Don't Believe the Hype, College Educated Women Are Still Getting Married

... an evil invention of Patriarchy that would thankfully go away after women were liberated? So why do so many still want to be married? Never understood this.

This might be good news but women remain as divorce-prone as ever. It is thus becoming harder to find men who want to get married. I wonder if women would as prone to get married if they faced the possibility of losing their children and going to jail if they lose their job and can't pay support.

No doubt because it would paint women in a bad light, this article ignores the influential position of economics in marriage. Women don't want to marry "down," because they would get very little money out of it. Hypergamy is basically just hunting for the big game targets, and going after them. Now that there are fewer successful men, thanks to many anti-male laws, rules, preferences, and the like, there are fewer big game men to go around. Sorry ladies. Your selfishness and greediness is winning here.

The avoidance of any consideration of the influence of economics is also found in this quote from the article:

"But that still leaves us with the question as to why at this point women who can actually afford to raise children on their own almost always avoid doing so, while the women who have almost nothing in the bank are going it alone."

This makes perfect sense if one considers economics. Well-off college-educated women won't raise children on their own because they know that their standard of living will take a serious hit if they do go it alone. They want another bread-winner. But women who have almost nothing in terms of financial assets are going it alone, because they know that "big daddy" (government) is going to support them. If government aid to single mother families with children were to be seriously cut, I bet that the number of women who go it alone would also take a nosedive.

You said it, right on target. The more common playbook these days seems to be this:

1. Find a man with good prospects, preferably when you are both fairly young.
2. Marry (step 1) and convince him to have kids with you (step 2), but also this, and it is critical: convince him to go for a 'traditional arrangement', whereby you stay home and raise the kids and he goes and works. This is absolutely key.
3. Have 2-3 kids. Wait about ten years so that the oldest is 10-13. You now have reached that magic number that guarantees you have all talons into his finances.
4. Divorce the silly bastard and go after child custody with all guns blazing. You will get it. If you get joint, you will very likely get "primary residence" and so it won't matter about "joint custody". You still get child support-- and alimony, since you were the poor housewife who sacrificed her career to raise that evil man's kids! Perfect!

Rest of your life is now yours, on his dime-- relax and enjoy! You get the kids and he pays for most of it. You get grant money to train for a job and/or finally get to use your college degree for something (or maybe not; you may not even need to work!). You get alimony for who knows how long (varies by state). You collect and collect, the kids are yours (they were all you ever really wanted anyway) and you get their father to pay for it.

Now am I saying this is what it is like in every instance? Am I saying this is what so many women intend to do? No. Are there *some* women who have the whole thing planned like this? Yes. But do I believe that *most* women have this plan _consciously_ in their heads? No. I believe that they know in the back of their heads that the whole game is stacked heavily in their favor, and this makes it a lot easier for them to go looking for a husband to have kids with. But do I think the typical woman wants consciously to execute such a deceitful plan? Not at all.

I am saying that this is what it comes to in the end. It matters not what anyone involved *intended* for things to be. It matters what actually happened. And all too often today, when people get married and opt for the 1950s model of marriage, this is the result.

If one does get married, and I'd give this advice to people of either sex, make sure you marry someone who is working, clearly wants to keep working, and makes $$ roughly in the same ballpark as you do. Because, you really don't want to be on the losing end of this playbook's storyline. And oh yeah-- give very serious thought to having kids. It was hard being a father back when men had something in the way of parental rights so many years ago. But now? Be very careful...

Some women do, at least once they understand how the system works.

I still don't understand why society supports this approach. If a woman wants to leave her husband to "find herself" or to marry another man, why should he lose his kids and be forced to finance her decision? If she wants to leave, fair enough--but why does she get all the goodies? And why has this become a cultural norm? Why does anyone think this is fair or just?

I understand divorcing a man when he has done something clearly wrong. I get that. But "no-fault" ignores all that, including her infidelity, which has "nothing" to do "with the kids." No, it just rewards her for her infidelity, which often destroys the marriage. How is this not affecting the kids? And undermining marriage.

As someone else said, marriage is a contract honored only in the breach--when one of the partners, the woman, ends the contract. The man is supposed to fulfill his end of the contract and get nothing in return. The woman can then marry another man, get him to support her and the kids--and, of course, do it yet again.

I've heard all the reasons that support the system but none of them make any sense to me. Most on this forum understand all this, but sometimes I just need to vent my frustration.

is true in many cases; however, how about the following reasons for her to divorce?

1. that 10 year point in marriage is actually targeted by law against military men.
that is the point where she starts getting many of his long term military benefts. however, from what i am hearing from the guys, women can get some serious long term benefits for much lesser stints.

2. for women not looking to invest 10 years in mr. not quite right, it could be more profitable
in the long haul to just wait about 2-3 yrs. and then divorce him. with children, length in marriage really dosn't matter much. many (most?) American women
wait 10 yrs. and they will probably be able to find work at the stock yard balancing the scales. not likely to attract a doctor/lawyer/Indian Chief for her future income enhancements. also, only having one kid is an easier sell to mr. really right. God only knows why well established guys would partake in this madness.

so, if he really is a loser, 2-3 years and less kids gives her the extra income(s), plus she is much more marketable than she will be years later. womens' shelf life (in general) is short, compared to guys. well off guys can pick from the prettiest, constantly, if they are smart.

imho - two parent homes produce kids at least twice as well off in life, now and later.

this reminds me, wonder whatever happened to that mbc pill? probably not going to happen w/o men fighting for it. women in the U.S. are not easily going to let the power/profit in reproduction $hift to men.
will not easily let go of that power to have a baby on her term$.