudge those who got Asian wives in this thread their well earned happiness, but you do not have to go that far on some specific mission of avoiding American women. You just have to analyze your dates a bit. And absolutely the problem is not entirely on the women's side. Perhaps not even mostly on their side.
I should add, I, like a few dozen of my friends, admittedly not the overwhelming majority but quite a large fraction, have marriages that work really well.
Most of us have spouses who want to be happy and make their spouse happy. Who want to raise children with values. Who are somewhat selfless sometimes, and somewhat selfish every now and then.
It's really not that complicated to have a terrific life and a great marriage. Society does have a lot of huge problems, and the way marriages are not working is a huge problem that is getting a lot worse. I don't mean to undercut it.
But there's so much more to a woman than Topher's bedroom idea. There's a reason he can't find a woman who offers more... and it's not some systemic issue with the psychology of women.
Lots and lots and lots of gals look at society's arguments from Sex and the City and Cosmo and roll their eyes. They can think for themselves. Frankly, I think today is a better time to find a great wife than ever before. You can easily sort through all the riff raff by avoiding the kind of idiot who does demonstrate all these bad traits.
The Valorous Slow Joe comes to the defense of American women.
You're a true chivalrous hero, Slow Joe.
People are people - the "great wife" could also get a brain tumor down the road, or have any number of other influences on her behavior, and be a not-so-great wife.
The point is that the system is biased towards men, so all the blustering about "I found a great wife, and so can you" rings a bit hollow.
There are people among this desparately-want-to-impress-others group who will get a divorce. There are also perfect-marriage people who will kill the other partner (I think Mary Winkler, the perfect Church Lady, was in that category).
Just go off in your la-la land and enjoy your good blessings.
What these people don't get is that some people don't see a value in giving so much of a commitment - when the other person is not committing at all in reality - for something that just isn't that great. It's like a 17-year-old kid telling me how super-duper his new (to him - used) Camero with 104,000 miles and semi-bald tires on it is SO SUPER GREAT that it's worth the huge price he will be paying on installments for the rest of his life. And someone else may reasonably conclude that NO CAR is worth that level of responsibility over your entire life.
"People are people - the "great wife" could also get a brain tumor down the road, or have any number of other influences on her behavior, and be a not-so-great wife."
This is of course absolutely true, and I think one of the problems with today's social order is that we've demanded optimal relationships and stopped asking people to deal with it.
This isn't to make excuses for bad marriages, but in the past I think it was understood that you and your partner were to support one another and not hop off the train at the first sign of discomfort or trouble.
Following all the (basically valid) concern about housewives feeling bored and underutilized, we've elevated a wife's "happiness" to top priority and improperly made the husband accountable for it.
(BTW, far from being the status quo until the 70's, the "housewife era" that feminists so love to disparage was a very narrow period in history immediately following a world war, in which the nation made the decision to send the women home and give the men the jobs back. A generation of unemployed veterans with PTSD would have been a major social ill. Rising consumerism and urbanization created a demand for the middle-class homemaker, which rolled off a bit as technology like washers, dishwashers and microwaves made keeping the hearth less than a full-time job.)
Unfortunately, most _people_ male or female are not uniformly happy over their adult lives. The solution is not to pull the ejection handle the moment you feel unexcited; it's to teach young people sound values for life, not a Disney fantasy, and when you or your spouse hits a rough patch, be supportive and loving and push into a new phase of your life. As an older friend advised me, "for a good marriage you've got to be able to reinvent yourself."
The scions of modern marriage just don't have a lot of interest in that kind of behavior. It goes both ways, they want their spouse to be an entertainment device, material provider, john/madam and all the rest of it, and failing in a good faith effort is grounds for ditching the marriage.
Slow Joe said, "Every time Dr Helen points out how some women attempt to dominate a docile man, a bunch of nutcases come in to point out how all American women are terrible. "
Well, I think you're the one misreading people. In normal conversation, a person might say "X is Y," where X is a mass noun and Y is an adjective.
You could interpret this as a universal claim. Literally, that's what's been said. And you might try to look really smart by pointing to some obscure counter-example where an X isn't Y.
But then you'd be a prat.
Why? Well, because in normal conversational English we use elided constructions. If we didn't leave off qualifiers like 'most,' 'mostly' and the like - we'd pollute our speech intolerably.
To avoid prattling like a prat, you should affix 'most' or 'generally' to everyday claims about mass nouns. Unless, someone actually says 'All X are Y, all the time.' Then, you can take stuff as a universalization. But mostly, people talk in generalizations, unless they specify otherwise.
Now on to your other points, "You just have to analyze your dates a bit. And absolutely the problem is not entirely on the women's side. Perhaps not even mostly on their side."
This is unwarranted. We have analyzed our dates. From that analysis, we come to a different conclusion than you. You've fallen into that old trap of dogmatism: you think people disagree because they just don't understand. No. We understand, but still we disagree.
The fickle nature of women has been long known. Modern women retain that. But modern women have entered new phase. They demand much and give little. They carry a massive and unjustified sense of entitlement.
This seems to result from the preposterous idea of the historical oppression of women. Utterly fantastic. But there it is.
Also, modern women are angry. This is one of the most obvious signs that something has changed. We're talking deep anger. Frequently pathological. Something is really wrong in there.
This is the experience of most men with most women. The good news is: men don't have to worry about it.
Women have made themselves irrelevant to a man's happiness. Reproductive success is no longer tied to anything but breathing. Sex and even companionship is easy to get, for as short or long a time as you wish.
Really, it's a good thing for men overall. The only ones' trying to change the situation are women who complain that men won't "grow up."
Well yeah. If growing up means being a dupe, a servant to a fickle mind, sure I give up. But I think women have it quite backwards.
It's women who won't grow up. Its' women who want men to carry the opportunity costs for women's decisions. This is an old trick of feminist rhetoric. Just redefine maturity to be 'what women want.' Look mom! I win!
Is it any wonder men are beginning to lose respect?
i've had some time to digest the men vs women comments here.
i know i was critical of cassandra at first but now i think i understand what she was getting at regardless of the self absorbed way she explained it. her husband is a beta with "nesting behaviors". he's happy going to work, earning a living, and coming home and helping his wife around the house. in return, she's happy and gives back to him.
many men here, myself included, are fairly bitter about this lopsided arraignment. women want to be equal but you want me to go and work AND come home and help around the house? trust me, my ex-wife demanded this of me.. along with helping her clean up while i was recovering from knee surgery. most men won't accept a relationship that cassandra's husband will. especially if you have much to offer in the way of resources that make an alpha male desirable. it boils down to the fact that men aren't getting their bang for the buck and they are self-aware enough to know they have other offers.
ladies, consider marriage this way. if you applied for a job at a business, you put your resume out there and the boss likes it so he hires you. you report to work and refuse to do anything and then demand more pay. in the workforce, you'd get fired almost instantly. in a marriage, a legal binding contract that is expensive for a man to break, the rules are the same. if you marry someone and then refuse to do your part and demand that your husband do more to make you happy.. you should not at all be surprised that your husband fires you or hires temporary help to do the job you aren't doing.
wesley said, "you should not at all be surprised that your husband fires you or hires temporary help to do the job you aren't doing."
Men need never hire. Ever. Outsource. Even better, outsource to foreign suppliers. Everyone is doing it these days.
Besides marriage is more like a partnership. Except that by a unilateral act, women can soak a man for twenty-four years of child support for a baby that's not even his. Paternity fraud.
If that was in a business contract, no rational man would sign it. Likewise, there is no rational reason to marry. You retain many more rights outside of marriage, and you get the same conjugal rights or better!
To those pedants out there, slow joe I know you're reading - I grant that there are irrational reason to marry.
See, I'm fair. I just advocate rational conduct.
Getting back to the original subject, I'm wondering if anyone has asked these unmarried mothers whether they want to be married. All these surveys get conducted and the data tabulated, but nobody ever seems to ask the most obvious questions. Some of the commenters here are assuming these unmarried mothers are disappointed that their baby daddy's aren't marrying them and are deeply traumatized about this, and then they go on to explain in detail how these unmarried mothers can behave better to entice their baby daddy's to stick around. I'm not entirely sure that the mothers want the daddy to hang around after baby is born. Perhaps an new survey is in order.
Cham,
What you are talking about is self reporting and this is impossible to verify one way or the other. A person may choose to say what ever they about what they have done.
We can make observations about what actually happens and determine how long marriages last and what the outcomes are for the parents.
There is no assumption involved. The wife has all the power backed by the Law, the man has no rights and is just there according to the wife's whim. Once it is over he will lose his home, his family and most of his income for 20 years.
The point is to NOT enter marriage at any point, odds are you will lose.
If Buddy objects too much just charge him with child molesting and/or threatening violence.
For the men who think they have a GREAT marriage and that it will last.... I certainly hope all your dreams come true. Why not! This is a cultural process which has not reached its endpoint yet as only 41% are being born to the unmarried.
Just do not look too close or think too much.
For those currently unmarried, there will be nothing but ruin in it for you and you will NOT get more sex for less money but rather the opposite. Focus on having sex with other men's wives.
If you think there can be no "bad sex" just marry and wait a year, if that.
Ladies:
Don't be offended. Simply do not marry either and accept no proposals. Under present circumstances the guy is just deluded temporarily and not thinking straight.
Sure the courts will help you rob him after the two children but it is still going to be years of hassle and discomfort though your win is guaranteed.
You can handle ONE baby your self and this is adequate to satisfy your mother and girlfriends and you can have all the sex you want with anyone you want.
As the years slip by you just pick up older guys or young guys who have no money. You can just do booty calls, he brings the weed.
Topher,
Modern society wants everyone to be an individual at the base level. Marriage is an artifact from an earlier era when everyone had to have some sort of group identity - member of a particular family, tribe , religion and so forth.
Modern society wants all to be equal as so many ball bearings or spare parts.
Then any corporate body can take them up effortlessly. Getting married means both partners are moving in the wrong direction towards an obsolete institution.
It cannot be reformed or reinvented, it is done.
Don't forget that should a man father a child, the mother may decide to abort the unborn baby, or keep the baby to birth, and then make the man pay child support. Should the woman decide to put the baby out of adoption, does the father have any influence in the decision? The father who opposes the abortion of his unborn child is usually without recourse.
And Cham, I'm not entirely sure that the mothers want the daddy to hang around after baby is born. Perhaps they do want father around for child support, and to do menial tasks around the house, and provide babysitting assistance. But the mom will make it very clear if she doesn't care to have father around, and chase him away.
A successful marriage is a lot of work, but can be very rewarding. Hopefully each partner will bring something the other lacks, and they can "fulfill" each other some how. But women who are interested in careers, and proving they can do everything a man can do, aren't necessarily bringing something to the relationship the man doesn't already have. Perhaps some other discussion might focus on those distinguishing characteristics that a woman brings to the relationship, and that a man brings to the relationship, which strengthens that relationship.
Men and women value different things, and avoid different things. Great line from The Big Lebowski "Dude, does it look like a woman lives here?"
With excellent quality sperm available commercially the only use for a man is to provide an income boost and help with chores and to enhance the credit rating.
Get married and when the 1-2 children are in school kick him out after you seize the home and most of his income. You are legally entitled to this, defend your rights.
You do need to have an escort to prove to your friends that you can pull one for social occasions but these are available serially and/or concurrently.
I agree with Milwaukee theoretically but not in practice.
Why be stuck with one man when you might have hundreds? Why just bear "anyone's" baby when you can buy alpha+ sperm for almost nothing?
If men were not expendable there would not be 41% unwed births it would be impossible economically. Men, women surely we can all see this.
Simply change alimony and child support to a government cheque. Money is money so who cares where it comes from.
Marriage is no longer a private non-market institution. The laws are written and the judges have ruled. This is irreversible.
On the same hand brilliant and brilliant college women are willing to sell their eggs for less than the price of a second hand car.
They are young, fresh eggs under 24 years old! No one can do better no matter how wealthy they are. Surrogacy will seem expensive at first but NOTHING like marriage.
Later make up a "story" and meet women telling them that you are raising your child or children on your own!
You want a vasectomy by then of course and when you want to leave the woman simply say you want to spend more time with your kids!
To my view this is the only way you have a decent chance at a family and continuity with your kids.
Find loving caregivers from the Phillipines or elsewhere and hire them.
If a woman wants to be a single mother, so be it. However, where it becomes an issue for me is whether they can actually take care of that kid or not. If they can, great. They're exercising responsibility (of a sort). However, I suspect (strongly) that the vast majority want some government support. If this is the case (again, I think it is), then I call it bullshit. If you women want the "choice" of raising a kid yourselves, then it's up to you to be responsible enough to use your own resources instead of sucking up the rest of ours.
Choices are ultimately an act of responsibility. When you compell others to pay for and financially support your "choices" then it isn't really a choice, is it?
I'm sure that the world of social science, dominated by women, will be able to say that children raised in households headed by single women do just as well as those raised in father/mother households. Rather like they found that children in day care do just as well as those raised by moms at home. But, my intuition tells me a child is better off in a household with parents who love each other, their children, and themselves. Why buy the bull when you can get serviced for free?
Post a Comment
<< Home