More tradcon misandry, this time aimed at men who don’t marry

I ran across an article posted to the men’s rights subreddit bemoaning the collapse of society, this time because young men were failing to grow up and marry. The article quoted the former director of the Beverley LaHaye Institute, Janice Shaw Crouse. Judge for yourself where they fall on the political and cultural spectrum.

These people are not any man’s friend.

“Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”

Note how this Code Green shaming language takes the familiar form of press-ganging men into marriage as the measure of maturity. It’s also a not-so-subtle reference to Codes Maroon and Gold:

“Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.

I wonder what Jesus would have said to her about this.

Moving on the article continues quoting her and reveals her gynocentric bias:

The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com. “They’re not understanding how important it is for the culture, for society, for the strength of the nation to have strong families.”

 

So there it is, marriage and real maturity are about male utility, about how happy these men can make these poor, deprived women, each of whom is being denied something they are just entitled to.

It doesn’t occur and probably doesn’t matter to Crouse what these young men find depressing – the prospect of a legal unequal marriage, the prospect of having your right to parent your children contingent on the favor of the mother, the prospect of being trapped in an abusive marriage with almost no legal recourse when you know your abusive spouse will end up with your children, without you there to provide even minimal protection.

“They’re not understanding how important it is for the culture, for society, for the strength of the nation to have strong families.”

She’s not understanding that when it comes to “strong families” you can’t make a silk purse out of sow’s ear. It’s not that the young women who are failing to bring these young men into married – and by the way, why is this failure to marry all the young men’s fault? Young women can’t buy engagement rings and get down on one knee and make it happen? – are sow’s ears in their own right; they may in fact individually be healthy, sane marriage partners. What makes them into sow’s ears is their position of legal advantage over their husbands, female privilege enshrined in statue law, case law, custom and public policy. The entire family law system makes these young women a bad credit risk for marriage. Change that, Janice Shaw Crouse, and you may start seeing the changes you want.

She doesn’t let the young women of the hook entirely, but she gets that wrong too:

“But men are not entirely to blame for the steep decline in marriage, Crouse pointed out. “A lot of women fear marriage. While feminism is a spent force, the ultimate consequences of that philosophy is a whole generation of women who don’t want any man to tell them what to do, and don’t really understand the give and take that is necessary for a marriage relationship.”

Excuse me, but it wasn’t feminism that built the Princess culture, that made these young women into Daddy’s Little Girl. Feminism advocated for a lot of the laws and policies that have made marriage such a crap shoot for men, but when it comes to this entrenched sense of female entitlement Crouse is talking about, feminism is only complicit, it’s not the prime mover.

And then she descends into complete sentimental nonsense:

“And that means the girls have to live by the guys’ demands. And that means less romance. They don’t date. The girls, I have talked to numerous young women, lament the fact that they don’t have the opportunity to dress up and go out for an event.”

Oh the horror! Having to live by the guy’s demands? That’s Gynocentrish for young women having to compromise their fantasies in relationships with actual living beings instead of objectified Ken doll fashion accessories. Equality is such a raw deal for these young women, according to Crouse. (I bet the majority of these young women have a lot better sense than their wannabe champion, but that’s a completely separate discussion. For instance if they want to dress up and go out, they just go ahead and do it.)

More:

“And I know the feminists just yell and scream if you say anything like this, but time was, girls set the cultural morays, the standards, the parameters for intimate activity. The girls were the ones that set those boundaries. And now it’s the guys who do,” Crouse told CNSNews.com.

So women don’t ever just want to go out and get their grunt on? Sexist, slut-shaming gender policing duly noted. And again, even conceding arguendo that this promiscuity is all those predatory young men’s idea – how’s that for a man-shaming, misandrist piece of bigotry – what is so heinous in the young men having a say in all of this?

“She pointed out that there’s “no data” to back up the common assertion that a lack of jobs during and after the Great Recession is the primary reason so many young men have been reluctant to tie the knot. “The problem with marriage was long before that,” she pointed out.”

Yes there was, but there is no sign Crouse has any idea what that problem was.

Then she descends into the abyss:

“It’s really interesting, because Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker wrote their book, “Premarital Sex in America,” what, three, four years ago. And even then, they were very concerned about the fact that young women today are not as likely to get married. And their prospects, if they are not sexually promiscuous, are really low because the guys, if they can sleep around, they’re not interested in going with the girls who don’t put out.

“The ones who are very serious get married early. And that leaves the majority of the girls, then, by the time they’re 25 and into their first jobs, the pickings are very, very slim for them. And Mark Regnerus was very, very clear that the quote ‘good girls’ are the ones who are at risk now in terms of not being able to get married.”

The “good girls”.

Enough said. And here I thought these people were all about free markets and the benefits of competition.

Here’s the problem, Janice Shaw Crouse – these young men, for a number of very good reasons of their own, many of them none of the fault of these young women, don’t consider your “good girls” good enough.

It’s their call and it’s that simple.

Latest posts by Jim Doyle (see all)

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmailby feather
  • Neptus 9

    There’s nothing in marriage for men. “Good girls” will still divorce and clean out his accounts and property and take at least half of his pensions and social security and deny visitation with his children.
    What are females going to do about it? Stage slut walks? Scream more abuse and curses?

    • NWOslave

      Actually that’s incorrect, we have fifty years of feminism in the US to draw data from. If a woman marries the first man she’s had sex with, the chance of her staying married is 98%, the second man drops her loyalty to around 56%, each new lover drops her loyalty until it become impossible. For a man it’s less pronounced, first lover is 99% second is 78%, and so on.

      So marrying the “good girl” as you put is quite beneficial, with only a 2% chance of cleaning you out. Divorce isn’t astronomically high for no reason. Fifty plus years ago the divorce rate was roughly around 2%, not because women couldn’t divorce because of whatever reason feminists give about being property and so forth, it’s because of biological reasons. These numbers hold true even in the modern world, if a man and woman get married to their “first” the chances that the man files for divorce is 1% the chance for the woman is 2%. Purely biological.

      The old traditionalists didn’t make up these rules for no reason. Those couples in the old days had way more sex than we have today, and they stayed together for life, which formed a happy, healthy, stable society. Until that tradition comes back, society will continue to splinter and finally collapse. No amount of social engineering can change our biological disposition.

      • Neptus 9

        This is correct. By “good girl” I didn’t mean simply chaste but otherwise well behaved as seen in today’s social context. That’s what we’ve got to work with and all we can do is make the laws better and hope female hearts and minds will adapt.

      • John Smith

        That is a very interesting perspective, do you have any references for the divorce rates of the “2% 1%” crowd?

  • Angela Rajic

    As a woman with only a little interest in the whole dating marriage bit, I call this article bullshit for both genders. If I want romantic fantasies, I indulge in romance novels and meg Ryan movies. Real life is something different. Also I’m not big on the whole wedding thing either. Wastes good money on stupid shit. I’m fine with common law unions or just living together.

    • Ginkgo

      Hi, Angela!
      Which article are you calling bullshit on? It sounds like you mean the one quoted.
      I agree the whole mess is bad for both men and women. Fortunately most modern women aren’t even reading this kind of stuff, but unfortunately there is a slice of the manopshere that falls hard for it. They are fools.

      • Angela Rajic

        Yeah. The one quoted. I mean I do love me some Jane Austen and stuff, but I know I can’t live my life like that. As I said though, I really have no interest in marriage and very little in romance. I want a relationship, but I’ve never really been attracted to anyone enough to start one. Of course for a lot of folks that means I’m somehow damaged because I haven’t leapt on to marriage/family bandwagon. It’s kind of my issue with a lot of MRA writing. It’s so tied to evolution and biology that doesn’t know what to do with outliers other than label them broken or rare exceptions to the rule. Not to mention the stereotype of the single women as sad and bereft and surrounded by cats, like it’s a tragedy to be single or something. Like yeah, I get I’m probably screwing myself over in the long-run, but I’m not going to run into something just because it’s the societal norm.

        Sorry about the rant. I’ve been reading too much JudgyBitch I think.

        • Ginkgo

          “Of course for a lot of folks that means I’m somehow damaged because I haven’t leapt on to marriage/family bandwagon.’
          Congratulations on having enough common sense to just smile at their good intentions. Ultimately it’s more satisfying that breaking down and telling them to fuck off.
          ” It’s kind of my issue with a lot of MRA writing. It’s so tied to evolution and biology that doesn’t know what to do with outliers other than label them broken or rare exceptions to the rule.”
          I know exactly what you mean and I have the same problem with it. For one thing, that kind of thinking is mechanistic and deterministic, so it’s clumsy and useless. For another, it’s based on incomplete and erroneous understandings of evolution and biology. Case in point: the “rare egg” theory, the notion that men are genetically programmed to protect women because sperm is common and eggs are rare.
          It’s simplistic because it ignores the social realities over thousands of generations that shaped human evolution, which in turn shaped the social realities. For one thing, the theory assumes monogamy – one man with many sperm and one women with a set number of eggs. Monogamy is a very big assumption under any circumstances, but when you have a situation where men take, protect, clear and work the land that all food comes off of, and where some families control more land than others, women are going to compete to marry into the richer families, who can have as many as they want of the very best women. For these families, eggs are more plentiful than the only sperm that matter to them, theirs.
          For another thing, no man could expect to remain married to one woman for a lifetime because women died, all the time, and often quite young, so they had to be replaced with new wives. this is where human evolution comes in. When you have a species that is evolving ever narrower hips for better and better walking, and ever bigger heads to accommodate bigger and bigger brains, at some point the fetus’ big head is not going to fit through a birth canal constrained by a narrow pelvic opening. Combine that with the difficult pregnancies caused by bipedal posture – the uterus works like a hammock if you’re on all fours, but stand up and it becomes an off-center burden – and women’s health risks increase hugely. And it wasn’t just men who had to expect serial monogamy, at best. Given the dangers men were exposed to and the damage their normal work inflicted on their bodies, they died off pretty regularly and early too.
          The point is that if you are going to talk evolution and biology, do it a degree of precision and detail that will allow you to say something relevant to the discussion.

          • Angela Rajic

            lol thanks. I’ve discovered that starting dialogues with people is better than just trolling them and writing angry posts full of swearing and verbal middle fingers. It’s actually quite amusing seeing responders immediately go all snippy on me only to calm down after they realize I actually want to discuss things rather than condemn them, even if I vehemently disagree with them.

            Mostly I get where they’re coming from, and agree with much of what they stand for (shared parenting, fatherhood rights, help for male victims of rape and violence etc.) but I can’t help but feel a little…hurt when they dictate what makes a GOOD WOMAN or, to a lesser, extant a GOOD MAN and I don’t fall into it because I desire a job or haven’t gotten married and had kids yet (mid-twenties here, so biology dictates I probably should have had a couple kids by now or in a couple of years) or I’m (15 pounds) overweight so I must be a selfish slob and thus a terrible person. I may not conform to my biology, but that’s not really a proper measure of my morality. You guys have enough of that shit thrown at you, how to be a “real” man and all that crap. I’m of a live and let live mentality. Having a uterus means I’m built with a specific function, but my uterus doesn’t have much traction in how my personality develops and how geared towards that function my personality is.

            Another issue I take with the devotion to evolution is that there is very little question over how far we evolved from our original biology, if we need to involve passed that or how far. Biological gender roles are all fine and dandy, but how do they fit with how human societies have involved.

          • http://www.maleliberation.org/ MaleLib ForLiberation

            Very eloquent. The Male Human Right Movement needs more folks like you and I don’t mean just because you’re female (though that diversity is very important) but two others things. First, you clearly don’t deny ways in which society makes like harder for women (dictated how to be a GOOD WOMAN as you put it…the expectation to change your last name, to name a ‘small’ example etc) which is important not just for credibility of the MHRM with society but for coherence of theory, it’s not male versus female.

            Secondly we need more folks like you because of this: “starting dialogues with people is better than just trolling them and writing angry posts full of swearing and verbal middle fingers. It’s actually quite amusing seeing responders immediately go all snippy on me only to calm down after they realize I actually want to discuss things
            rather than condemn them”

            I read an almost identical statement (the gender was either male or unidentified…I think UK male though) a month or two back, on AVFM comments. Back then I thought, “another one of us”. The real “us” are of all genders, the real “us” are for male liberation and for female liberation, away from oppressive social control, expectations, and sometimes discriminatory laws too, but in everyday life so much cultural crap put on all people. The mainstream can’t accept that males can possibly be oppressed because they are seen as “opposite” to females, and”female oppression examples” are well known, so…it’s “impossible” for males to be, the thinking goes. As if we don’t have the example of age, where society shames the young (slackers, lazy, etc) and shames the old too.

            If there’s a critical mass of us in MHRM we can help others see that “working with women and even (non-misandrist) women’s rights advocates” is not “giving in to the enemy”. That’s the idea behind the graphic of the shaking hands I put in my little Maleliberation (that is a dot org website) that is still controvertial thematically in some MHRM circles, certainly in some MRA and Mascunist circles..seeing your comments gives me hope.

          • Angela Rajic

            Thank you ^^
            THIS. So much this. I know there is heavy animosity between MRAs and Feminists, but I really think we’d succeed much more quickly if we worked together to acknowledged the issues and strengths of both movements and work to all our goals. Maybe I’m too idealistic, but I don’t see women’s rights and men;;s rights as antithetical. Christina Hoff Sommers anyone?

          • Honey Badger Brigade

            I’m going to crash this love in. Christina Hoff Summers has received more flack from feminism than she has from MRAs. I’m fine with her brand of feminism, but no other feminists are. If we want to call her a feminist and use her as a measuring rod for feminism, I’m fine with that too. But to say that accepting her is accepting feminism as a whole? No.

            Feminism as a whole doesn’t even accept her.

          • Angela Rajic

            I didn’t mean it like that. I just used her as an example of how women’s rights and men’s rights don’t have to be ramming against each other. I’m well aware she gets shit flung at her both both sides, feminism more-so. I just think working with more equity feminists like Sommers could help Men Rights AND Women’s Rights (yes I do believe in such a thing, separate from standard third-wave feminism) movements.

            Sorry, I think I was just muddling my ideas of women’s rights/liberation and traditional feminism, which I do see as problematic.

          • Honey Badger Brigade

            I think we promote a synergy between benefiting women and men by challenging victim narratives that target women and marginalize male victims.

          • Angela Rajic

            Fair enough. I wasn’t bashing you guys, you guys do good work.

          • Honey Badger Brigade

            I didn’t think you were. : )

          • http://www.maleliberation.org/ MaleLib ForLiberation

            Yes, it’s not just feminism that has problems, the *word* feminism has it’s own problems, people mean anything from Dworkin, all the way down to well meaning 18 year old who (in their case) honestly means “equality”.

            And that’s why I deliberately avoided the term entirely, saying “(non-misandrist) women’s rights advocates” instead, in my comment above.

            Or I refer to men’s liberation and women’s liberation as in this graphic:
            http://www.maleliberation.org/images/symbol/clean.mutualrespectliberation2.40p.png
            (I say elsewhere that Liberation means positives that go beyond “non-oppression” and “rights”, just like “wellness” means something beyond the absence of disease, in some healthcare discussions..

            Another positive thing is that, we won’t all need to point at Summers to find pro-rights-for-both or pro-liberation for both people..we can point to some Honey Badgers Brigade commenters like Angela..and point to some
            Honey Badgers themselves, to show win-win is possible. In fact, if we don’t resist mainstream “TradCon and PCleft” own version of “love fest” then men and women are both in big trouble.

            Just merely avoiding that particular lose-lose “love fest” is an idea of a win-win love fest I think we can all get behind :-)

          • http://www.maleliberation.org/ MaleLib ForLiberation

            Strange, I completely edited out the url I put in my first draft but it still has the image, only it moved it to the end of the post instead of the middle where I had it..what does one have to do to delete an image that was given as a url in the first-saved draft? I tried 5 times to “edit” and then see if I can delete, no luck..

          • Mark

            ^^ This. Christina Hoff Sommers, among other feminists, are very much revered by MRAs. She actively dispels the myths, and argues against the core tenets (i.e. patriarchy theory) of feminism that when practiced vilifies, demonizes, discriminates, and/or oppresses men and boys.

            Since CHS and others do not subscribe to the new feminist ideologies, she is dismissed as a feminist by the new feminists themselves. The current feminist movement has nothing or little to do women’s rights. Hell, many MRAs are for women’s rights and the advancement of women.

          • http://www.maleliberation.org/ MaleLib ForLiberation

            Thanks Angela. Womens’ rights and men’s rights like you said are not at all antithetical…quite the opposite, we risk tons more damage to people of ALL genders if we let the current cultural path continue forward with its toxicity.

            Unfortunately the word “feminism” (not just the movement) has its own set of problems, because people mean anything from Andrea Dworkin, all the way down to a well meaning 18 year old who (in her individual case) honestly means “equality” and nothing more because that’s what she has been told it means. That’s why I generally avoid that term entirely, and why I avoided the term in my comment, saying “(non-misandrist) women’s rights advocates” instead, in
            my comment above.

            Or I refer to men’s liberation and women’s liberation as in this graphic:
            http://www.maleliberation.org/images/symbol/clean.mutualrespectliberation2.40p.png

            (I say elsewhere that Liberation means positives that go beyond “non-oppression” and “rights”, just like “wellness” means something beyond the absence of disease, in some healthcare discussions..

            I also want to kind of pat all of us on the back (not a bad thing in moderation) including you Angela, saying we won’t all need to point at Summers to find pro-rights-for-both or pro-liberation for both people..we can point to some Honey Badgers Brigade commenters like you Angela..and point to Honey Badgers themselves, to show win-win is possible. In fact, if we don’t resist mainstream “TradCon and PCleft” own version of “love fest” then men and women are both in big trouble. Let’s avoid THAT (very bad) lovefest and, with supportive and compassionate critiques of ourselves included, let’s create our own positive alternatives to that mess :-)

            Just merely avoiding that particular lose-lose “love fest” is an idea of a win-win love fest I think we can all get behind :-)

          • http://www.maleliberation.org/ MaleLib ForLiberation

            Thanks Angela. Womens’ rights and men’s rights like you said are not at all antithetical…quite the opposite, we risk tons more damage to people of ALL genders if we let the current cultural path continue forward with its toxicity.

            Unfortunately the word “feminism” (not just the movement) has its own set of problems, because people mean anything from Andrea Dworkin, all the way down to a well meaning 18 year old who (in her individual case) honestly means “equality” and nothing more because that’s what she has been told it means. That’s why I generally avoid that term entirely, and why I avoided the term in my comment, saying “(non-misandrist) women’s rights advocates” instead, in
            my comment above.

            Or I refer to men’s liberation and women’s liberation as in this graphic:
            http://www.maleliberation.org/images/symbol/clean.mutualrespectliberation2.40p.png

            (I say elsewhere that Liberation means positives that go beyond “non-oppression” and “rights”, just like “wellness” means something beyond the absence of disease, in some healthcare discussions..

            I also want to kind of pat all of us on the back (not a bad thing in moderation) including you Angela, saying we won’t all need to point at Summers to find pro-rights-for-both or pro-liberation for both people..we can point to some Honey Badgers Brigade commenters like you Angela..and point to Honey Badgers themselves, to show win-win is possible. In fact, if we don’t resist mainstream “TradCon and PCleft” own version of “love fest” then men and women are both in big trouble. Let’s avoid THAT (very bad) lovefest and, with supportive and compassionate critiques of ourselves included, let’s create our own positive alternatives to that mess :-)

            Just merely avoiding that particular lose-lose “love fest” is an idea of a win-win love fest I think we can all get behind :-)

          • tout venant

            Men hurt by women and women hating men working together ? Is it a BDSM fantaisy ?

        • Graham Strouse

          Honestly, for most reasonably well-educated young people today, entering into a marriage can be economic suicide for both parties. And that’s before factoring in the cost of potential children. Unemployment and underemployment levels for young adults are at historically high levels. And that doesn’t look like it’s going to change soon.

    • Sn0man79

      ” I’m fine with common law unions or just living together.”
      _______________

      Don’t get too used to either of those ideas. Common law is just as raw a deal as marriage now in many places due to the marxist feminist lobby machine – so now men don’t want that either. The growing consensus seems to be that we’re just better off without you, and that we really don’t need you anyway.

  • http://www.maleliberation.org/ MaleLib ForLiberation

    Good points about her seemingly missing completely lack of legal equality in marriage, and lack of equality of being able to (continue) being a parent and so on. But when I read her quote:

    “Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood”

    It made me think this is either code words for, or too easily flowing into, far more: the societal expectation that men be Providers for their wives and families (is that a secondary reason for anti-gay sentiment among ‘tradcons’? Makes following that ‘rule’ of ‘male must be the provider, wife the receiver’ confusing) and further, that males must be cannon fodder both literally in wars, and economically grind themselves down working long hours, in short the misandrist “be useful!” role. Some countries even have younger retirement age for women, even though men have shorter lives, so you’d think it should be the opposite, with men being given younger retirement, but….”be a provider…sacrifice yourself…be useful…grind yourself down with work”

    As for feminism, I don’t see her claiming it was the “prime mover” Maybe you’re better in reading her mind than I, but I’m tempted to give her the benefit of the cout here..I’m inclined to praise that statement, it’s not empty anti-feminist rhetoric but actually gets at a specific issue, the not understanding the “give the take” (and expecting a “prince” to “rescue” and “provide” for them and live up to romantic Provisor stereotypes) that she is pointing to, and I like that. A widespread ‘feminist’ trends in the culture does have a “consequence” of more of that blindness by too many young women to the idea of the need for, “give and take” So, my own feeling is that it doesn’t hurt to give a pat on the back, or at least, acknowledge one part, while criticizing the more “cringeworthy” things she says, is my inclination..

  • Michael Steane

    It is also worth asking the question “Of those men that do want to get married, why do such a large number seek their brides in foreign countries?” The answer to that question may help Janice Shaw Crouse reach correct conclusions about everything else.

  • MGTOW 4Ever

    Men need marriage like Banks need Robbers.

  • John Rew

    I’m one of those perpetual adolescents but between 50 and 60. I’ve brought my kids up who I now have great relationships with and I own everything I have including a house. I have no debts and have a healthy bank account. Adolescence has been good to me I wont be giving it up in the foreseeable future.

  • Paul Jackson

    The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com.

    All I can say is PMSL!!!

  • Mech Shop

    Marriage is essentially a form of blackmail, its the original bases of “formal marriage”.
    http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/111202_blackmail.htm
    Mgtow is not going to change millions of years of evolution. Women are still going to be exploitative and there is no “off switch” on how much many women feel entitled too.

    Sweden’s feminist ambassador when after Saudi Arabia, one of the most wealthy and physically fattest Arab countries. She did not go after The Gaza Strip were things are so socially restrictive women cannot whore themselves in spite of crushing abject poverty. Contrast this to Venezuela, while whoring is illegal there, there is no social consensuses against it and operationally anti whoring laws are unenforced. Therefore Venezuelan women may whore if they choose and can better there economic outlook.

    • fromaway05

      MGTOW is not about change, it is about avoidance of the plantation system.

  • Graham Strouse

    A big part of the issue for both men and women is simply lack of economic stability. The job market for young adults is still piss poor and shows little sign of improving. It’s nuts to saddle yourself with additional responsibilities when you’re struggling simply to make ends meet. Hell, if you’re working, say two jobs & don’t have the time, money or energy to date marriage becomes an unlikely prospect.

    • Angela Rajic

      My sister had to work a second job just to make enough money to pay for her wedding, let alone the dating and actual marriage itself. Personally I’d rather forego the wedding and just live common law. Saves you time and money and seems more flexible than an actual marriage.

  • Andrejovich Dietrich

    “Strong Families” ROFLMAO

    Wait wait…Let me ponder that one..

    ROFLMAO

    An appeal about Strong Families from a member of the gender who file for 75% of the destruction of them?

    ROFLMAO

  • Tonia McBride

    You know, I’m really surprised that the men don’t need marriage myth survives when there is so much evidence to the contrary. Married men are happier, have more sex, make more money, accumulate more wealth, live longer, are healthier in general, and dress better (okay, that last one is supported by my personal observation more than research) than unmarried men (including ones in long-term relationships). I appreciate that our legal system could use a HUGE tune-up, but the truth is simple – Women (generally) need/want children. Children need present, committed fathers. Men need women.

    • Sn0man79

      Men do not need women. Not remotely.

    • Apples

      Even if your data is correct, it is affected by left censoring bias due to unsuccessful marriages ending in divorce (e.g. Making less money can leads to financial problems, and this could lead to unhappiness and divorce.) So, the statistics are more likely to capture individuals in successful marriages. So, the statistics suggest that successful capture of marital benefits by men leads to a positive outcome for men. What about the 50% (hearsay divorce rate) of the men who are unable to capture the martial benefits?

      • Tonia McBride

        The 50% divorce rate is a really misleading statistic, if you want to talk bias. Something like 80% of first marriage end with the death of a spouse. People who get divorced, on the other hand, tend to remarry and divorce and remarry and divorce, ad infinitum. That disparity is one of the reasons I tend to believe that marriage is a good thing, but that some folks aren’t good at it.

        • Apples

          I mentioned that the rate is a hearsay figure; I am not trying to mislead anyone. Even if the divorce rate is not 50%, a rate of 20%, 30%, or 40% would nonetheless cause a left censoring bias unless the agents in this economic transaction are irrational and the choice of divorce is random event for the married.

          This 80% of first marriage end with the death of a spouse would be true for older populations with lower divorce rate. Let’s deduct the mean life expectancy from the current year, we get ~1940. The statistic was probably collected from the folks born in ~1940. At this point in time, the pill was not invented, and women were treated poorly in the workforce.

  • Nevoight

    oh snap!

  • Ipomea Batata

    Remember kids, women need men like fish need bicycles, but men need to marry a woman and make a “strong family” to be worth anything at all, and then those families need to be made even stronger by throwing the man out and bleeding him dry for alimony. You know, for the kids. :/

  • apples12345

    There are two type of men in this world. Men who enjoy fucking a woman, and men who enjoy get fucked by a woman. C’est la vie. There is always a choice! Different strokes for different folks.