The coming crash of marriage: why, and what’s next.

Summary: For Generation Z, marriage will go from our dominant social institution to a minority preference. We have changed the two foundations, but still expect it to function. Here is some speculation about the crash of our most important institution.

Death of Marriage

Prediction: Marriage rates are slowly falling. They will drop a lot in Generation Z (those born roughly in 1995-2005). The reasons are obvious. Only feminist ideology prevents us from seeing this, and preparing.

Why did men marry in modern America?

Understanding this is the key to reforming marriage. First the reward for marriage was patriarchy. In a patriarchal system, a good wife was wonderful. She provided a boost to a man’s ego, an aid to his career, a wonderful home. The family defined his existence and gave meaning to his life.

Second, even with that reward women still had to entice men to join the rat race. They dressed to attract the “male gaze” (stocking and pantyhose, skirts and dresses, makeup and nice hair). They deferred to men, pretending that men had “headship” in the home.

Marriage was the essence of bourgeois life. It was the pursuit of respectability, prosperity, and security. Men became domesticated. They married when they were supposed to. They worked hard to support their families. They raised kids when she wanted them. When she wanted another man, he quietly bowed out without fuss. When she wanted a divorce (about 40% of marriages), he bowed and wrote the checks as ordered by the woman-friendly courts.

The Left hated bourgeois life, as seen in their countless books and films about the horrors of suburban life in 1950’s America. They worked for generations to destroy it. Now they have succeeded. Both those supports for marriage have gone away.

Feminism liberated women from the oppression of patriarchy. They have a new world of opportunities. Now they can dress to please themselves. They can treat marriage as an option (not an irreversible choice) and pursue independence instead of husbands. All this is right and proper under the rules that govern the West.

Although its foundations have washed away, marriage remains a powerful institution due to momentum. Much like the cartoon coyote racing off a cliff, we continue to run as if there was still ground under our feet. But that is only a phase in the process of change.

Insanity is changing the foundation
but expecting the building to remain the same.

Effects of the new form of marriage

“It’s important that the children hear us talking with one voice. And that voice is mine.”
— Maureen Robinson (engineer, wife, mother, commander of the Jupiter 2, matriarch of her family) to her husband (a former SEAL) in episode 2 of the new “Lost in Space”.

Reformers seldom asked how these reforms changed the risk and rewards of marriage for men. Without patriarchy as a reward, what did marriage do for men? Without women working to entice men into marriage, might other pursuits seem more attractive to young men? Men are free agents, just as women are. They can choose other paths, just as women can.

Men now can easily get sex without marriage, as social reforms shifted the sexual market balance to favor men (see Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin).

By bourgeois norms, men become respectable through marriage. Freed from those, men can pursue cheaper sources of fun: porn, computer games, sports, and drugs.

By bourgeois norms, a placid and secure life is the highest goal. Men can die young in the harness of the rat race, or die at an advanced age in a nursing home. Freed from bourgeois norms, men can adopt older values. Such as partying hard and enjoying the unique thrills of high-risk activities. Nobody lives forever, so we can burn brightly in the few years we have! Alexander the Great died at 33, but lived a fuller life than most divorced men. We cannot be him, but we can admire and learn from him.

Thou know’st it’s common; all that lives must die,
Passing through nature to eternity.
— Queen Gertrude to Hamlet (Act I, scene 2).

Freeing men from the attractions of bourgeois family life brings another opportunity to society. In the bourgeois life, men’s wives and children are his hostages to fortune. They weld men’s allegiance to the current regime. “Better a hundred years of tyranny than a day of chaos.” Freed from the traditional loyalties that give meaning to life, men can seek new and more exciting projects. The thrills of revolution no longer have large costs and risks to him. The time and energy formerly devoted to the rat race can contribute to new and larger projects. There are fewer impediments to the growth of fanatical movements capable of reshaping society.

Peter Pan syndrome

Bien pensant feminists write books and articles mocking young men who refuse to marry modern women and join the rat race. The men have the “Peter Pan” syndrome. But Peter Pan is a feminized version of boys, a young soyboy. That’s why Peter is usually played by a young woman. Generation Z might remind us of the true nature of young men, once unleashed.

“Unless you expect the unexpected you will never find truth, for it is difficult to discover.”
— Heraclitus, the pre-Socratic “Weeping Philosopher” of Ionia. But if you wait long enough, it will smack you in the face.

For more information

See the numbers about marriage and fertility: “No Ring, No Baby: How Marriage Trends Impact Fertility” by Lyman Stone at the Institute for Family Studies.

Ideas! For 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 society and gender issuesabout feminismabout marriage, and especially these …

  1. Men are going Galt. Marriage is dying. — A review of books from the cutting edge of the revolution.
  2. Men are abandoning the rat race, & changing American society. — See the data.
  3. Why men are avoiding work and marriage.
  4. Will young men break America’s family structure?
  5. Will today’s young men marry? America’s future depends which of these answers is right.
  6. The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
  7. The rising number of celibate men: it’s an alarm.

An important book about marriage in the 21st century

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

Men on Strike:
Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters
.

By Helen Smith.

She is a psychologist specializing in “forensic issues” in Knoxville TN. She has a PhD and two MA’s in something or other. From the publisher about this book…

“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.”

25 thoughts on “The coming crash of marriage: why, and what’s next.

  1. News from the UK

    Rise of women backing out of divorces as court settlements shrink” by Olivia Rudgard in The Telegraph, 8 May 2018.

    Women are backing out of divorce cases because settlements are becoming less generous, experts have said. Fewer wives are being awarded income for life and they are increasingly having their divorce settlement limited to a few years. This is making some of them back off from going through with a split, law firms say.

    In a landmark case in 2014, the High Court ruled that judges should prioritise a “transition to independence”, even if this involved “a degree of (not undue) hardship”. Figures from the Ministry of Justice published last year show that orders for ongoing payments had fallen by five per cent since 2011, while lump sum orders, which allow for a clean break, had risen by 10 per cent over the same period.

    Manchester-based law firm Hall Brown handled 380 divorce cases over the past year, 30 of which were later shelved because the couple eventually decided not to go ahead. The law firm said the trend was driven by wives, and other lawyers added that the less generous approach to maintenance had become a “disincentive to divorce”. James Brown, managing partner at Hall Brown, said many divorcing couples “may have little genuine insight into their true financial circumstances and might have second thoughts when told about the settlement which they may receive”.

    Last month, divorcee Kim Waggott lost out on a lifetime of annual maintenance payments after going back to court to challenge her 2012 settlement, which provided her with income of £175,000 a year for the rest of her life, on top of a £9.76 million lump sum. But the move backfired when the judge ruled that her maintenance payments should cease after three years, overturning the earlier decision.

    In 2015 a judge said Tracey Wright, the ex-wife of a successful racehorse surgeon, who was seeking to stop her annual maintenance being stopped, should “go out to work and support herself.” “The wife had done nothing since 2008 to look for work, retrain or to prepare herself for work,” Lord Justice Pitchford said.

    Charmaine Hast, partner and head of family at Wedlake Bell LLP said: “From my experience, now that the court’s attitude is that in every case the termination of spousal maintenance must be considered even if there is a degree of hardship, spouses, particularly wives, have become more reluctant to pursue divorce.”

    Toby Hales, partner in the family team at law firm Seddons, said it was “very rare now to see a maintenance order now that is to be paid for the rest of one’s life”. “This is a very different approach, and there is no doubt that the expected level of generosity of the Courts has diminished significantly,” he said. “The other primary disincentive arises from the cost of the process. “Lawyers are not cheap, and if people are not able to agree the settlement of their matrimonial finances, they can look forward to spending potentially tens of thousands of pounds on the process – not an attractive proposition when the value of the outcome can now be significantly reduced.”

  2. Is it cohabitation generally? Or is it just formal marriage, with cohabitation taking up some of the decline? I have found stats on Europe, and it seems to be a mixture – cohabitation is falling, but its not falling as fast as marriage because informal arrangements are replacing at least some marriages.

    The UK is talking about civil partnerships for anyone. That amounts to a redefinition of marriage. If they actually did it, we might see marriage decline, but it would be replacement by civil partnership.

    One motivation for this might be the astronomical and rising expense of conventional marriages – renting the hall, catering etc. People have attempted to bypass this by getting married abroad – Thailand is anecdotally a place wither the British go. Don’t know any numbers.

    I’m puzzled by one thing in this narrative. How can it be that sex is more readily available for men than ever, celibacy among men on the rise, and women be looking vainly for men to marry them? Does this make sense as a picture? I understand Larry’s narrative of the carousel, is that what is going on? That its actually not available at all for a substantial minority? But for the others, it has become ‘cheap sex’?

    1. “I’m puzzled by one thing in this narrative. How can it be that sex is more readily available for men than ever, celibacy among men on the rise, and women be looking vainly for men to marry them? Does this make sense as a picture? I understand Larry’s narrative of the carousel, is that what is going on? That its actually not available at all for a substantial minority? But for the others, it has become ‘cheap sex’?”

      I assumed Larry just meant that sex is easily available for men outside of marriage because their girlfriends are fine with banging them before they put a ring on it, whereas in an earlier time cohabitating or openly sleeping with a bunch of dudes was much more socially taboo. Picking up new chicks all the time isn’t easy for most males.

    2. Dark,

      These things change over time. Sex outside of an engagement was difficult for men to get before the 1960s (it had been becoming easier for several generations before). This refers to the population of men, most men, the “average guy.”

      There is a second factor at work — distributional. For unknown reasons (we don’t have the data to tell us), more men are being locked out (those with lower sexual market value) or dropping out of the “dating game” (ie, premarital sex).

      Access to sex for men can become easier while more men are becoming celibate. Most are getting more while some are getting less.

      For more about this, see the posts about Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy by Professor Mark Regnerus

    3. George,

      (1) “How can it be that sex is more readily available for men than ever, celibacy among men on the rise, and women be looking vainly for men to marry them?”

      You are conflating three very different factors.

      (a) “More readily” refers to the population. Ie, more readily available to most.

      (b) Rising number of celebates refers to distribution. Ie, that the bottom is getting locked out (or dropping out).

      (c) “Women wanting to marry” is completely unrelated to the number of unmarried men having sex.

      (2) “Or is it just formal marriage, with cohabitation taking up some of the decline?”

      That’s missing the point. The relevant factor is the arrangement that produces children, and the laws that regulate it. Cohabitation is less stable than marriage (i.e., far higher break-up rates), hence producing larger numbers of single mothers. For children, cohabitation replacing marriage is a form of decline, not “taking up some of the decline.”

      There is a second factor for society: fertility is lower in cohabitation than in marriage. For obvious reasons.

      (3) “If they actually did it, we might see marriage decline, but it would be replacement by civil partnership.”

      These discussions are obscured by people’s fascination with labels. They’re not magic.

    4. I don’t know how to reply to Larry Kummer”s comment:

      “There is a second factor at work — distributional. For unknown reasons (we don’t have the data to tell us), more men are being locked out (those with lower sexual market value) or dropping out of the “dating game” (ie, premarital sex).”

      OKCupid did a post about this (it’s gone now, except the archived version); it is the 80/20 rule. 80% of women going for 20% of the guys. That causes cheap sex for the 20% and no sex for the bottom 20% of men.
      https://archive.is/kn0NC

      I would have to dig around but I have seen a curve explaining that the guys peak their interest for marriage at 26 and then it drops off. Today’s women enjoy the party lifestyle, don’t want to marry until ~29 and by default want an older guy; however, by then (30+) men aren’t as interested, especially with high SMV.

    5. Karoly,

      Yes, I’ve see the same data. The 80% – 20% story does not match the data. See the book Cheap Sex for detailed survey results. But the bottom 20% are, as the data clearly shows, some combo of dropping our and frozen out.

      We don’t have enough reliable data to say more at this point.

  3. …and of course with the decline in Marriages (something that Feminists want)….Women’s power will also vanish (something that Feminists do NOT want).
    Economically speaking…… Women’s power is entirely dependent on her ability to control the “household’s finances” so…..No Marriage = No Household finances to control.

    What they will tell you…..
    *Women make 65% of new car purchase decisions.
    *Women make up to 52% of all new vehicle purchases including trucks and influence 80% of purchases.
    *Over the next decade, women will control two-thirds of all consumer wealth in the United States.
    *74.9% of women identified themselves as the primary shoppers for their households.

    What they will NOT tell you…..
    They only control these….because they are married and have control over the household’s finances.
    So without the MEN’s paycheck every month (no marriage)…..women’s power will vanish.

    The “Future is Female”…. simply means Massive Credit Card and Student debt that will never be cleared.

    https://girlpowermarketing.com/statistics-purchasing-power-women/

    1. The Sick Man,

      That’s true today, but might not be true tomorrow. Women are slowly moving ahead of men in education. They have higher graduation rates at every level, better grades on average, and higher participation in higher levels of ed. That will lock-in advantages for them in the job market.

      Women’s wages have equaled men for those in their 20s. This will slow advance thru the age brackets. Childbirth and job selection will keep women’s wages below those of men, but the gap is and will continue to narrow.

      So women’s purchasing power from their own paychecks will increase — but drop as marriage rates decrease, and fewer women spend men’s paychecks. On the other hand, cohabitation will to some degree replaces marriage (casual serial monogamy) — in which women will still be spending some of men’s paychecks.

      I don’t believe we can say how all these moving factors will net out. However, I see no basis for assuming that these factors will lead to “massive” credit card defaults. Big student loans defaults are likely, no matter what happens to marriage.

  4. Are we seeing the lines that will define the male population in a sort of “transition period” that could be short, long or a permanent state of things? A mass of apathetic men not pushing themselves towards anything and just making enough of a living for their needs, some giving up altogether, others trying to satisfy bigger appetites. And, on the other sides, many different iterations of more active (or desperate) men teaming up in different sorts of groups: gangs (for defense in a hostile environment, and to exploit certain needs in the apathetic mass -drugs typically), religious or ideological organizations (with a penchant for zealotry and direct action), activism of a sort or another (less extreme), leisure and spirituality groups/movements…. Some of them going “the viking way”, just trying things of any nature just to devote themselves absolutely to something not found in normal life and a society without incentives. And, of course, the nihilists.

    I’ve been curious for a while now about the situation in China (and a number of asian countries in similar situations), where the dramatic demographic inbalance between the genders has been adding up for 40 years, to the point where there could be 200 millions “missing women”, or more. Which means a gigantic surplus of men without any hope of ever starting a family, which in turn could lead to more violence in society, or a country with a more aggressive stance (because of more canon fodder, or domestic troubles to be reoriented abroad). Despite China’s gesticulations (in the south China sea and elsewhere), fundamentally, that has not happened: such a disproportion could actually be what holds the men, reinforcing their participation in the rat race and their intra-gender competition to get the available women. At least for now. A stark contrast with the developed world. If that hypothesis is right, that puts a very strong argument in favor of the mentality of the times, the zeitgeist (aka the gender wars in this case) being the prime mover in the current trends.

    1. Tancrède,

      As you say, lots of changes. I’m skeptical about our ability to accurately predict broad effects. That’s why I focus on a few factors.

      As you note, China and other Asian nations are conducting a different kind of experiment. China began the one-child policy in 1980, so that first generation is 38 years old today. There have been predictions of doom since the start, but little evidence of massive ill-effects at the society-level — so far. They phased out the program starting in 2013. Sex selection thru abortion continues, but probably with less effect without the one-child policy.

  5. “Marriage was the essence of bourgeois life. It was the pursuit of respectability, prosperity, and security.”

    I think one can say that this essence remains the case for women. A married woman escapes the label of “old maid” and “leftover woman” by getting married. Her social status, attention and respect is enhanced. She also experiences a significant boost in both legal and financial insurance, security, resources and prosperity, even if the marriage fails spectacularly in divorce. The state ensures she is taken care of.

    But does this essence of life from marriage apply to men in the same way? Hardly. Marriage is no longer a pathway for a man’s prosperity and security. Not sure that it ever was. And today, well, far from it. The likelihood of legal, financial and emotional annihilation at the hands of his loving wife via no fault divorce is higher than it has ever been, and today easier than ever before to detonate.

    And what of male respectability in marriage? Whenever one reads about the notion of male respectability within the context of marriage I think it is all one can do not to laugh out loud. It is impossible. For the two least respected, most ridiculed, derided and despised positions in western society are none other than husband and father.

    Men do indeed seek respectability. But they will never find it in marriage or from the approval of some female. Married men no longer encounter respectability from male and female youth. Not from their male peers. Not from their colleagues and co-workers. Not from society in general. And most definitely not from their own fiances and wives. Married men are buffoons, idiots and sexless wage slaves. Married men are not the kind of men that boys idolize, that other men want to be, and other women want to fuck.

    The value proposition of marriage to men has decayed into irrelevance. The romantic idealism and validational love aspect of marriage has been hacked away. All that’s left is the transactional contract and pragmatism.

    Even if you gave back to men a measure of respect, authority and power within modern marriage, this is still piss-poor compensation for what is effectively a contract obligation to unlimited legal and financial responsibility and accountability.

    1. constrainedlocus,

      The amazing thing to me is that after all the changes you describe, our society — esp the good and wise — still expect me to marry as they did before.

      Also — the point of this post was to boil your long comment down to two facts. You mention one of them, the end of patriarchy. There is a second – that women (generalizing) no longer see it as their role to attract men into marriage and keep them there.

      The combination of these two factors is revolutionary, probably beyond our ability to yet understand (except by inspired guessing). The most likely result is that marriage, as we know it today, will be a casualty. Beyond that, who can say?

    2. I often wonder, according to the mood: all that is talked here and elsewhere on that topic goes from intriguing and interesting to right as rain, in one sense, but in the other, marriage, in one form or another, has survived for millennia. There are enduring reasons for it, and it seems to me, at times (the more optimistic parts of the day or week), that it may often be a case of narcissism to see the changes we see and may deplore as if they were the turning point of history, simply because we happen to be alive while they are happening.

      The fact that there are many changes, often deep and powerful, for a few generations of people (part of them) doesn’t necessarily mean that these trends will absolutely dominate the future, whatever the social constructionists try to force on to the public scene and consciousness: the non arguments like “it is 2018” (or any year when the sentence is uttered), “be on the right side of History” (or “her-story” as the mindless drones on college campuses scream), “this is progress”…. Are stale, and in effect completely ideological: nobody knows what the “right side of history” is, and nobody can claim a monopoly on knowing what is “progress”, even if the increasingly religious sides of such ideologies tend to take the lead nowadays and rely on such phraseology to simply be assertive and claim a prophetic prominence based on…. Blind faith.

      But if I take Israel as an example, I can see, in the span of a few generations, a socialist/quasi collectivist society go quite conservative, even if the SJW/feminist mentality has a very strong hold on certain part of society and the public arena. How has it happened? Simply put, the conservative parts of society have outbred the other ones (at increasing speed since the massive migration of ex-eastern block citizens in the 90s), and many of the collectivist institutions (some really useful, sadly) have met their demise under the weight of many inefficiencies and problems (much of this I take from reading M Van Creveld). Iconically, the kibbutz system has all but disappeared in its historical form, to become a highly capitalist reality, dominated in many parts…. By orthodox jews.

      On many fronts, one can see problems in the viability of the “new world” as it may be prefigured by modern universities: a big chunk of the women in university is studying for dead end degrees or overcrowding degrees with a limited job market…. And they are getting heavily indebted to do so (I’d like to see the gender imbalance in the share of the national student debt). Moreover, a focus on career, the “carousel”, the decreasing probabilities of finding a match at or past 30-35, the anti-male mentality and the heavy weight of hypergamic tendencies all but guarantee that the more a woman will emphasize this path, the bigger the chance she will be a genetic dead end (I think it is quite regularly observed for the women with a masters degree vs those with a PHD, the latter marrying and/or reproducing a lot less).

      In short, while mostly agreeing with what is regularly said on this site, my contrarian tendencies regularly make me wonder about alternative scenarios, notably this one: the more conservative parts of society (with all their flaws and troubles, including those described here about the “evangelical feminism” of some churches) have a better chance of perpetuating themselves (and transmitting values, capital….) than the progressive parts, in the long run. The observations made by Robert Putnam about the social capital of communities (the solid-but-exclusive ones vs the “diverse-but-transient” ones, especially in the social media era) have only reinforced that lingering contrarian view that pops in my mind on occasion, when I tell myself that the apocalypse (as the second coming) will happen in my lifetime, which every generation in the history of ever has thought was the case.

  6. Firstly, I am writing from Australia, though born in the UK, so I am basically a decade behind in the trend in the US, but we are following along right on cue.

    If we were to place men and women in several categories say something like the below (with H for highly correlated, M for medium and L for low, children are a yes / no concept, so I have put H or L).
    Gender Career orientation Attitude to having children
    1.Male H H
    2. Male H L
    3.Male L/M H
    4.Male L/M L

    5.Female H H
    6.Female H L
    7.Female L/M H
    8.Female L/M L

    1 could be attractive to 5- 8, but prefer 5 and 7, for children, 5 would be double careers and hectic life, 3 would be stay at home Mom).
    2 could be attractive to all for a one night stand, but would be ideal of 6 and 8, unless 8 is an excellent cook or pretty would prefer 6
    3. only has the option of 7, who would prefer a 1.
    4. could be be attractive to 5 and 7 only if they are getting near the end of their fertile life, as a second choice, 6 most likely in a cougar situation, 8 would see 4 as the second choice.

    It is then easy to see, why some men are getting a lot of sex and other are not. I do not see men or women as overtly gold diggers, but we do view people in our own social setting, life expectations.

    If, we further postulate that men don’t mind to earn more than women and use their wages to support a family, compared to higher earning women, the really chances of 3 and 4 decline further.

    Then we could run the same exercise the other way round.
    5 would only really want a 1
    6 would only really want a 2 (or 1, and use lots of childcare services)
    7.would prefer a 1, but except 1 or 3 (would date a 2 of course early on).
    8. would prefer 1 or 2, children could be the price for the nice house and car. 3 who not be preferred, but 4 could be a fall back.

    7 (and unlucky 8) can then find single Mother hood an option if welfare higher, with occasional, probably 3 or 4 casual boyfriend.

    I have been married twice, first time 1,5, same age (basically) and divorced early, then after a few years, 1,7.

    I would guess the age gaps with 1,7/8, 2, 7/8 and 5, 3,4 and 6, 3/4 would on average be greater than the other combinations (unless looks of the 3/4 or 7/8 played a part).

  7. Story in the Guardian today. The UK does not have no fault divorce, and the pressure is on to adopt it. Mrs Owens is having an affair, wants a divorce, but her husband is refusing, and a previous court ruled that he had not been found to have behaved unreasonably. Therefore it refused to grant her petition, and she will have to wait five years. Interesting.

    Nobody’s fault but the law: Tini Owens boosts case to legalise no-fault divorce” in The Guardian, 16 May 2018.

    Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in England and Wales, anyone seeking a divorce can prove their partner is at fault through adultery, desertion or unreasonable behaviour. Alternatively, if both sides agree, they can part after two years of separation. But in the absence of consent or evidence of fault, applicants must wait until they have been living apart for five years. The Owens have only been living separate lives since 2015. …

    Owens, 67, who lives in Worcestershire, has applied to overturn a ruling by the court of appeal that her union with her husband Hugh, 79, a retired mushroom farmer, has not broken down irretrievably despite her having an affair.

    1. George,

      Thanks for posting that (I added a citation and link to your comment). Always interesting to see what’s happening in other nations. See my comment with another datapoint — quite a revealing one — from the UK.

  8. It’s wonderful not to be married and to not be pressured to marry. I luv being single and I luv not living under a woman’s rule. Feminists did destroy marriage – for me anyways. They unwittingly taught me what a terrible deal marriage is for men.

  9. Marriage was tweaked by feminists to be highly undesirable for men and a great deal for women. Women were given way too much power over men in committed relationships. NAWL, a feminist organization, wrote the no-fault divorce, alimony, asset division and child support legislation and that was used to destroy countless millions men’s lives. But the heart of the problem is really male disposability, courtly love and cultural misandry. That’s why we still have a male-only draft and ‘men last in the life boats’. That’s why the majority of state and federal spending on health, education and welfare goes to women even though men still pay the majority of taxes. Those are the real drivers of marriage’s death and men’s attitude changes regarding women. Men are seeing through the false illusions and enchantments they’re socially conditioned to believe with regard to women and their state keeper. I’m well educated, am in the top 15% of income and asset holders and want for nothing. Why would I take the enormous risk of getting married and having children when my wife would have the power to pull the rug out from under my life with a few words? I was falsely accused by a woman after a breakup decades ago, but it didn’t go anywhere because in those days men still had the right to presumption of innocence and due process. Not any more. Men lives are destroyed in kangaroo courts these days. Men are now destroyed through accusations alone. That’s barbaric. Not only won’t I get married, I won’t cohabit with a woman either. Too much risk for little reward. I value my life way too much to give a woman the power to destroy it through deception and avarice.

    I’m glad other men are waking up and opting out. Being single and entirely independent of women’s control is very easy and quite enjoyable, so long as you have the psychological wherewithal to undo the myriad social shaming and conditioning that’s used to make you feel like a loser for opting out. The whole ‘future is female’ meme is repulsive in its arrogance and audacity. Feminism jumped the shark long ago. Marriage is no longer a viable institution in men’s lives and men in general should discourage other men from engaging in feminism’s version of ‘life torture for men’.

  10. Interesting argument and approach. I note that the approach is short term – one generation only. Because there won’t be sufficient births to replace the generation which does this, and such children as there are will be as damaged as the ones we see now from single-parent raising.

    So the unasked question still remains; how can any society which follows such a demographically disastrous policy possibly survive more than 30-50 years?

    And what follows the collapse of this society?

    1. M Bailley,

      “Because there won’t be sufficient births to replace the generation which does this”

      I follow the great rule of forecasting: never give a date and a number. However, I doubt that marriage rates will crash for Gen Z that much. The few percent decline so far has been greeted with screams from women (those grown-up Peter Pans won’t commit!). Imagine what a 20% decline would do!

      But we will still have large numbers of babies from single mothers. Unless a cheap safe effective male pill becomes available (that would change everything)! Or sperm counts might continue dropping, creating a crash of another kind. But women might respond by massive use of artificial insemination from sperm donors.

      Predictions are difficult to get right.

      “such children as there are will be as damaged as the ones we see now from single-parent raising.”

      Most children from single parent families do just fine. The difference is incremental, not massive.

    2. @MBailey:

      Canada would be experiencing a population decline if it were not for immigration. The more-than-ever socialist government here, like with other countries in a similar boat, is desperate to immigrate it’s next generation of taxpayers. Of course, newcomers are often in a difficult spot and struggle to bring themselves up to speed of the Hoi Palloi. This means they are much more likely to favor socialist governments. In a sense, from a government perspective, Canadians not reproducing and justifying mass immigration of more socialist voters is a dream come true.

      The reality is for those who are NOT new, the economic challenges facing young people these days combined with the cold-feet the anti-male establishment has given young men in particular is resulting in far fewer births per capita.

      Can’t explain more spending and bigger government to a shrinking population, now can we? ;)

    3. Sid,

      The bipatisan push for open borders has another side you don’t mention: businesses want cheap, docile labor.

  11. 95′ baby here. Can confirm on an anecdotal level that there are many men in my age range that are seriously considering never marrying / having kids. Myself included. Beyond traditional conservative types (i’m in the deep south of the U.S.) I haven’t seen many marriages in my age range. Understandably, there might be more later; however, I’m seeing a growing reluctance. Video Games, Alcohol, and Careers seem to be taking precedence, and partly because the southern conservative/religious vision many men were sold isn’t coming true. There’s almost an intuitive understanding that if you don’t find someone in college (and the majority of men I know haven’t), that the next major opportunity to marry will be in your late 20’s (with all the promiscuity/divorce/single motherhood that entails).

    Bye the way, the over-expecation for alpha males in wider society is alive and well in many religious circles. Many religious girls only want the “religious alpha”, and it’s contributing to male religious dropout rates. It isn’t just the economic rat race men are dropping out of, it’s the religious rate race as well.

    Cheers Mate.

    1. Steve,

      Thank you for your report from the front!

      You might find Dalrock’s work of interest, describing the tremendous inroads made by feminists into protestant churches.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.