Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
War On Men: The Economy is to Blame For the Male and Female Disconnect
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2012-12-05 02:18
Article here. Excerpt:
'Marriage has become a source of conflict for both male and females in the United States. According to the Pew Research Center, the number of newly-wed adults has steadily declined from 2008 to 2011. Fox News has interpreted this data as a result of women’s changing role in society in a piece titled “The War on Men”. However, the reality is much more complicated thanks to a significant shift in societal norms. Priorities have changed for both the American male and female. The changing environment has thus resulted in the failure of both sexes to meet on common ground regarding marriage.
According to other Pew Research data, 72% of American adults ages 18 and over were married in 1960. Today, only 51% of American adults are married. What has contributed to this trend? American society has certainly evolved over the past 40 years, changing the way in which men and women relate to one another.
...
No matter which perspective you may identify with, it is clear that both males and females are being greatly affected by the economic crisis. As national happiness is at historic lows, marriage rates have consequently suffered.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Nice try, author...
... and there is some merit to what you are saying. But you are well and truly ignoring the obvious: Marriage is just plain too risky for men and also it can be said for women, too. There is much less perceived need for people to be married felt on a personal level; "I need to get married," is a thought that a person back in 1950 could reasonably have at age 23, but the concept of it now-- please, it's laughable. Think of it this way: Imagine a tribe in the jungle and every year they perform a certain ritual at a certain time, and if they don't, they believe the sun will stop rising every day. So for countless centuries, they do this one thing every year. Then something happens. The volcano explodes the day before the ritual and they flee. They don't do the ritual that year. And guess what? Nothing happens. The sun still rises. They find out what they believed about themselves and their world was false. So they stop doing the ritual and realize, hey, it was all bullsh*t! Then at a loss for what to do next, they invent a whole new ritual and convince themselves they have to do that one instead and the whole thing starts all over. :)
Well anyway, you get the idea. The last 30+ years of divorce and family court battles has shown it: marriage is something not only you don't need, but for many people, why the hell would you want it? Unless you are VERY sure about your soon-to-be-spouse, why would you take such a huge risk?
There has always been a financial aspect to marriage, even if it's in the more pedestrian sense (ie, it's just cheaper to combine households-- not even talking about marriages that resemble mergers more than merely setting up housekeep). But to frame it as being entirely or largely about economics isn't accurate. It's more about perceived need in the eyes of the individuals or in society at large (thus producing incentives/social pressures on individuals to marry). And if people/society don't see it as something they need, then for goodness' sake, why do it, when the risk is great and the perceived payoff is not?
I kind of think of it this way: Going from being single to married is like an electron circling around an atom's nucleus at a certain level. If it's going to jump from one energy level to the next highest, it needs a "reason" to go there-- a push, an addition of energy. This next highest level is the "married" state, while the current level is the "single" state. So I ask the reader, what if anything is making our electrons (ie, single people) want to jump from the "single energy state" to the next highest, or "married" one? Back in the 1950s, there were loads of societal expectations, explicit rewards for doing so and sanctions for not, meted out largely by family members and employers, possibly also by church communities as well. But mostly, the impetus rested in the heads of the individuals themselves. They were raised to want to be married and didn't have many counterexamples of adulthood as a single person, unless that person be a clergyman or nun in a religion requiring single-hood. But today, it's all different. So not only is the electron not getting an energy boost from outside itself, it isn't getting one from inside itself, either. And that's the way today's electrons like it, and who can blame them!
isn't it strange
how none of these articles coming out about the stampede away from marriage by men, is about the truth? what matt says. marriage is a bum deal for most men. especially with all the 'raked over the coals' victims running around among us all, telling any guy who will listen the bad news. then they hear the good news, you don't have to get married. its not a requirement for anything.
actually, i have discovered that it is much easier getting ahead financially being single. almost all married guys don't have the $10k to invest over there, or buy that vet, or whatever. and when she leaves, or kicks you out, since women file for the vast majority of divorces, she takes everything hubby has scraped together, and future income, sometimes forever. i think that's what the 'forever' part of the marriage vows was all about. a subtle sort of warning.
the worst part of it all for me was getting to beg to get to see my kid. and once she finds mr. $ooo right (now), you become the 'extra' guy.
Agree, Dave
The financial part was bad, but the worst part was going from seeing my kids everyday to seeing them when she and her new boyfriend let me see them. It was always tough going to see them because the ex would create some new drama. Losing my kids in this way came very close to destroying my soul. I struggled for years to find a reason to even get up in the morning. Hell could be no worse--and, of course, I had to pay for it all. I understand very well why a lot of divorced men kill themselves.
Don't you guys have a
Don't you guys have a parenting plan that gives you designated time?
I have seen police called to a parents house to make sure the children exchange goes down as planned. This happened in my parents neighborhood where the houses are gated, and the mother sat outside for awhile, after 30 minutes she called police, showed them the parenting plan which stated the exact time the children's exchange was to take place, and the police rang the house and instructed the father to bring out the kids.
Also, a father I know always speaks about drama during his kids' exchange because the kids were always in the middle of something fun like baking or artwork, making them not ready or wanting to go with him. He would enter the house and it would take him alot of time while the kids griped (sometimes cried) about having to put away their fun stuff and go and pack and finally get in the car with him. He took the matter to court to get more specific on the exchange time and requested the mother drive the kids to his house. Now his parenting plan says something like: Mother shall have the children at fathers house at 6PM, she will pull into father's driveway and have children out of carseats and walk them to fathers front door.
My cousin is a cop and he also mentioned that he occasionally gets calls about parenting plan violations, as long as there is a clear violation, so parenting plan must have an exact hour that children are supposed to be exchanged. Police will go to the home of the violating spouse and watch over the exchange. If things don't go well cops will write a report that can be taken to court as evidence.
The problem with your idea,
The problem with your idea, Kris, is that it requires involving higher authorities whenever one of the parents don't comply.
The plan can also be circumvented entirely if the other parent claims BS charges of abuse. They'll most likely prevent the first parent from seeing the kids "just in case" until the matter is resolved. This, considering the snail's pace of the system, could take ages.