Men are going Galt. Marriage is dying.

Summary: Gender roles are changing at a rate not seen since the invention of agriculture. Marriage, the institution most affected, will radically change — or wither away. Here are reports from the front lines and speculation about the future. All we know for certain is that the future of marriage will be different than anything seen in our past, for good or ill. {Revised from 2015, with new information.}

Death of Marriage

Contents

  1. Marriage, the foundation of society.
  2. The crisis of marriage.
  3. The numbers: marriage as it is and will be.
  4. One theory about the cause: men are “going Galt”.
  5. Clear thinking about the problem.
  6. A first shot in this phase of the gender revolution.
  7. Conclusions.
  8. Dalrock on marriage.
  9. For More Information.
Men and Marriage
Available at Amazon.

(1)  Marriage, the foundation of society

Left and Right offer us competing visions of a post-marriage (traditional) society. The Left hopes for a more egalitarian society, with government assistance substituting for the family (as is happening in Scandinavia).

The Right fears that continued decay in the current family structure means the decay of civilization — as George Gilder explains in Sexual Suicide (1973). These trends continued for another decade without an apocalypse, so he reissued the book in 1986 as Men and Marriage. Gilder described traditional form of marriage in America, like that described by Rousseau and de Tocqueville. From the publisher’s description…

“Drug Addiction, lack of education, welfare, children in poverty, violence, unemployment, single-parent homes-these critical problems facing our country today. Many ideas have been presented regarding the cause of these problems, but only George Gilder speaks directly and with authority about their one undeniable source: the disintegration of the American family.

Men and Marriage examines the loss of the family and the well-defined sex roles it used to offer and how this loss has changed the focus of our society. Poverty, for instance, comes from the destruction of the family when single parents are abandoned by their lovers or older women are suddenly divorced because society approves of the husband’s new, younger girlfriend.

“Gilder claims that men will only own up to their paternal obligations when the women lead them to do so and that this civilizing influence, balanced with, proper economic support, is the most important part of maintaining a productive, healthy, loving society.”

Gilder describes the world as it once was.

“Men lust, but they know not what for; they wander, and lose track of the goal; they fight and compete, but they forget the prize; they spread seed, but spurn the seasons of growth; they chase power and glory, but miss the meaning of life.

“In creating civilization, women transform male lust into love; channel male wanderlust into jobs, homes, and families; link men to specific children; rear children into citizens; change hunters into fathers; divert male will to power into a drive to create. Women conceive the future that men tend to fell; they feed the children that men ignore. …

“Modern society relies on predictable, regular, long-term human activities, corresponding to the sexual faculties of women. The male pattern is the enemy of social stability. This is the ultimate source of female sexual control and the critical reason for it. Women domesticate and civilize male nature. They can jeopardize male discipline and identity, and civilization as well, merely by giving up the role.

It never occurred to Gilder that since WWII feminism proposed doing exactly that — and that today young women are following their advice. Work, independence, and easy sex until 28, then marriage (the party plus fake vows) followed by work and children.

Marriage Matters: Perspectives on the Private and Public Importance of Marriage (2012).
Available at Amazon.

(2)  The crisis of marriage

Marriage has been an institution in flux for centuries, but the rate of change accelerated after California Governor Ronald Reagan signed the revolutionary Family Law Act of 1969, retroactively abolishing the “traditional” binding contract of marriage and replacing it with no-fault divorce. This created our present system of serial monogamy (a series of monogamous pairings with the pretense of being for life). The feminist revolutions which followed forced further changes in marriage. Since then we’ve slid along the slippery slope, and still cannot see what lies at the end.

Let’s start this examination at an interview with Janice Shaw Crouse. She gives a status report on marriage today: “Bachelor Nation: 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married“…

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

Crouse sees the present but only in terms of yesterday’s norms. Today many young men reject the “normal progression into adult roles”. Many young women no longer “dream about a wedding day”, or are unwilling to make the compromises with a man to make that happen. As for the effect on society, it is just another of great experiments that we’re conducting — with our children as the lab rats.

Janice Shaw Crouse is a senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America. She is the author of Marriage Matters: Perspectives on the Private and Public Importance of Marriage (2012), Children at Risk: The Precarious State of Children’s Well-Being in America and The Strength of a Godly Woman: Finding Your Unique Place in God’s Plan.

(3)  The numbers: marriage as it is and will be

Pew Research provides detailed reports about the state of marriage, but is weak about the causes of these trends. Pew’s research shows that men’s weakening economic status vs. women renders many of them unmarriageable. The widening education gap guarantees that the economic gap will continue to widen. We already can see the effects rippling across society as women are moving on top of men in America. But they don’t mention that increasing rates of obesity take many young people off the “market” for marriage, that the increased availability of sex outside marriage reduces men’s incentives to marry, or the how easy divorce and child support make marriage a bad bet for men.

As for the future, they assume the usual smooth curve — assuming that current trends continue and then stabilize. Such conservative forecasts are always wrong for transformative events, like the adoption of cell phones. These follow an “S” curve. Marriage is in the first stage of what we think is rapid change. Ahead lies the steep part of the curve, as we pass tipping points and radical change happens. Afterwards, when the new institutions take hold, does the curve stabilize. By then marriage will either be far less common — or unrecognizable.

(a) More young people remain unmarried.

Percent of young people unmarried (<35) has steeply risen steeply, from 56% to 61%, during the past decade (Pew Research).

PEW - percent unmarried by age

Percent of young men and women who are married and the average age of first marriage (Pew Research).

PEW - marriage rates by age over time

(b) The result will a society in which marriage plays a smaller part.

More young people will never marry: a 5x increase expected between 1960 and 2030 (Pew Research).

PEW poll of the never married, September 2014

(4)  One theory about the cause: men are “going Galt”

Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters
Available at Amazon.

In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged the wealthy “go Galt” and stepping away from the rat race to let the rest of society fend for itself. But now, in one of the most unanticipated turns of history, it appears that young men are doing so, preferring the easy enjoyments of casual sex, drugs, booze, sports, porn and computer games instead of pursuit of career advancement and women.

Hundreds of websites for men espouse these new values. It’s described by psychologist Helen Smith in Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters (2013). From the publisher’s description…

“American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a vacation from responsibility simply because they can. But why should men participate in a system that seems to be increasingly stacked against them?

“As Men on Strike demonstrates, men aren’t dropping out because they are stuck in arrested development. They are instead acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands and providers. In addition, men are going on strike, either consciously or unconsciously, because they do not want to be injured by the myriad of laws, attitudes and hostility against them for the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century. Men are starting to fight back against the backlash. Men on Strike explains their battle cry.”

Also see Dr. Smith’s columns at PJmedia. In one she provides a better context for her book.

“The word ‘strike’ gives the idea that if marriage were more fair, men would opt back in. Some …say this is not true, that men have quit trying to get married and found alternate arrangements which are better suited for them. I think some men are on strike from marriage because it is a bad deal and others see marriage as obsolete and have quit trying altogether. Is strike the correct word? I don’t know.”

For more about the book, see a review by Masha Rifkin at The American Interest. For a more explicit version of this thinking see “Why men won’t marry you” by Suzanne Venker at Fox News and “Why You’re Not Married” by Tracy McMillan at the Huffington Post.

The Art of Beauty
Available at Amazon.

(5)  Clear thinking about the problem

Unlike the above analysts, who see the decline of marriage as resulting from men’s weakening interest and ability to marry, here’s a woman warning that women are a cause of falling marriage rates.

“When people complain of men not marrying (even they who are able), they forget how little women offer in exchange for all they get by marriage. Girls are seldom taught to be of any use whatever to a man, so that I am astonished only at the numbers of men who do marry! Many girls do not even try to be agreeable to look at, much less to live with. They forget how numerous they are, and the small absolute need men have of wives; but, nevertheless, men do still marry, and would oftener marry could they find mates — women who are either helpful to them, or amusing, or pleasing to their eye.”

This is from The Art of Beauty by Mary Eliza Joy Haweis (1883). Concerns about the state of marriage — like worries about the younger generation — are a commonplace of history. That doesn’t mean her worries were foolish. A stable functional society requires constant thought and effort about its basic institutions.

To see women building a post-marriage society, look to the Nordic nations with their high numbers of single mothers. For example, Denmark — with its strong government financial support for single mothers, where donated sperm to single mothers is a rapidly-growing trend because women don’t need men — or perhaps men don’t want to become fathers (expressed in that article with a feminist spin: many men are “not ready for parenthood”, at least on the terms women offer).

(6)  The first shot in this phase of the gender revolution

The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex
Available at Amazon.

To understand what’s happening I recommend the book that started the backlash to the feminist victory: The Myth of Male Power (1993). Warren Farrell shows that most of the assertions about the “patriarchy” — the superior position of men in America — is false.

Here is an excerpt from a review at Amazon by Pradeep Ramanathan (Former EVP, National Coalition For Men)…

“The Myth of Male Power explains how almost all societies (American society in particular) are both matriarchal and patriarchal, how men’s and women’s roles provide unique benefits and limitations on each gender. Both men and women may be seen to be privileged and disadvantaged, each in different ways.

“The focus of the book, as the title suggests, is on the male role. This is done not to slight women’s issues, but rather to supplement the ever-growing body of literature and research on gender issues which tends to frame the problems from an essentially female perspective.”

(7)  Conclusions

Today every society grapples with these questions. Saudi Arabia, Japan, Denmark, America — there are scores of paths to new structures for the family. I recommend learning from the successes and failures of others, remaining open to new ideas, and only slowly making changes to the legal structure of our core institutions.

I predict that America will do none of these things. Rather we will act like monkeys in the control room of nuclear power plant — flipping switches and spinning dials. Armed with only ideology, we alter the core systems of our society without experimentation or testing. Much as the communists did in Russia and China. Perhaps this will work better for us than for them.

It is too soon for predictions, other than that interesting times lie ahead.

(8)  Dalrock

Dalrock has some fascinating analysis and commentary about marriage at his website.

(9)  For More Information

The cold equations: “‘These boots are made for walking’: why most divorce filers are women” by Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas W. Allen in American Law and Economics Review, January 2000. Gated. Open copy here. H/t Dalrock.

Ideas! For Holiday shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about women and gender issues, especially these about marriage…

  1. Men are abandoning the rat race, & changing American society. — See the data.
  2. Why men are avoiding work and marriage.
  3. Will young men break America’s family structure?
  4. Will today’s young men marry? America’s future depends which of these answers is right.
  5. Our society will be shaped by technology as porn and sexbots destroy 21st century marriage.
  6. For Father’s Day: revolutionary words that will forever change the American family.
  7. Classic films show what marriage was. Facts show its death.
  8. Cheap Sex is the Inconvenient Truth in the end of marriage.
  9. Child support payments create the new American family.

Essential reading to understand how we got here

The Privileged Sex
Available at Amazon

The Privileged Sex by Martin van Creveld.

Summary by the publisher…

“Ever since Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique back in 1963, all of us have been told that women are discriminated against, oppressed, exploited, and abused by men. The barrage of accusations is intense, relentless, and seems to have neither beginning nor end. But are the charges true? Do women really have a worse time of it than men?

“This volume, one of the very few in any language, takes on these questions head on. Roaming far and wide, it examines many aspects of the problem as it has presented itself from the time of ancient Egypt right down to today’s most advanced Western societies. To anyone accustomed to the tsunami of feminist claims and complaints, the answers will come as a surprise.”

67 thoughts on “Men are going Galt. Marriage is dying.

  1. Larry-

    Throughout these articles on societal shifts, I’ve gone back to review the Transcendentalists. I think that Emerson and Thoreau are of more relevance than Rand’s Galt and a libertarian utopia. Leave the latter for Elon Musk.

    “These are the voices which we hear in solitude, but they grow faint and inaudible as we enter into the world.
    Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members. Society is a joint-stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs.

    Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world. I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested,–“But these impulses may be from below, not from above.” I replied, “They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil’s child, I will live then from the Devil.”

    No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he.

    I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions.”

    -Emerson, Self-Reliance

    1. Mike,

      Interesting. How do you apply that in your marriage? What advice would you give based on it to a 23 year old man?

    2. Just a brainstorm. For reference, I’ve seen a lot of alpha men get treated like betas at home.

      1. Treat people with respect, but be true to yourself.
      2. Don’t watch tv- it’ll poison your mind. If you are smart, then you don’t have to act like Homer Simpson.
      3. Work on yourself first- Get financial independent and give at least a decade before considering marriage.
      4. If you do decide to marry and have kids, consider a prenup and clearly define the contract.
      5. If you do decide to marry, take a lot of time to see how she treats those that she perceives “below” her level- that’s probably an indication of her true character.
      6. Sharing responsibilities does not mean that you share traditional women’s chores and you do all the traditional men’s work.
      7. You are responsible for your actions and decisions.
      8. Your are responsible for your emotional well-being.
      9. Surround yourself with winners and those who support you.
      10. It is best not to wrestle with a pig in the mud. The pig likes to get dirty.

    3. Mike,

      All sensible advice. But I wonder about it. As they say in War Games, for some games the only solution is not to play. It is hubris to believe that individuals can overcome institutional bias.

      For example, nothing here helps prevent the divorce-child support trap. From the perspective of many women, the current “reformed” version of marriage is wonderful. The man can’t expect her to change (fight patriarchy!). She gets the party of her life. The guy provides legitimacy to her children and her, and helps raise them through the labor intensive first few years. Once they are in school, divorce – a stream of child support – and independence! What’s not to like? The incentives to follow this script are large, like seeing money on the ground.

      What do men get out of this?

    4. “What do men get out of this?”

      Not much in that scenario. I don’t disagree with your thesis, just looking at it from another lens. I suspect that we will continue to see marriage declining or morphing into something else. Unless, there are other changes. What I was suggesting are practical advice for guys on the tactical level for guys to 1. De-Risk and 2. Change the game without compromising morals. For example,

      1. By securing financial independence first before marriage, then you are not entering in with massive debts.

      2. By waiting until at least 33 to get married and later for children, then child support would come out during a time of maximum earnings with less impact on your retirement.

      3. By finding a partner that lives frugally or spends less than she earns, then you maximize the chance for rational divorce. P.S. don’t forget to include consumerism and America’s debt problem exacerbating these issues.

      It’ll be interesting to watch the trends of Gen Z: “Generation Z statistics: New report on the values, attitudes and behaviors of the post-Millennials” by Kelvin Claveria at Vision Critical, October 2016.

    5. Mike,

      I heartily agree with your advice. It is the sort of thing we should be teaching Boy Scouts — and much more useful than 99% of the Merit Badges. Also, thanks for the link to that article. I added a full citation, to encourage people to click on it. I disagree, however, with your framing.

      “Not much in that scenario.”

      Risk management involves looking at all the likely scenario. This is especially important for young men thinking of marriage, as their lack of experience means that the marriage’s outcome is to a large extent luck. It is not that they do badly in that scenario, but the odds of that scenario are roughly 50% for Gen Z (imo probably higher). Bets include not just looking at the possible outcomes, but their odds and severity.

    1. Larry:

      Marriage is a kind of “sexual socialism”, or at least it used to be. It isn’t now. And it actually worked well.

      Marriage 1.0 was “sexual socialism” because almost everybody who wanted a spouse got one. For women, he might not have been the hottest, the richest or the nicest, but he was hers, and she got a husband to care for her, support her financially, and a father for her kids. For men, she might not have been the prettiest, the nicest or the least crazy, but she was his, and he got a wife to take care of his house, bear and raise his kids, and have sex with him at reasonable intervals.

      If you wanted a spouse you could easily get one according to your abilities and social/sexual rank. If you were Chad McStudmuffin or Ivan Investmentbanker or Frank Fratboy, you got to marry Stacy Cheerleader, Becky Basicbitch, or Buffy Hotterson. If you were Richie Rich, you got to marry Poopsie Trustfunderson.

      If you were Louie Lawyer or Paul Plumber or Alan Assistantpastor or Tom Tradesman or Phil Policeman, your choices were Sally Sundayschoolteacher, Ellen Elementaryschoolteacher, Nancy Nurse, and Sarah Secretary. Or, if you were really lucky, Carrie Cutie and Hattie Homemaker.

      And, if you’re Mike Mechanic or Randy Ranchhand or Carl Custodian or Don Ditchdigger, you could marry Susie McFormerSlut or Lois LPN or Cathy CNA or Dawn Daycareworker.

    2. The Deti,

      I, like everybody else in America, understand how marriage works (or used to work). My question is why this is socialism. Capitalism allocates resources by competition (aka free markets), which is how the marriage market works.

      Marx said that under communism the state would allocate “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” (More about that here.)

    3. I told you why it’s socialism (or was). Because everyone who wants one, gets one, under Marriage 1.0.

      Marriage isn’t like that now.

    4. The deti,

      That was never true. Many women wanted to get married, but could not. They were called spinsters. It would be socialism if the State provided husbands for them. It didn’t.

    5. Larry:

      Also, marriage was “sexual socialism” because there was a prescribed manner for getting married and having (legitimate) sex. All of society’s legal, political, educational, religious, cultural, and industrial institutions backed it up, all in one accord. “If you want sex and marriage, this is how you do it, this is the only socially sanctioned way to do it, and you get what you get and you don’t throw a fit.

      “Men, once you marry, she’s yours for life, so don’t marry unless you’re ready. Women, you get to pick one and only one guy, you have to get it right the first time, because there are no do-overs, so you had better pick wisely. This is the only guy youre gonna get”.

    6. Larry:

      When i say “everybody”, i don’t mean literally every single person in society. There are always outliers and exceptions to every rule.

      There were a few spinsters. but most of them weren’t spinsters because they could not marry. Most of them were spinsters because they didn’t want to marry. They wanted to work their menial jobs, or get more education or work. (It is not true that women never worked outside the home before WW II. Women have always worked.)

      The reason most women in the 18th and 19th and early 20th centuries didn’t get educations or work full time jobs into their 30s and 40s, most of them, is because they didn’t want to. Or they wanted to become nuns. Or they didn’t like any of the men on offer.

      Most women wanted to get married, and would get married because they needed a man’s financial support. And just the fact that a man could financially support them actually sort of enhanced their “attractiveness” in that particular Marriage 1.0 sexual marketplace.

      Most all women wanted to get married, even if it was to Randy Ranchhand or Don Ditchdigger. Being married to a borderline impoverished unattractive regular Joe Lunchpail guy who gave you a house and food on your table and a dad for your kids sure as hell beat working in a sweatshop or a coal mine or in a one room schoolhouse or as a seamstress until their fingers bled and until they dropped dead.

    7. The Deti,

      “There were a few spinsters. ”

      The number of spinsters varied in the West by time and place. But usually was in the 25% – 35% range. They were servants, nuns, career women, governesses, and “spinster aunts” that helped out in their clans.

      “most of them weren’t spinsters because they could not marry.”

      Do you have any evidence for that astounding claim?

    8. “Marriage is … sexual socialism.”

      Yes, marriage is the forced redistribution of something *men* care about. The ideal economic system is price control and rationing of women, and free markets in everything else. Every married man of any social class has a stake in society; poverty doesn’t feel so bad when you have pussy.

      Price control means that a woman cannot divorce her husband or seize his assets. As women are wont to demand money from their husbands to squander on zero-sum status competition with other women, limiting such behavior (cf. the Oppian Laws) makes marriage more affordable to men.

      Rationing means that few if any men are allowed to have more than one wife, so the top men don’t hoover up all the young maidens into their harems and force other men to fight over scraps.

    9. Dave,

      “marriage is the forced redistribution of something”

      Marriage is a contract with the terms set by the State, and changeable by them. It is not “forced.” Most of the rest of your comments suggest you don’t understand this.

      “Rationing means that few if any men are allowed to have more than one wife”

      That’s only somewhat true. Yes, the State allows only one wife at a time in America, for the reason you state. So we have serial monogamy. On the other hand, there are few restrictions on adultery, so people can have sex with others. There is some evidence — of uncertain reliability — that more wives are committing adultery. Which is logical for both ideological and logistical reasons.

    10. Adultery, divorce, and serial monogamy have no place in the Christian tradition. If you had mistresses, you had to keep them secret, so you couldn’t reward them with what women desire most: high social status.

      The early Christian church did away with forced marriage — if either person didn’t say, “I do”, they weren’t married. Nevertheless the church strongly encouraged women to marry by denying them attractive alternatives — women could be wives, nuns, or whores (to which someone quipped that modern feminists try to be all three, with hilarious results)

    11. Dave,

      (1) “If you had mistresses, you had to keep them secret, so you couldn’t reward them with what women desire most: high social status.”

      Mistresses of high status men were recognized and often had high social status — but below that of wives (ditto their children). Nell Gwyn, mistress of King Charles II of England, was cheered through the streets of London as the “protestant whore.”

      (2) “The early Christian church did away with forced marriage — if either person didn’t say, “I do”, they weren’t married.”

      Consensual marriage in Europe dates to the 12th century (see Wikipedia). But forced marriages have been commonplace during western history, in the upper class until modern times. As was wife selling.

    12. Mikefew @ 840

      This is your advice? Are you serious or is this sarcasm?

      1. By securing financial independence first before marriage, then you are not entering in with massive debts.

      But she will. Female college debt is a HUGE problem. Marry and her debt becomes yours.

      https://www.aauw.org/research/deeper-in-debt/

      2. By waiting until at least 33 to get married and later for children, then child support would come out during a time of maximum earnings with less impact on your retirement.

      That’s a great plan. Wait to get married so when she divorces you and takes your kids and house you can afford it. Seriously? Hey, at least your one bedroom will have a balcony because you waited until you were 33.

      3. By finding a partner that lives frugally or spends less than she earns, then you maximize the chance for rational divorce. P.S. don’t forget to include consumerism and America’s debt problem exacerbating these issues.

      Another great idea. Find a penny pincher that banged her ay through her 20’s for free dinners so you can have a “rational” divorce. You’ve obvious never been through a divorce. Female rationality is out the window. What woman spends less than she earns??

      This could be the dumbest comment I’ve ever read Nn the Internet.

  2. Thanks liberals – bang up job.

    Agree with Mike’s points and I’ve said similar things to younger guys. Marriage can be great and is better than being single, but not if your miserable. I live in liberal land and I see so many of these guys with their wives in their Subarus with this look on their faces like yep, I’m a pussy.

  3. if we in society want men to get married you have to give them a reason to do it. And that reason cannot be

    • –it’s the “right thing” to do
    • –you owe it to society
    • –it’s good for society
    • –you’re a bad man if you don’t
    • –women need you as husbands
    • –women have a right to have husbands

    No, that’s not going to work at all. Men are not Boxer from Animal Farm, who responds to the demands of the pig leaders with “I will work harder” for the good of the State, and then dies. At some point, men say “nope, not gonna do it unless there’s something in it for me”. And the usual reasons offered now as incentives are “married men live longer, earn more money, are in better health, and have more sex than single men” miss the point because

    • –All those things don’t inure to the husband’s benefit when the sole reasons he should do and get those things is to give them to the wife and children
    • –What good is “more sex” when you have to beg, threaten, cajole and coax for it?
    • –What good is “more sex” when you know your wife doesn’t really want to have that sex with you and won’t give it to you without said begging, threatening, cajoling or coaxing?
    • –What good is living longer and more money and better health when your wife treats you like crap?
    • –These reasons are offered not as benefits to MEN, but to FAMILIES. In other words, “you’re in better health so you can work more! “
    • “You earn more money because you work harder (because you have no choice because your children need food, shelter, clothing and medical care)!”
    • “You have more sex (with a woman who does so because she needs you there, not because she wants you there, and the sex is crappy most of the time)!”
    • If you want men to get married, you have to incentivize it by showing them they will get something FOR THEMSELVES out of it. What do they get?
    • –their own homes over which they have ultimate authority. Men have no problems taking responsibility so long as they also have the concomitant authority to do what needs done, so they can execute their responsibilities. That means leave us the hell alone to get it done, don’t question the manner in which it is done, and don’t use the law as a cudgel to second guess and threaten them with adverse consequences because someone doesn’t like the manner in which he exercised that authority.
    • –authority backed up by the state, the law, employment and educational institutions, and the Church, where these institutions recognize the responsibilities of husband and father, and provide a societal framework to support and enforce his authority in his home while at the same time expecting him to carry out his responsibilities.
    • –a societal framework that also requires wives to live up to their responsibilities as wives and imposes consequences for failure to do so.
    • –wives who have sex with them freely and lovingly, not stingily or grudgingly or suffering from Fear of Missing Out. Wives who, oh, I don’t know, ACTUALLY WANT TO BE THERE and married him for the right reasons and not out of fear, desperation, because time ran out and she needed someone to fill the role of Husband in the Drama That Is Her Life.
    • –wives who recognize and submit to their husbands’ authority.
    • –wives who do not use them and exploit them and mistreat them and sexually deprive them.
    • –children who are theirs, a legacy, and human beings he can teach, train, protect, and have relationship with as they grow and mature.
    • –societal status, stature and respect because of his status as married father.

    THAT is what men SHOULD get from marriage. But many men are getting none of these things, even more men don’t see any way they can get any of these things, and our society shows no signs of taking any steps in the direction of offering men these things.

  4. Maybe one ought to consider the set of contracts and economics attached to marriage and having a family. Healthcare costs massively rigged against families. Education costs are enormous for all but the top 1%. Housing costs are inflated as well. Then price in all of the quality factors around life to support a family that revolve around vacations, sports, entertainment, food…. Then there is no-fault divorce. The current education system seems to favor girls over boys where girls have higher levels of educational attainment. For many men looking out into the future, they face age discrimination as they hit higher levels of earnings in their 40’s and 50’s where they are targeted for cuts and put back into an unforgiving job market.

    Men are being killed by those at the very top and the very bottom. If you are a productive, virtuous person that falls in the middle, then the ruling oligarchs and society view you as a mark for regulatory extraction by the predatory financial/education/healthcare complex and a tax mule for welfare for corporations and the poor.

  5. This scares me. My daughter’s 12 and I really want to find her a good husband and start knocking out smart white babies at age 16. But what if gainfully-employed 20-something men all tell me to f**k off because they don’t want to get pillaged in divorce court? Shall I offer a dowry to close the deal?

    If you think I’m “weird” or “perverted”, what ground do you have to stand on? Nothing is more perverse than white people subsidizing their own extinction, which is what’s happening now.

    She’s not a bad girl — home-schooled, red-pilled, likes video games, pets, cooking, piano, and making handicrafts. Fair skin, green eyes, long wavy brown hair, full breasts, needs to lose a few pounds but I don’t want her dieting until she reaches her full potential height.

    1. Dave,

      I have two sons in their 20s, so am far closer to this problem.

      IMO, from the sidelines, your problem is different. From what I see, an average woman can still get married in her early 20s without much trouble. Mother Nature has given her all the necessary tools. But woman prefer the career & easy sex path. Even today, most can get married in their 28 – 32 years after they decide to “settle down” with a nice beta provider.

      BUT — my guess (guess) is that guys are learning how the system works, and that will become much more difficult to do in the next decade.

      What will American culture look like in 7 years when your daughter enters college — to be taught what you taught her is wrong? And in 11 years when your daughter jumps into the wide world? I’ve not a clue. I believe all we can do is guess.

    2. Dave:

      You might not want to describe your daughter physically on a website when she’s 12. Start there.

      Right now I wouldn’t worry about getting her married off. If she already looks like you say, she’ll have no trouble attracting the men you like. What she will have trouble with is being attracted to the men you like. And 16’s a wee bit early. At least wait until she’s 18 or 19.

    3. thedeti, you think pervs are going to jerk it to a description? And what’s the harm if they do?

      Larry, if my daughter ever goes to college or “jumps into the wide world”, she is lost to me forever. As she now does what I tell her, she would do what others tell her and become a typical fat leftist slut with a useless degree and a net worth in the negative six figures.

      That aside, she could probably wait until 22 to marry, but then what is she supposed to do for six of her most fertile years? Her value as a potential wife will not increase, and will greatly decrease if she’s having sex with men other than the one she ends up marrying. A virgin wife has an 80% chance of staying with her husband; a wife with one previous boyfriend has a 50% chance, so that poor sap better have a good exit strategy.

      Like young men, young women crave sex. Unlike the average young man, the average young woman can get a great deal of sex with very little effort. Which is why, in healthy societies, girls are closely guarded, and married off as soon as they are deemed old enough to withstand the rigors of child-bearing.

  6. Society needs people to have and raise kids to continue, yet as individuals we are more focused on having sex. Marriage was the social construct that served both society as well as the individual, until birth control removed the sex/pregnancy link. Now we are adjusting to the change. The various ‘sexual equality’ movements are largely a reflection of this.

    Problem is kids take a lot longer to raise than the normal romantic relationship, so it makes sense to decouple the two. Maybe we need two marriage contracts, one for love and another one for progeny.

    The first one would have fewer exit barriers, sort of a ‘no fault’ arrangement, the latter would burden both parties with the responsibility for their children until say age 30.

    1. etudiant,

      “Maybe we need two marriage contracts, one for love and another one for progeny.”

      Why bother with marriage for the first?

      Kids tend to appear despite “intent.” A male pill might drastically reduce the number of those children.

      Also, you are drastically missing the point. The problem is not the marriage contract but child support. If the woman stays married but separated and gets child support and a share of assets (alimony is rare), it is functionally a divorce. She has her independence. There are no penalties for adultery (excerpt in the military). The result for the husband would be equivalent to the current setup.

      We’re unlikely to go back to the old setup, where abandonment meant loss of child custody and any money from the other partner.

  7. One author talked about dating about 20 years ago. He said that he noticed it was trading us for divorce. We get real serious and then the relationship ends. Rather than training us for marriage where we decide I to make it work. Of course dating has devolved to hooking up so that problem has gotten worse.

    We will not return to a 1800s marriage pattern. Until the cost of not doing is becomes high enough to be recognized. Whether we will have a culture than can support it, I don’t know. When we were. Hunter gatherers we were basically though not exclusively monogamous, at least serially. With the rise of agriculture, the ability for men to become polygamists occurs, and has been the general state in most cultures until the rise of Christian Europe starting about AD 500. But most of the rest of. The world still did and does practice a sort of polygamy unless it has adopted the western mentality. Either in part or full. it would seem that monogamy for non hunter gatherers is an exception, not a general rule.

    As to advice to the next generation? So a man who is 23? Other than be careful and what minke suggested ATM the top of the post, I got nothing.

  8. +1 What deti says.

    Incentives are broken. What is marriage in a culture that despises men? It is humiliation.

    Marriage is asking men to answer “5” when asked “what is 2+2?” Its a testament to the power of male idealism, male sexual thirst, and cuckservative shame that any regular joes still take the leap.

    Men who survive the war on boys, the war on men, the war on masculinity, the war on God, tradition, history, whites, borders, language, culture, liberty… not to mention the globalist wage-slave economy.

    Well those men are few. And have options. Those options include the a la carte ingredients of marriage – largely on their terms. Women are happy to oblige. Or so they believe. The sliver of top men can flip the game and are subsequently the zero-sum and defect-defect winners in the wasteland that is the sexual market.

    The rest get scraps -and most of the tab. The rest are exoected to pay more for less. The rest live in the ever growing shadow of female privilege and entitlement and hedonistic self-absorption under the guise of the strong-independent narrative. Women are content to share the top men rather than even “date” their assortive mates. Until its too late.

    Men are waking up to this. Increasing numbers are priced out. Some see the inflation and taxation of unrestrained hypergamy coming and opt-out altogether.

    Women who suddenly want to value monogamy and commitment and the dusty old confines of marriage after decades of practicing divorce and cheap sex and the dopamine rush of adventure dating have no equity; they bring nothing to the marital table except for thier delusions of “equal partners” and thier checklists of must-haves because: never settle.

    Women value promiscuity, not marriage. Thats proven out as they spend thier best years plowing thru all varieties of “relationships”. On their way to what?

    No, they dont value marriage so why should men just because women decide ghey are “finally ready”.

    Most wonen want weddings, not to be wives. They have no idea what it means to be a wife and nobody is going to dare tell them because that is the string of the sweater. Go ahead, hold that string while she walks away.

  9. I’ve been in two long term relationships (>15 years). Married in neither. I never saw the point, I didn’t need the blessing of a church or a ceremony to prove something. For me, the only conceivable reason to marry would be for legal aspects relating to inheritance, taxation or children.

    The question (I think) is whether there’s a growing problem in getting men to form long term relationships with women. On that, I can’t really comment due to lack of breadth of experience. Except perhaps to say that many of the women I talked to over the years seemed to be very clear about the *sort* of man they wanted, and that, if they couldn’t find that one, they’d pick one that’s a good fit and start a ‘renovation’ programme.

    It’s an extreme example, but has anyone seen “The Shape Of Things.

    Perhaps men are actually becoming less accommodating and malleable….

    1. Steve,

      “The question (I think) is whether there’s a growing problem in getting men to form long term relationships with women.”

      Yes, that’s exactly my point! See the nine posts discussing that question, in the For More Information section at the end of this post. Much depends on the answer.

      Thank you for the pointer to “The Shape of Things.” I hadn’t heard of it, and will look it up!

    2. Steve,

      I read Wikipedia’s summary of the plot (Spoilers!). Wow. What is your reaction to the film?

      Adam might be a better person. I don’t know if he will ever trust a woman again. More interesting is Evelyn. What will be her fate? My guess is that she will do well in life. As in Psalm 37:35, evil flourishes like a great Bay tree.

    3. What’s the point of accommodating yourself to a woman and settling into a long-term relationship if she can end it all with a phone call? You need to stay light on your feet and be long gone before the police show up and go VAWA on your ass.

    4. Dave,

      You go to the heart of the matter, as I note in this post — and Darock often discusses at his website.

      Marriage is a contract. Ronald Reagan (saint of “conservatives”) led the movement by States to radically revise (ex post) the contract. Now either party can opt out. The concern was that men would opt out (“trade up” to younger wives). In fact the incentives of community property and child support led to a massive wave of divorces by wives. The new system for many women is The Party of Your Life => Children => Back to Work => Divorce => Child Support & Community Property & Independence.

      Young men are told that the response is to “pick your wife carefully.” This is like showing them a lot full of shiny used cars (i.e., 28 year old women), with a warning that half will incinerate you during the next few years. How to pick the “good” cars? Nobody knows.

      Much depends on how today’s young men react to this new world in the next decade. And how women react to men’s action (there are two sets of players in this game).

    5. “What is your reaction to the film?”

      Possible spoilers…

      The closest analogy I could get to was that it was a form of grooming, like that used by paedophiles or maybe cult ‘programming’. Initially, he was clearly a better person, latterly it was also clear he was doing things not because he wanted to, but to maintain a relationship he thought he wanted.

      It seemed like a terrible critique of ‘nice’ men who’re prepared to go along with what their partner or girlfriend wants, *and* of the women who just continually raise the performance bar, as if they’re training an animal.

      It made me genuinely angry which is unusual for me, I know films are all fake, and at the end someone yells CUT and everyone goes home, but this one got under my skin. Subsequently, I’ve thought about it a lot and tried to take on board some of the points I think it makes.

      I heard something once. Whoever cares *least* about a relationship is the one that holds the power.

      It explains a lot about what we see around us.

    6. Steve,

      Thank you for your analysis of this provocative film.

      From reading the plot summary, the ending is the most interesting. There are somewhat similar stories with the genders reversed. Most famously, the classic story Pygmalion and Shaw’s play of that name (and the 1938 film). And countless Harlequin romance stories using the same plot. But their tone is different because they end differently — the man falls in love with his creation (no matter how base his motive in “creating” her).

      The brutal abandonment of the man who loves her gives the film its power. Worth some thought as to how that shows the evolution (or devolution) of our culture.

    1. goliah,

      (1) “Marriage is a flawed institution”

      Can you name an institution which isn’t “flawed.”

      (2) “necessary to correct the ‘crooked timber’ that is human nature”

      You want to correct the “‘crooked timber’ that is human nature”? Good luck with that. Lots of folks have tried that in the long pageant of history. Can you name a few who have succeeded?

      Successful social reformers have instead harnessed human nature to higher ends, building on “low but solid ground.” From Allan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind:

      “The old moral order, however imperfect it may have been, at least moved toward the virtues by way of the passions. If men were self-concerned, that order tried to expand the scope of self-concern to include others, rather than commanding men to cease being concerned with themselves. To attempt the latter is both tyrannical and ineffective. A true political or social order requires the soul to be like a Gothic cathedral, with selfish stresses and strains helping to hold it up.

      “Abstract moralism condemns certain keystones, removes them, and then blames both the nature of the stones and the structure when it collapses.”

  10. Our career service members are very vulnerable to these changes in marriage and famIly. Military retirement pay is forced to be placed at risk in state family courts thanks to the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA). This, coupled with the trends of divorce, property division, and child support, often leave service members impoverished following divorce. Let’s see if the so-called conservatives will repeal the USFSPA.

    1. David,

      I didn’t know that. Given the high number of women who divorce their husbands who are deployed overseas, I would have hoped that the military would give them special protection. I guess that is too much to expect these days.

      Here is a description of the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA).

      “Let’s see if the so-called conservatives will repeal the USFSPA.”

      These days “conservatives” are more likely to ally with radical feminists and strengthen and expand USFSPA. See Dalrock’s posts about conservatives (esp Christian conservatives) war on the traditional family.

    2. If your country thinks it’s OK for your wife to cuckold and divorce you while you’re deployed, you’re fighting for the wrong side. I hear some guys are forced to leave the military because the family judge thinks he could earn more in the private sector and imputes a higher income.

      The plunder will continue until divorced men start getting homicidal toward the family court system, sowing confusion and terror by picking off judges and lawyers not connected to their particular cases. This hasn’t happened yet, probably because men who’d do such a thing emit a thuggish vibe that keeps their women loyal.

    3. Dave,

      Sad but true. This was a problem in WWII, and has gotten much worse.

      “men start getting homicidal toward the family court system”

      I think that’s not likely. As in the film War Games, the only way to win is not to play. My guess (guess!) is that in the next decade many young men will take that path. That and how women will react will shape our future.

  11. With the coming of legalized gay marriage along with a fashionable trans trend, the ground shifts in marriage law and custom have barely begun. Polygamy will become more common as more women choose to share the top dogs rather than settle for less. Men unable or unwilling to marry will use technological solutions. Despite any and all laws, prostitution is likely to spread from cities to suburbs and hamlets where they were previously more rare.

    But do not be surprised at an unexpected resurgence of conservative traditionalism just when you least expect it. Mormons, Mennonites, and Amish stand as outliers, but a lot of conservative Catholics and fundamentalist Baptists etc. are procreating well above the mean. These offspring raised in conservative environs and schooled at home will be carriers of a completely different outlook.

    Also, ignore the Jordan Peterson phenomenon at the risk of being blindsided.

    1. Bill,

      (1) “the ground shifts in marriage law and custom have barely begun.”

      That’s an important reminder — or wake-up call!

      (2) “a lot of conservative Catholics and fundamentalist Baptists etc. are procreating well above the mean.”

      Color me skeptical that this is a big deal. BUT I can’t find data on the changes in fertility among different religions in the US. And the fertility numbers themselves are confusing because of the shift in childbearing to later ages.

      There is one religion where higher fertility probably will lead to substantial demographic change: Islam. Already europe’s culture is accomodating itself to its new cultural leaders. This process tends to generate positive feedbacks (i.e., accelerating the trend) — and snowballs.

  12. From a legalistic perspective, there is possible defense against badly written marriage laws.
    Prenuptial agreements can sharply constrain the idea of marriage as a slanted deal.
    So there are remedies. The question is why are they not being used more widely?

    My guess is that we are in a transition, there are still many who believe in the ‘marriage myth’.
    That will be a fading percentage, as reality does seep in eventually. Indeed, as the number of marriageable men available declines, basic economics would suggest women might embrace that aspect as a differentiator.

    Still seems to me that the missing element in this discussion is the kids, they need parenting by both sexes for a long time to become productive elements of our culture. Of course they can also grow up feral, but that does not help sustain the culture. Yet the various discussions, here as well as elsewhere, treat kids as adjuncts, they ‘appear despite intent’ as was said, but they don’t get brought up properly unless they are the focus of the effort.

    All the above discussion appears focused on people of reproductive age, the old and the young really don’t appear at all. If this is how our academics think of how people function, they are more blinkered than I thought.

    1. etudiant,

      Your comment foreshadows tomorrow’s post!

      “basic economics would suggest women might embrace that aspect as a differentiator.”

      How women behave will have a massive effect. But forecasts by feminists and MRA both assume that only one sex changes — and that the other will just accept. That’s quite daft. This is the big reason I find such forecasts to be unlikely.

      “Yet the various discussions, here as well as elsewhere, treat kids as adjuncts”

      You misinterpret these posts. Traditional western social structures provide incentives for men to join the “rat race”, instead of drifting (min work and risk, max leisure). Now those incentives are largely gone. Women still want kids, however.

      “the old and the young really don’t appear at all.”

      We’re not describing the Cosmic All. It’s a focused discussion about a few aspects of family formation and maintenance in the USA.

  13. I’ve seen variations of this on several posts:

    “For example, nothing here helps prevent the divorce-child support trap. From the perspective of many women, the current “reformed” version of marriage is wonderful. The man can’t expect her to change (fight patriarchy!). She gets the party of her life. The guy provides legitimacy to her children and her, and helps raise them through the labor intensive first few years. Once they are in school, divorce – a stream of child support – and independence! What’s not to like? The incentives to follow this script are large, like seeing money on the ground.

    What do men get out of this?”

    I’ve wondered if there are any studies or references to this as a deliberate strategy. Do you know about some papers or studies on this?

    I would guess (as you say guess!) that it may look this way to many men burned by the divorce/family court system, but maybe it’s just the result of this transition. Too many women (and many men) still looking for that old-style “Leave It To Beaver” and Disney princess (ie. media promoted) vision of marriage as “love conquers all” then find out the deck is stacked against both of them after a few years. Family life has gotten orders of magnitude harder as couples struggle to deal with following their own individual dreams, careers and goals while coping with a lack of supporting institutions, increasing costs (with stagnant pay), constant work stress, worrying about losing a job, and little or no support from extended family anymore. Plus the lack of community support in most places these days. It’s a lot harder than it used to be even a generation ago to raise a family and keep a marriage together. Enough stress and eventually a relationship that was supportive turns to just another burden in an over-stressed life and someone opts out. The feminist ideal of never compromising your own wants and needs certainly doesn’t help, but I think it may be just one factor among many putting stress on marriage and relationships.

    Even back in the mid-80’s when I was a university student, I supported the basic idea of feminism: women are human beings and should have the same human rights as men. Plus equal pay for equal work. But I didn’t really accept the newer, more baroque, post-modern feminism. And I worried even then that squaring the circle of having two individuals following their separate dreams, careers and goals without compromise but staying together in a relationship or marriage, might turn out to be impossible. Today, it looks very difficult if not impossible. I don’t know what the answer is – we decided to abandon the old model but don’t really have a new one yet. Or even any good ideas for a new social structure.

    It’s going to be an interesting ride.

    I’ve lived in Japan for over 20 years, and Japan is having problems with marriage, family, children and relationships as well (you’ve mentioned the declining population in several posts). Some men in Japan are opting out – search on the “Grass Eating Men” to see a new movement among young men to not date or get married, but just live a relaxed life pursuing their own interests. And in a quieter way, women are voting with their bodies by marrying later, working longer and having fewer (or no) children.

    My wife is Thai and Thailand is undergoing a transition as well as it gets more affluent. Marriage among the poorer classes has almost collapsed due to a combination of men feeling that their increasing affluence grants them the polygamous right of traditional aristocracy (ie. lots and lots of cheating and mistresses). Meanwhile, women are gaining more ability to work and support themselves and are not tolerating this – telling the men to take a hike.

    1. Stan,

      “I’ve wondered if there are any studies or references to this as a deliberate strategy.”

      I don’t know. Social sciences are hopeless mired in feminist bias AND a severe replication crisis. The combination has a brutal impact on its utility. Also, studies of intent with respect to dark deeds are difficult. The resulting underreporting probably would be immense.

      More usefully, we have decades of research showing that people respond to economic and social incentives. Make divorce socially acceptable and economically attractive. Do you really need women to admit that’s why they are divorcing to see cause and effect?

  14. Great post. Very interesting topic.

    I think another related post by Dalrock had recently hit home the fact that there simply is no “marriage strike”.
    At least not yet.
    Now, perhaps there is a change in the Zeitgeist across many factors in that society which has been brewing underneath the surface in recent years that has not yet manifested itself into the numbers.
    If true, then the sad thing as always, is that it takes considerable time to diagnose the real “cause” and by then it’s almost always too late to try to remedy the issue from a governmental, legal, financial and social policy perspective in a correct or effective way.

    For example, how in the hell does one rectify the now massive inequity caused by 62% of all bachelors degrees being earned by women since 1979? How do you rectify decades of overt, retributive, sexist, preferential female admissions policies, female-only scholarships and grants, and female preferential hiring practices (diversity quotas, EOE, etc.)? The answer is you can’t. The damage is done. There were no net gains here.

    The interesting post from Dalrock mentioned that there is no marriage strike. What is happening is that women are successfully waiting out their options for as long as possible – by almost 10+ years longer than their sisters of 1980 did. Then, after the “whatever” period of delay, they are getting married. Notice how few U.S. women age 45 are “never married” in their lives.

    So no matter what her mental and physical state from 28 years + (divorced, healthy/unhealthy, already mother of children, cock carousel cowgirl extraordinaire, eaten-prayed-loved), it does not matter. Women are still finding husbands.

    Now, the quality of such husbands and the longevity of their marriages to them?
    Nothing conclusive on this, but probably not good.
    Nothing has changed from a financial and legal responsibility aspect for men and women in marriage since 1970 – Women hold all of the legal and financial authority and have literally no responsibility or accountability under marriage. Meanwhile, men are burdened with ALL of the legal and financial responsibility and accountability, but have been stripped entirely of ANY marital authority (financial, legal or otherwise). With 4 generations of divorced families, it’s pretty much impossible that young men do not to notice what happened to their fathers, uncles and brothers.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/7b31li/percentage_of_us_women_never_married_by_age_1980/

    The macro impact of the marriage decline is so “OMG what will happen to society? Think of the women! What about the children?”

    But what is almost always missing from the discussion is the question of incentives.
    Men previously married women for distinct reasons and a measure of surety and certainty regarding incentives (benefits).
    All of those benefits have been effectively destroyed by gynocentrism.

    These male benefits were:

    1. Access to unlimited sexuality (frequent sex and intimacy)
    2. Feminine companionship
    3. Genetic heirs (children, and some reasonable assurance that they are in fact HIS children)
    4. Social status, respect, authority

    First, most marriages in the west are in fact sexless now. Even unmarried single Americans are having less sex. This is not even debatable, especially with the educational and career gains made by women over 50 years, and the impact of social media, personal devices (internet, cell phones, dildos and sex dolls), and the proliferation of free pornography online.

    Second, it’s not nice to say perhaps, but western women are simply not feminine anymore. They are not even healthy, as almost 65-70% of women and men are currently coping with obesity. Further, for almost 50 years girls and women have been heavily socialized, education and encouraged to compete aggressively with men and to otherwise behave aggressively toward each other – verbally and physically. Moreover, the predominant attitude of modern western women toward men almost everywhere – in education, the workplace, sexual relationships, marriage and post-marriage – is one of suspicion, disintegrating tolerance, and disdain. They are not even hiding or denying this. It’s right out in the open.

    Women will insist that THEY are the ones re-defining femininity for the modern time. And that is all well and good.
    They can certainly do that.
    But what women DO NOT decide is whether MEN wish to devote their time, attention, resources, protection to this repellent mix of confrontation, control, attitude and ingratitude over his lifetime. The divorce rate is declining because fewer people are married. But the gun is always in the room for men. The only question is whether your loving wife on any given day still possesses the benevolence not to use it.
    These are massive disincentives at the front of mind of aware men before even considering marriage.

    Third, female hypergramy is now completely unchecked and approved. There is no shame anymore in pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex or serial sex-only relationships. Men have zero reproductive rights in the West, and zero legal and financial assurances for his parental investment. Even if a father forms a family with his wife, she can detonate the marriage at any time and depending on her whim can ensure he never sees his children again. A wife can get pregnant from other sires and never disclose this to her husband, and the state will hold him accountable for their financial support. Men have no assurance here. These are significant disincentives for men to marry and form families.

    Fourth, suffice it to say that the two least venerated, most openly ridiculed in the media and frequently mistrusted and publicly despised positions in modern western society are none other than husband and father. There’s very little middle ground. Husband aand fathers are portrayed and regarded largely as human wallets, sexless buffoons or as potentially dangerous pedophiles, abusers or even rapists. A father attempts to pick up his own daughter from her middle school, or checks into one hotel room with his own daughter and we see what happens and the kinds of thoughts people have detonate in their brains.

    There is no incentive for men to marry. Only legal and financial risk and liability.
    The benefits have been effectively swept away to nothing.
    Men get nothing from the deal.
    So they are responding accordingly.

    So what is the problem anymore that even needs solving?

    It is interesting to me how anyone would be shocked or dismayed, let alone believe that we have somehow arrived at the wrong destination.

    We are exactly where we are supposed to be on this entire question.

    Aren’t we?

    1. Locus,

      I’m skeptical of these graphs, esp posted at Reddit. Here is a graph of percent never married over time, with a projectiong. From Pew Research, Sept 2014. Note that in terms of western history (and more so human history), marriage rates in post-WWII US were extraordinarily high. They’re neither “natural” or “typical.” Ditto for age at first marriage, which has varied very widely during history.

       

      PEW poll of the never married, September 2014

  15. What’s in marriage for me? Nothing.

    • What’s going to be given me in exchange for dealing day to day with your foul fat unfeminine daughter? Nothing.
    • What moral suasion can you produce to convince me to man up and marry these whores? None.
    • What recourse does society have to make me find some obese heifer and wife her up? None.
    • How much do I care if Traditional Conservatives call me names cause I dont want to marry their vile offspring? Not one whit.
    • How much do I care if the woman I just got my rocks off with wants a relationship? I don’t.
    • How much do I care about women’s issues as a whole? Exactly as much as they demonstrably care about men’s issues (i.e. NONE!)
    • How much do I care about society after it helped women screw over men on a massive scale? I don’t.
    • How much of the moral and societal contract applies to women in general ..i.e. chivalry? Absolutely none whatsoever.
    • How much trouble do I have getting someone to sleep with me? None to very little. lots of casual prospects.
    • How much do I care if this hurts someone’s little feelings? I don’t.
    • What viability does a longterm sex life have with a woman? None.
    • What is her value 4 years in compared to porn or sexdolls? Minimal to zero.

    In 10 years many men will be ignorant of the truth about how horrid women behave inside a modern marriage? Hopefully the answer will be identical to the previous responses.

    None. Nilch. Nada. Zero. Nope.

    1. Just a Vet reminds us of forgotten wisdom.

      (1) Socialization of men is essential for a society’s survival.

      (2) It is not an automatic process. Barbarism is the default process in our “BIOS.” In the BIOS of both men and women.

      (3) Socialization is not, as it is often described, a process of indoctrination. It means offering men a more attractive deal than barbarism.

      (4) The forgotten bottom line: people like Just a Vet are tinder on the forest floor, ready for a spark to become a wildfire. More specifically, they are isolated — ready for new values to give their lives meaning. Ready for leaders so they can reforge society. It’s an old story. In Western history we have had good values and good leaders (e.g., Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, George Washington). That’s a rarity in history. Perhaps we have just been lucky, and our luck has run out.

  16. (1) Socialization of men is essential for a society’s survival.

    Why should a man support or enhance the very society that considers him as just a workhorse, a money maker, a scapegoat or the problem solver for issues he had nothing to do with?

    (2) It is not an automatic process. Barbarism is the default process in our “BIOS.” In the BIOS of both men and women.

    True. That’s why men’s must be surpressed/channeled/shamed out of him and women’s is nurtured and shown how to get what they want for their own benefit. SOCIETY benefits at the cost of individual thought.

    (3) Socialization is not, as it is often described, a process of indoctrination. It means offering men a more attractive deal than barbarism.

    That USED to be true. Looking at the deal that is offered, the cost/risk reward, and the current view of men as either a weakling, not as skilled or strong as his forefathers or willing to sacrifice themselves to protect others shows that the indoctrination worked…too well, just as planned.

    (4) The forgotten bottom line: people like Just a Vet are tinder on the forest floor, ready for a spark to become a wildfire. More specifically, they are isolated — ready for new values to give their lives meaning. Ready for leaders so they can reforge society. It’s an old story. In Western history we have had good values and good leaders (e.g., Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, George Washington). That’s a rarity in history. Perhaps we have just been lucky, and our luck has run out.

    Do they need leaders? They seem to be leading themselves, and men look at men who do it better than themselves and follow the actions or ask ‘how did you do that’? Every man has to ask the questions ‘what in this for ME?’, ‘WHY should I go this way or choose this path?’ and ‘WHO am I doing this for?’ and deep down he knows HE is the only one who can answer HIS questions.

    ‘Good’ men haven’t left. They just see their values wouldn’t be wanted in the current society and that such goodness is expected, not appreciated these days. The juice isn’t worth the squeeze anymore.

    1. Waralpha,

      (1) “Why should a man support or enhance the very society that considers him as just a workhorse”

      Yes, that’s my point. In the For More Info section you will see links to a dozen posts exploring this in more detail.

      (2) “That’s why men’s must be surpressed/channeled/shamed out of him”

      No. Successful cultures find ways to integrate the core nature (what I call BIOS, using a computer metaphor) of men and women to higher goals.

      (3) “That USED to be true.”

      Ditto, see above.

      (4) “Do they need leaders? They seem to be leading themselves”

      That’s the dream of self-empowerment, the alluring path to weakness. Women gain strength from the mechanisms of the tribe (from family to State). Men gain strength by standing together. We automatically organize into hierarchies and specialists. Pointing to the few examples of men standing alone ignores the majority who cannot well do so. For good reason: we are pack animals.

      That nature made us the top predators on the planet before the invention of metal tools. Tech has magnified the power of groups. Those who wish us to be weak encourage us to be isolated. They are our most dangerous foes.

  17. It’s been a long comment thread, and the article is a little old now, but I had meant to come back and say that I think the main thing that men need at this point is control over their fertility.

    We need a contraceptive pill. It would be as empowering for men as the contraceptive pill has been for women, though I suspect that one of the results would be more men avoiding any form of long term commitment in relationships as there are no children to bind them.

    1. “It’s been a long comment thread, and the article is a little old now, but I had meant to come back and say that I think the main thing that men need at this point is control over their fertility.

      We need a contraceptive pill. It would be as empowering for men as the contraceptive pill has been for women, though I suspect that one of the results would be more men avoiding any form of long term commitment in relationships as there are no children to bind them.” Actually while a “contraceptive pill” might be helpful to men we don’t actually need it.

      We already have what we “need” which is our God given ability to make judgements regarding our lives and homes..and the willingness to say “No”. There is an old joke: “When does NO actually really mean NO? When a man says it..that’s when.”

      We are saying “No”. It doesn’t matter what new declaration is made. We are saying “No”.

      It doesn’t matter what arguement is made. We are saying “No”.

      It doesn’t matter if women have a “change of heart”. We are saying “No”.

      It doesn’t matter if she says she was different then. We are saying “No”.

      We don’t care if she was harassed, assaulted or says she was raped. We are saying “No”.

      We don’t care what bribes or promises are offered. We are saying “No”.

      It doesn’t matter if it breaks the Union. We are saying “No”.

      It doesn’t matter if it wrecks Western Civilization and destroys Christendom. We are saying “No”.

      No matter what preacher or prelate or patriarch says women as a whole can be reformed. We are saying “No”.

      No matter what psychologist tells us we are mistaken. that these other humans are our equals in virtue, are trustworthy..are worthy of our everything. We are saying “No”.

      Let’s be very clear. We are saying “No”. We are saying “No”. We are saying “No”. Civilization doesn’t get a do-over. You have only a few options..
      1. Make women somehow capable of doing it all without us (technology maybe)
      2. Pray for mercy from the Highest

      Why? We are saying “No”. We Walk Away. Lay your troubles on the Lord. you won’t lay them on us.

    2. I remember reading it your post. I’ve begun to think that the male pill is like Fusion power and the newest revolutionary battery technology. It’s always n years away. I was rummaging around and all I could find were a number of trials that had been halted because of side effects.

      The trial that was abandoned in 2016 https://theconversation.com/why-the-male-pill-is-still-so-hard-to-swallow-68133 appeared to me (at least) to have had largely acceptable side effects and should have been allowed to continue.

      It always seems to be jam tomorrow…

    3. Steve,

      Too true. I don’t know if a male pill is technically too difficult, or if this is another example of our female-focused health care system (e.g., disproportionate spending on breast cancer vs. prostate cancer).

  18. More mindless dribble from the brain dead. Marriage offers nothing to men period. MGTOW gentlemen. Your life is all that matters. Screw society and all its rules and social norms. If we cease to exsist…..tough. Women brought it on themselves.

    1. TP,

      Some men whine.

      Real men reform society to work better, building a better future for humanity. We know which group is remembered. Which group is honored.

  19. TP is not whining and neither am I. I didn’t whine when those sexual assaults occurred in Cologne during New Years; I let the schadenfreude flow over me and I LAUGHED because the feminists and leftists brought it on themselves. Its pretty hard to whine when I am too busy laughing. I laughed at that video where one skinny male “migrant” was mopping the floor with 3 Swedish female police. That “Wonder Woman” moment where one of them kicked him and sent him flying like he was filled with Styrofoam never happened.

    There is no reforming a society that is in a death spiral.

    Western civilization needs to be burned to the ground in a flood of fire and death. And then rebuilt, if there is anyone left who can do so.

    This is just another chapter in history. The end of Western civilization approaches; turn the page.

    I used to be one of the sheepdogs spoken of in “American Sniper”. I no longer care for the “sheep”; they can reap what they sowed.

    There are a few things I can guarantee. Not one drop of blood from any member of my family will ever be shed defending Europe from their own stupidity. America has shed a lot of coin and blood bailing out Europe from their own stupidity, WWI, WWII, the Cold War. I don’t care if an Islamic horde ends up rounding up Europeans into death camps; my family is sitting this one out.

    As far as I’m concerned, it is not a marriage strike. In a strike, the workers ultimately want to go back to work after concessions are granted. Women want it ALL because they are greedy and hypergamist and won’t even grant minor concessions. I think female behavior has escalated to such a level I consider the bridges to be burned. There is no going back.

    1. Alan,

      I feel sorry for you. Let’s hope you are a rare bird.

      You are, however, correct about one thing: you are not whining.

Leave a Reply