Marriage Sinks to New Low, Recession Blamed…

by W.F. Price on September 28, 2010

Recently released Census Bureau figures reveal that in 2009 the proportion of married Americans fell lower than ever, dropping 5% in the last 9 years alone. Compared to 57% in 2000, today only 52% of all adults are married. The institution of marriage is crumbling under a combined feminist and federal assault, which has legislated it into something that is roughly the opposite of what it used to be.

Pointing to the recession as the primary reason for the death of marriage is entirely off the mark. The decline of marriage has been ongoing since at least the early 1970s, when no-fault divorce created an explosion of divorces and started to make men more reluctant to tie the knot.

Spearhead contributor Charles Martel wrote a piece on the decline of the marriage rate that suggests that if current trends continue, marriage will cease to exist within roughly twenty years.

In the earlier days of the decline, men were generally blamed, but perhaps the recession provides an even more convenient excuse. Or, maybe, those who still support the institution are simply holding out in the impossible hope that the trend will turn around when times are better.

They are deluding themselves. As long as marriage remains an institution designed to suck the lifeblood out of men for the benefit of lawyers, the government and women, it will continue to weaken until it meets its well-deserved demise.

{ 88 comments… read them below or add one }

Herbal Essence September 28, 2010 at 14:43

Incredible that the #1 thing that every woman fantasizes about is the #1 thing they’re likely to find extremely difficult to accomplish in the future.

“Tell me, my dears: Would you rather lower your standards, or be lonely?”

“No!”

“Oh, I’m sorry. This is not a time when your female entitlement is going to work. I’ll ask again: Lower your standards, or be lonely?”

“Waaaahhhhhh! Where did all the good men go!!!”

One wonders if a “Marriage Fantasy Camp” will be established to offer women the dream wedding they can’t find a man for.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 74 Thumb down 0
manboobz September 28, 2010 at 14:49

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 68
Rebel September 28, 2010 at 14:55

Today’s institution of marriage is a farce. A farce it is.

The sooner it will be abolished, the sooner the government will step out of our lives and our bedrooms.

Nobody but nobody takes marriage seriously now. We no longer believe in Santa. About time..

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 0
Keyster September 28, 2010 at 14:57

Why would the Recession contribute to lowered marriage rates? You’d think more people would want to conjoin to double up resources or earning potential and living space.

BECAUSE there are fewer men employed or employable or under-employed than ever before in our economic history. This makes men VERY unattractive, to women who’re gainfully employed in government, healthcare or service jobs. They don’t want a burden they want a provider. And if they don’t have these dream men begging for their hand, they’ll just have to be an independent and strong “career woman”.

Now combine this with men purposefully avoiding marriage and even relationships with these antagonizing, miserable grrls and you have the great gender “Mexican Stand-Off”. Sexual desire got enough men to cross the line only a decade or two ago. Now that’s not even enough.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 61 Thumb down 0
Dalrock September 28, 2010 at 15:21

I can see where the recession might cause a temporary drop in the number of weddings, but it seems a bit of a stretch to blame the recession on such a large shift in the percent of the adult population which is married.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
TFH September 28, 2010 at 15:29

One wonders if a “Marriage Fantasy Camp” will be established to offer women the dream wedding they can’t find a man for.

Superb business idea!!!!!!

Charge a cougar $20K. Get a whole themed wedding going. Hire male actors who are handsome, and can act like hedge fund managers, doctors, or movie stars, to play the groom on wedding day.

Let her indulge in this fantasy during the expensive, high margin fantasy camp.

I think such an idea could be very, very attractive.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 0
TFH September 28, 2010 at 15:36

For the fantasy camp, the cougar past her Wile E. Coyote moment would get to :

Choose which male model will play the groom for the day
Choose which profession she wants the fantasy groom to be
Choose what type of wedding theme (church, ballroom, outdoors) she wants.

The fantasy wedding is priced at $20,000. Our costs are $10,000 including venue, actors, decorations, etc. $10,000 profit.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0
TFH September 28, 2010 at 15:38

I can see where the recession might cause a temporary drop in the number of weddings, but it seems a bit of a stretch to blame the recession on such a large shift in the percent of the adult population which is married.

This is because there is extreme denial about the REAL reasons.

Marriage is not a good enough deal for men anymore, AND more men are getting savvy to the scam (through sites like The Spearhead, etc.).

Tons of articles will be written like this, but none will address the elephant in the room…..

The marriage strike is WORKING. Game is WORKING!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 65 Thumb down 0
Coastal September 28, 2010 at 15:56

You could always set up male ‘Marriage Fantasy Camps’ too.

Guys would pay 10K a time. They wouldn’t get anything for it, they’d just have to hand over the cash.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 66 Thumb down 0
Richard September 28, 2010 at 16:06

“The decline of marriage has been ongoing since at least the early 1970s, when no-fault divorce created an explosion of divorces and started to make men more reluctant to tie the knot.”

I would argue that in addition to this, the attitude that the larger portion of modern women take towards marriage is also responsible.

That is, many women have, well, a bad attitude towards marriage. To them, it is no longer a humane/romantic/spiritual/life-partner institution, but a financial institution, a legal contract, or – to be blunt – the government acting as pimp-daddy.

I would argue that this attitude prevalent in women today is the primary cause of “The marriage Strike”. Not the economy, no-fault divorce, or even manboobz horrible blog.

:)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 0
Steve September 28, 2010 at 16:22

Unemployment has greatly increased since October 2008 (when the stock market had an all-time peak)

Housing values have dropped since 2006, with a dramatic drop since 2008.

To attribute the drop in the number of marriaged adults to the economy is laughable. The would mean that entire reason for the drop over 9 years is attributed to an event that happen at the very end of the period. In fact, the economic effect on divorces probably isn’t materially reflected in 2009 data due to the time it takes to file and finalize a divorce.

It is sloppy thinking to attribute current conditions and feelings backward over a decade to explain and justify a reason. This is called an “excuse.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 0
greyghost September 28, 2010 at 16:28

Womens attitude towards marriage is a huge factor. Also women are sluts now days.
I also listen to sports radio (football season) and it is automatic for the host of the show to make comments about marriage as a man throwing away half his stuff.
Marriage is a sucker deal even fatherhood is a sucker deal. But now we are talking a human life. The emotions of love the of a child are powerful enough to kill over.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0
trashed September 28, 2010 at 16:29

@ Coastal

” You could always set up male ‘Marriage Fantasy Camps’ too Guys would pay 10K a time. ”

? Don’t we have this already built into traditional marriage , but with the 10K multiplied by a factor of 1000, not to mention the fact that the marriage camp becomes the court imposed labor/ early death camp , for males ?
No thanks…fantasies are usally the opening volley in a long drawn nightmare.

Think I’ll find other alternative ways to “camp” it up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
DrDave September 28, 2010 at 16:34

Too many men have seen the ‘real life’ headline because it happened to someone they know:

“raped by the Family Court system and left for dead by the side of the road”

Is it any wonder to all but the most entrenched feminist and mangina mindsets that growing numbers of men do not want to become another divorce statistic?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 0
Paradoxotaur September 28, 2010 at 16:52

For those who haven’t seen it yet, check out the graphic at the top of “Father’s Rights Are Wrong According to Amnesty International” by EW, 9/26. I think it is a good illustration of what many marriages become, and one that’s worth replicating. The smiling chump, the wild-eyed executioner. All that’s missing is the woman, standing to the side with folded arms and a smug sneer.

There’s another marriage metric that’s something along the lines of marriages/year/1000 women between 15-40 or some such thing. Sorry, I don’t have a link handy, but it’s a measure of how many people are getting married- and it’s cratering.

In marriage- the prize is the groom, not the bride. If you don’t believe it, go to your local news stand and count the number of bridal magazines (usually a dozen or two), and count the number directed at men (maybe one). Marriage is the culmination of her dreams, and likely the death of his. Young men appear to have copped onto this in large numbers.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 0
Avenger September 28, 2010 at 16:59
Keyster September 28, 2010 at 17:09

The rate of marriage declines as the percentage of divorce stays the same. THAT’S the Wile E. Coyote moment.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti September 28, 2010 at 17:55

I join others in their skepticism of the marriage–mancession link.

Intuition suggests that as times get tougher, persons get married more often to exploit the economies of scale that come with marriage. Same with divorce…not much money can be made by the transaction, so why do it?

Paradox, thanks for the plug brother. Also, your perspective that the groom is the prize and not the bride is spot on…it is he who brings resources to the union…particularly those in which the bride has a negative dowry (student loans, car loans, consumer debts, etc).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
Avenger September 28, 2010 at 18:13

TFH writes,Marriage is not a good enough deal for men anymore, AND more men are getting savvy to the scam (through sites like The Spearhead, etc.).
Marriage was never a good deal for men unless they were at least getting some sort of marriage settlement from the girl’s family or a dowry. When the American actress Grace Kelly married Prince Grimaldi of Monaco her father paid him $1m which is like $10-15m intoday’s money.

And it’s not the Spearhead or any other blog that has made men wary of marriage but just their own observation of what’s happening around them to friends etc Few people are ever going to be influenced by anything they read unless it is something that is already on their mind to begin with.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 0
ZenCo. September 28, 2010 at 18:17

The comments in that Post article are spot-on!
Only one comment from some whining female using shaming language tried to defend the indefensable.
The difference between now and just a couple of years ago is truly amazing.
Men are, indeed, waking up.
Hell – they’ve WOKEN up!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0
Alte September 28, 2010 at 18:22

Why would the Recession contribute to lowered marriage rates? You’d think more people would want to conjoin to double up resources or earning potential and living space.

They are doing that in increasing numbers, they just aren’t marrying anymore. Cohabitation is on the rise (13% increase since last year), especially in couples where the man is young and unemployed. From the State of the USA:

A more detailed look at the demographics in the study finds that more men in newly formed couples did not work last year than men in couples that were moved in together in 2009 – 24 percent to 14 percent. Also, couples who began cohabitating in 2010 were younger, less likely to be White, non-Hispanic, more likely to live in the South (which tends to have higher poverty levels than other regions in the U.S.), or live in a household with five or more people.

But why the sudden increase from 2009 to 2010 if the recession has been going on since 2007? From 2007 to 2008 there was just a 5 percent increase, and from 2008 to 2009 there was actually a slight — although statistically insignificant, according to the report — 2 percent decrease in the number of couples cohabitating from 2008 to 2009.

Krieder speculates in the report that in the years preceding the increase people maybe have been “exhausting other methods of coping-unemployment benefits, savings accounts, available credit, or assistance from friends and family.” She also states that the fact that more couples are younger may point to a lot of young adults, with less employment experience trying to find jobs in a competitive job market.

In other words, the decrease in marriage can be attributed to the increase in cohabitation. The couples aren’t avoiding living together, just tying the knot.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 16
Avenger September 28, 2010 at 18:27

Elusive wrote, exploit the economies of scale that come with marriage

That never happens. If a man is earning x and is living very well on it and he marries a female earning x which now means their income is 2x, you can be sure that for some reason he’ll now need 3x to live like he used to just on x. That’s right, they’ll go into debt.
He won’t be living a nice bachelor’s life where he had plenty of money and was probably even saving and not killing himself working all the time. After marriage he’ll be working more and enjoying himself less and if the wife gets pregnant he’ll spend all his life working and never be able to really do anything he wants. Just going on what is now a rare holiday will seem like work to him now dragging along the wife and kid. This is probably why married men don’t even like going on holiday anymore and prefer to actually work late and be away from the home. Once you marry you have become an indentured servant accountable to the Mrs. and it doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 1
Alte September 28, 2010 at 18:27

In fact, the economic effect on divorces probably isn’t materially reflected in 2009 data due to the time it takes to file and finalize a divorce.

Divorce is expensive, mortgages are underwater, and nobody has anywhere to go because they don’t have a job. Ergo, divorce rates are sinking (now at 16.4 per 1000 married women) during the recession, as they traditionally do. Divorce is a by-product of wealth, not poverty. Poverty results in a reduction of the marriage rate, not an increase in the divorce rate.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 14
Alte September 28, 2010 at 18:54

There’s another marriage metric that’s something along the lines of marriages/year/1000 women between 15-40 or some such thing.

The Census says it was 17.6 per 1,000 women 15 years and over in 2009.

In 2008, there were 34.8 marriages per 1000 unmarried women, which is a decline from 76.5 in 1970.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 6
RCG September 28, 2010 at 19:01

I wouldn’t get too cocky. If the marriage rate gets too low, the state may well simply expand the legal definitions of “marriage” and especially “divorce.” Remember that it is men who make lots of money, and it is women who spend lots of money. It is in the best interests of every major government and corporation to take money from men and give it to women. We should be on guard against more classes of men getting shafted.

Who knows what the Powers That Be can cook up? Monthly monetary reimbursement owed by men who are (falsely) accused of rape/assault/harassment/etc? Common law divorce? Dating contracts (complete with a “breaking up severance package”)? Unilateral marriage declarations? Full-on male slavery? I wouldn’t put it past them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 0
Alte September 28, 2010 at 19:03

Intuition suggests that as times get tougher, persons get married more often to exploit the economies of scale that come with marriage.

That is true if you are referring natural marriage or cohabitation.

If you are referring to civil marriage, it isn’t always the case. For poorer women, legally marrying can result in fewer government benefits, so it could end up with a wealth cut rather than an increase (I know 2 women in this position, who would have more income if they were unmarried). Men have to earn a significant and steady income in order to be a better provider than the government. At the top half of the scale, marriage can result in a tax increase (once the Bush tax cuts expire).

There are many marriage penalties built into the system, including in the new health care legislation. That’s why the marriage rates at the top end of the scale are increasing (marriage preserves wealth), at the middle are stagnating, and at the bottom have completely fallen out. At the top end of the scale it looked for a while like rates were decreasing, but it was actually a delay (older brides) that seems to have evened out again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5
Alte September 28, 2010 at 19:06

I agree with you guys that attitudes to marriage are the underlying cause of the trend, but I think it is significant that the recession is exacerbating the trend. We all know that feminism has contributed to the recession, so it is interesting that the recession is contributing to a further erosion of marriage. The beast is eating it’s own now.

Or shall we say: The chickens are coming home to roost!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5
Alte September 28, 2010 at 19:10

If the marriage rate gets too low, the state may well simply expand the legal definitions of “marriage” and especially “divorce.”

That’s already happening.

Common law marriage and divorce (yes, that already exists in some states) are coming back. Soon all cohabitation will be deemed marriage. The Church was warning about that in a recent encyclical. They called it the equation of “de facto marriages” with “marriages”. It’s a big trend across the West.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
Troll King September 28, 2010 at 19:10

Yeah, I don’t believe this link either. Especially since women are usually the ones to suggest cohabitation because they either “want to take the relationship to the next level” or in non femalese, “it’s too expensive for them to maintain a apartment when they sleep at yours 3 or 4 nights per week.” <—-translated into malespeak.

Also, let's consider some other things. Not counting HS friends, I only know two guys my age range(20's) who got married. One got hitched at 23 and divorced before his 25th birthday and the other found a artsy girl from a wealthy and traditional family, her parents even bought him and her a house. He literally said that he wasn't worried cause she would be the loser in divorce.

Another thing to consider, at 18 most guys are working some kind of shitty job. I did stock for a grocery store and we had a huge turn over rate. Literally some one would walk out every week it seemed. In one year alone I worked with hundreds of guys from different backgrounds, most either divorced or never married but owed CS to baby momma. Ill never forget this one dude, we nicknamed him blue, who ran over his foot with a pallet jack with a 2 ton+ pallet of cans on it. He wasn't there long enough to get medical so he said this, "time to turn myself in for back child support and get that free jailhouse healthcare."

It became cliche to here guys bitch about their divorce during breaks.

Also consider this, how many of these kids grew up during divorce crisis in the 80's?

I remember hanging with some boys in the 3rd grade and our conversation went something like this:

Me: I don't think my parents are divorcing…Im just living with my grandma for now

2 other boys:It's cool, my parents are separated too.

2 other boys:Well, my parents separated before they divorced

2 other boys: I dont even know who my dad is, you should be lucky to see yours on the weekend.

That's the abridged version, but out of 10 boys in the class only 2 or 3 had a intact family.

Im curious though, what is that 52% stat about? Is that only young adults betweent something like 18-35 or is that all people over the age of 18? Is this an aggregate or only the people who married between this point in time?

I would be curious to know how hispanics and some other very traditional immigrant americans throw off this stat. For ex, most arab or indian women I have met(Im lumping them all together here) seem to really want to get married and have alot of family pressure behind them to marry, the same seems to be true of asian and hispanic women. But the men tend to americanize a little faster in my observations. Maybe cause they are hoping for a white wife while the women are hoping for a traditional husband. IDK. Just curious.

Anyone have any marriage stats broken down by religion/ethnicity?

Fuck Marriage!
Marriage is Retirement for women!
Women are the tool the state uses to subjugate men!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 0
Troll King September 28, 2010 at 19:15

Alte:

So true, that’s why it’s dangerous for men to even cohabitate.

I know that in one or two states if you live together for 22 months(I think) that it’s considered common law marriage but upon dissolution the ex partner can sue in civil courts, but if they have children then it still goes to the family courts and is even worse for men.

When the trend continues, watch what will happen. Men will start dumping the GF’s at 20 months into the relationship.

Feminists have been on a campaign to redefine relationships and marriage through the state for decades now. It’s part of the “personal is political” mantra and it’s one of the most dangerous tools used to bring about totalitarian regimes.

Marriage is retirement for women!
Never Cohabitate!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1
greyghost September 28, 2010 at 19:18

nice article,now lets see if we can get that number to 25% in 5 years. And also get the unwed mother birth numbers from 1.7 million to under 800k.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
misterb September 28, 2010 at 19:24

To destroy the marriage and the family unit. Well let’s see. Masculinize the women, encourage single motherhood, legalize same sex marriage, break down the gender barriers, pass laws that are hateful toward men, dumb down the education, outsource the jobs, import illegal immigrants, create antagonism between the ethnic groups.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0
Alte September 28, 2010 at 19:26

Yeah, I don’t believe this link either. Especially since women are usually the ones to suggest cohabitation because they either “want to take the relationship to the next level” or in non femalese, “it’s too expensive for them to maintain a apartment when they sleep at yours 3 or 4 nights per week.”

Yeah, but that’s my point. The recession has finally tilted the scales in the men’s favor. So many men are out of work that it’s getting harder for women to “trade up”. What is the point of throwing out the unemployed guy for some other unemployed guy? Also, a lot of women have reduced hours, or have taken a pay cut, so they are grateful to have someone to watch their kids for free. Latchkey kids (those left alone at home) are on the rise around the country. He gets free rent, she gets free babysitting and his food stamps (which would disappear if they married).

I think most of us are doing rather well, so it’s easy to forget that there is a large and ever-increasing percentage of the population that is struggling just to find food and shelter now. If their extended unemployment runs out (or they never even got any) then they are on the street and hungry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6
Alte September 28, 2010 at 19:40

To destroy the marriage and the family unit.

The particularly insidious part, as apparent from the many statistics I cited, is that marriage has been destroyed most effectively in the lower and lower-middle classes. These are the people who actually need stable marriages the most, for wealth creation. Although a woman in these groups might initially profit financially by throwing out her man, in the long run she ensures poverty for herself and her children (in addition to depriving them of their father). Marriage is still the main path out of poverty.

In other words, rich women destroyed marriage for poor women, but (hypocrites that they are) they continue to marry themselves, while praising the poor women for their “independence”. You notice Beyonce singing about “All the Single Ladies” still went ahead and married Jay-Z.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 4
Walter September 28, 2010 at 19:44

Marriage is a scam. Unfortunatly there are still too many wussie men still getting married. I have zero respect for any man who marries an AW. You get what you pay for. As usual I’m sure they’ll find a way to blame men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
demirogue September 28, 2010 at 19:46

I guess she’s not going to get her wish then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYtF83ToMXA&feature=player_embedded

: )

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Anonymous September 28, 2010 at 19:54

At Alte.

While I do believe in the institution as a way to wealth and societal bliss, the elites have killed it. But they live in their gated communities and high rises far and away from the destruction they are causing.

I’ll get married when those elitist intellectuals that benefit from destroying society are swaying at the end of a noose, the laws have changed and women can be trusted again. Until then, my best bet is to have as little to do with women on a personal level as possible. And as a male, that absolutely kills me. But it’s what they want. And they’re getting it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
demirogue September 28, 2010 at 19:55

At Alte.

While I do believe in the institution as a way to wealth and societal bliss, the elites have killed it. But they live in their gated communities and high rises far and away from the destruction they are causing.

I’ll get married when those elitist intellectuals that benefit from destroying society are swaying at the end of a noose, the laws have changed and women can be trusted again. Until then, my best bet is to have as little to do with women on a personal level as possible. And as a male, that absolutely kills me. But it’s what they want. And they’re getting it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
greyghost September 28, 2010 at 20:11
Alte September 28, 2010 at 20:11

That’s fair enough, demirogue.

Denninger and ZeroHedge are already counting down. Things are getting exciting in the stock market and there’s a currency war starting. Have you guys been watching that? It’s nuts out there. Buy heating oil, a cord of wood, and stock up your pantry, just in case.

Nothing will improve until the currency collapses and the dollar looses reserve status. Then the whole edifice will come crashing down and we can start rebuilding. Unfortunately, we have no idea what we’ll be building. I hope it’s an improvement. It would suck if we went from one sucky system to another sucky system. That would be just my freaking luck.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
Nemo September 28, 2010 at 20:17

Men who do not need to support a wife or any children can live much, much more cheaply than a husband or a father. Men are natural Spartans – less IS more for men. Women buy coffee tables, men buy card tables instead. Same function, but you can fold up the card table once you don’t need it anymore, so men prefer them.

If economic times remain tough, it might become conventional wisdom that marriage is just too risky for most men.

Once men lose the preconception that they “must” marry and have kids, then the economic ballgame changes drastically.

What if most men stop striving for difficult but financially rewarding careers and adjust their lifestyles to work less and get by on less money?

Most of the uber-consumer crap that women buy – fancy clothes, SUVs, McMansions, dogs that can fit in their purses, etc. – is paid for by money that they have somehow extracted from a man’s salary or wealth.

If men downsize their jobs and their lives to adjust to a permanently lower level of wealth, then women are absolutely and totally screwed.

If men produce less, then Big Daddy government collects fewer taxes, and the Nanny State goes broke even faster. Women get much more from government than men do. If welfare, WIC, section 8 housing, Medicare, etc. all get cut back, then women get hit much harder than men.

This is one of the few cases where something really would hit women hardest. No parasite can prosper if its host dies.

We may have a permanent “work slowdown” and “taxpayer strike” by men if current trends continue.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0
alpha September 28, 2010 at 20:41

oh yeah, blame it on recession(and blame men for the recession)

blame it on the terrorists(who are all men)

blame it on the environment(and blame men for ruining the environment)

blame it on capitalism(which is run by men of course)

let’s see, what else?

blame it on cultural decay(and who will get blamed for that?)

but NEVER EVER blame it on women!I mean, come on!Women aren’t to blame!We all know that!nonono! Women are the victims here!Women are being denied a chance to “settle down”. The men are not being responsible!They are de-stabilising society!Evil men!Selfish men!

Pass the kool-aid(and the barf-bag) , as they say.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0
Rebel September 28, 2010 at 21:27

In this day and age, I am always surprised when somebody gets married. It seems so odd, so out of style, so old fashioned.

Marriage dies hard, I understand and it is taking too much time to kill the beast.

Any union between a man and a woman should be seen as a temporary assignment that can be finished at any time. Without any penalty attached.

The government has absolutely no business in people’s bedrooms.

Did you know that the Romans had a very simple marriage ceremony?
Well, when a man and a woman wanted to marry, they asked one another to marry: if both said “yes”, they were married. Simple!
Similarly, a divorce was a simple agreement between the spouses. Split the goods and… split.

In no case did the government intervene in people’s intimate lives.

Marriage must be seen as a commitment between two people (male and female only).

Things would be so much easier if the government did not govern at all. We all should hope the gov. will simply collapse and disappear. We don’t need them.

No such luck, I guess..

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
Keyster September 28, 2010 at 21:28

We may have a permanent “work slowdown” and “taxpayer strike” by men if current trends continue.

Kind of already happening now, albeit not necessarily self imposed.
Governments are going broke because spending budgets anticipated more tax revenue; less workers, less revenue. Less men buying stupid shit to impress and/or keep women, less consumer spending (and sales tax). Women alone can’t sustain the machine, no matter how empowered they might feel. Galt’s Gulch will need to expand.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Mr. Tzu September 28, 2010 at 21:31

My experience is not one of reading websites and books on this subject, but of practical experience by way of divorce. No, I was not divorced, I was on the receiving end as the child in this queer and twisted system. Like many other children I spent my childhood as a “latch key” kid whose mother was working to keep the the bills paid and food on the table. I had a subconscious anger about the whole situation.

My father still wanted to keep in contact with me but my mother did what divorced mothers continue to do today, deny or interfere with visitation and moving, always moving. New schools, new friends, new locations but no matter where we ended up there was somehow always a subconscious longing, anger, and remorse.

It wasn’t until later after converting to Christianity, and much contemplation as an adult, that I realized my options for marriage would be limited if not eliminated entirely. I have no desire to go through the whole divorce experience again as an adult either.

I’m 34 now, still single, active duty military and have not been married or engaged. Perhaps I’m one of these MGTOW, I can only pray that it is a Godly way.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 1
E September 28, 2010 at 22:06

The older the brides the more unlikely the marraiges.

If men could marry young virgins, like they can in the muslim and pre-feminist world, they would.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
dubcik September 28, 2010 at 22:36

In parts of Canada common-law couples now get full marriage rights:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/07/19/bc-family-law.html#socialcomments

I copied the below comment as this commenter summed it up so well:

“Hardly unexpected, how else are we going to maintain the flow of largesse from men to women with the marriage rates plummeting so precipitously? This should serve to enslave another batch or two of men before they wise up and cohabitation takes a a similar nosedive.
These changes have been in judge’s mind for some time now. Nothing new about it.

It is likely that the changes in the law put forward by the government has nothing to do with justice, and all to do with expanding the area in which the Family courts can, literally, expropriate rightfully owned property without compensation for the purpose of transfering it to the partner who owns nothing and, brought nothing to the marriage.
The consequence of such a change will be that female partners will be flocking to the courts to get a share of something they have never paid for nor owned at anytime.

Hence, any man with property will have no alternative but to live on his own if he’s to avoid the family courts taking away his home, business, boat, savings, pension, and anything else that is in his name.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
Porky D. September 28, 2010 at 22:38

“Marriage Sinks to New Low, Recession Blamed”

And if that doesn’t prove that even recessions have silver linings nothing does.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
Anonymous September 28, 2010 at 23:12

Bridezillas should be mandatory viewing for boys in schools and every man. That alone will keep you from seeking out marriagable women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
Jesse September 29, 2010 at 00:28

Am interesting trend is occurring in Australia. It’s not new but it seems to be more prevalent than ever before.
Just to give you some background info because things are very different here:
Maintenance in Australia isn’t a fixed amount set by the courts, it’s a legislated thing. If the woman has full custody (which is 86% of cases), the man has to pay her 30% of his income. If you make no taxable income you don’t have to pay squat.
Well, in Australia a man can simply quit his job (or better, get himself fired) and go on the dole. The dole (unemployment benefits) is only about $200 per week but with rent assistance and our free healthcare system it’s enough to live relatively comfortably on as long as you don’t have debt. It is below the tax-free threshold so you don’t have to pay the bitch squat.
So what do a lot of guys do? You guessed it – they just stop working. Welfare is a double edged sword here. A friend of a friend recently handed his share of a business to his business partner and went on the dole because it just wasn’t worth it by the time he handed 30% of his profit to the bitch that kicked him out.
See guys? Lefty policies can work in our favor as well as hers! You gotta laugh, hey? LOL

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 2
thehermit September 29, 2010 at 01:12

When the trend will be strong enough, they will change the law in favor of women again.
Wanna bet?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Robert September 29, 2010 at 01:38

Mariage rates in US hit record low in 2009

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Marriage-rates-hit-record-low-1034011-103964968.html

Two women charged in domestic violence cases

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16188440?source=bb

Canada: “It’s time to blow up Divorce Court”

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/alan_shanoff/2010/09/24/15468871.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Jesse September 29, 2010 at 02:02

Well, they can’t eliminate the dole. Even suggesting it would lose them the election – plus, it’s available to women as well.
Setting it as a fixed payment based on what they were earning at the time of separation is unlikely too. The government rarely hands legislation to private court decisions once legislation is in place. That would be giving up some of their power and no government ever does that. The bureaucracy really runs the country (we have permanent secretaries like the UK – watch “Yes, Minister” to understand the system) and they always block anything that removes their control.
I really can’t see it changing in a hurry. I think I’d take that bet. ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Jesse September 29, 2010 at 02:32

Actually, on thinking further about it….If it was a fixed amount all you’d have to do is go on the dole before the case came up, then the fixed amount would be zero. Changing it would actually make it worse for them, with it set as a % they get pay rises with us. I really do think we’ve got ‘em by the short and curlies.
Being on the dole doesn’t have the same sort of stigma here as being a welfare recipient does in the US. People get off the dole because they want more, not because of shame. We don’t really have the same sort of wealth based class structure, it’s the rich that are sneered at, not the poor.
Sometimes it good to be an Aussie. ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
thehermit September 29, 2010 at 03:38

What will you do if they take that 30% from the dole as well? It happens in my country. The only difference is: 20% for one child, 40% for two, max 50%.
But they take it from any documented income.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Lovekraft September 29, 2010 at 03:41

It also didn’t help that massive immigration and outsourcing reduced the traditional breadwinner’s role, having to stand aside while ‘empowered’ women were catered to.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Jesse September 29, 2010 at 04:18

@thehermit
That would take a massive change with far reaching ramifications that would also affect the single mother’s pension. Everything is based on “taxable income” here. What you are talking about would be massive shift in thinking across the board that would be culturally repugnant, it would be an election loser. I can’t see it happening.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
FJ September 29, 2010 at 04:50

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 20
Alte September 29, 2010 at 06:39

Did you know that the Romans had a very simple marriage ceremony? Well, when a man and a woman wanted to marry, they asked one another to marry: if both said “yes”, they were married. Simple!

That’s because that is what marriage is. The vows are the marriage. Yes, it’s that simple. It can even be done through written correspondence or negotiators.

It is still that way in many places, even in the West. That’s the basis for the common law statutes. If they say they’re married, and live like they are married, then they’re married. That’s just a statement of fact. If you make it clear to everyone around you that you aren’t married, then you aren’t married. The problem isn’t that the government is recognizing marriages that exist, it’s that they’re meddling in them.

Similarly, a divorce was a simple agreement between the spouses. Split the goods and… split. In no case did the government intervene in people’s intimate lives.

Marriage and divorce (or annullments) were handled through religious courts, contract law, especially prenuptual agreements, wills, powers of attorney, etc. That seems a good way to do it. Civil marriage is an attempt to create a standardized contract that can be changed at any time by the state. In a marriage, you marry each other. In a civil marriage, you marry each other and the state, so the state can mess around with your marriage because it’s a part of your marriage. If you don’t enter into a civil marriage, then the state can’t mess around with it (you haven’t given consent), which is why they’re so keen on common law statutes (where consent is assumed, rather than given).

The problem is that the state has created a whole bunch of legislation that applies to civilly married couples retroactively, whether they consent or not. For example, a lot of spouses were caught blind-sided by no-fault divorce. It didn’t exist when they were married, so they never agreed to it, but were still subject to it. If the state legalized polygamy, then what would stop a spouse from “adding to their marriage”, against the protests of the other spouse?

Since failure to pay alimony or child support is a criminal offense, it could be argued that no-fault divorce was an ex post facto law, which is expressly forbidden by Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution (No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.). Not that anyone cares about the Constitution anymore. My state’s constitution also expressly forbids such laws:

Art. 17. That retrospective Laws, punishing acts committed before the existence of such Laws, and by them only declared criminal are oppressive, unjust and incompatible with liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto Law ought to be made; nor any retrospective oath or restriction be imposed, or required.

I’m not a lawyer, but it all seems fishy to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5
Migu September 29, 2010 at 07:46

That seems a good way to do it. Civil marriage is an attempt to create a standardized contract that can be changed at any time by the state.

This is every marriage in the west. Common Law, Civil, Religious, whatever. Coupled with VAWA in case shackers “tell everyone they are not married”

This is why men must avoid it all costs. If and that is a big if, these media outlets and the government want to see marriages again, they will have to extricate themselves as the third party to the marriage.

One simple thing, and watch marriage rates skyrocket while divorce rates plummet. Ahhhh what a dream. There still plenty of blood left to squeeze, so that probably won’t happen for awhile.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Migu September 29, 2010 at 07:48

I

n a civil marriage, you marry each other and the state, so the state can mess around with your marriage because it’s a part of your marriage. If you don’t enter into a civil marriage, then the state can’t mess around with it (you haven’t given consent), which is why they’re so keen on common law statutes (where consent is assumed, rather than given).

This is an ought. It is not the truth. The state can and will interfere in any domestic relationship between men and women. If they can’t use a marriage license they will use VAWA.

You are screwed either way men. Until the state does not have the power to interfere DO NOT MARRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Migu September 29, 2010 at 07:52

Alte,

ex post facto Silly girl, the law forbids that.

Now retroactive……………

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Alte September 29, 2010 at 08:02

Migu, true that.

The state can and will interfere in any domestic relationship between men and women. If they can’t use a marriage license they will use VAWA.

Yeah, they were already on shaky legal ground with the whole “assumed marriage” thing. Now they are basically forcing marriage on people who have expressly stated that they don’t want it. That’s not even possible, by any stretch of the imagination.

They aren’t even pretending to care about natural law, anymore. The rule of law is pretty much over in America. They’re just doing whatever the heck they want now, like they are in all other areas of government.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
Nutz September 29, 2010 at 08:23

If anything marriage rates are trending upward due to the recession, or at least divorces are being stemmed as the financial crunch is hitting couples who can’t afford to split up. Maryland had a bill proposed earlier this year that would allow divorcing couples to cohabitate in the family home and still be able to file for divorce without the year separation so long as they weren’t having sex. Unfortunately it was shot down rather quickly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Keyster September 29, 2010 at 09:46

Be aware “cohabitation” may not necessarily mean a man and a woman deciding not to marry. The ROOMATE scenerio is very common. Several low wage workers living together in a house or apartment, each with their own bedroom, sharing a common living space.

Government statistics require HARD questions, because its the government gathering the data. And the government is incompetent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Micah September 29, 2010 at 11:49

Mr. Tzu -

Both Paul and Jesus, two exemplaries of your faith, praise singleness as a higher virtue than marriage, when chosen for the sake of serving God’s kingdom. You don’t hear that message from too many Baptist ministers these days.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Steve September 29, 2010 at 12:08

Minnesota archbishop explains importance of defending marriage

I encourage everyone to comment. The insidious unconscious influence of feminism has no bounds. The comments are moderated so it will take a day or so to appear, but my comments got through.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Anonymous September 29, 2010 at 12:42

”””””“The bishops of the state have an obligation, by ordination, to be teachers,” the Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis told MPR’s Tom Crann. “And we all know the state of marriage in our society today,” he continued, citing divorce rates of up to 50 percent, and recounting the exponential growth of fluid arrangements like cohabitation and unwed parenthood. “The state of marriage is not very healthy in our society.”””””’

Well no wonder if he thinks it is just today. Divorce rate has been steadily at 50 percent for the last 100 years.

100 years.

Not recent.

Not today it changed.

50 percent for a hundred years men have been sent into something that has been known to fail 50 percent of the time and told to make it work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi September 29, 2010 at 12:44

“The bishops of the state have an obligation, by ordination, to be teachers,” the Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis told MPR’s Tom Crann. “And we all know the state of marriage in our society today,” he continued, citing divorce rates of up to 50 percent, and recounting the exponential growth of fluid arrangements like cohabitation and unwed parenthood. “The state of marriage is not very healthy in our society.”

Not recently there is the problem is he thinks 50 percent divorce rate is new.

50 percent divorce has been normal for a hundred years almost.

Th catholic church has been sending men into a situation where it will fail 50 percent of time and telling men it is some kind of unusual thing to get divorced and should pay a price.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO

It is normal to get divorced.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi September 29, 2010 at 12:46

It is not for the man or woman to blame themselves it is natual for one out of two to not work out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Alte September 29, 2010 at 13:42

Thanks for the link, Steve. I’ll go post a comment.

Not recently there is the problem is he thinks 50 percent divorce rate is new.

You know, one of my favorite local priests had a post about divorce recently, and it was clear from what he wrote that he didn’t know that most divorce is initiated by women. I think most people don’t realize that. I know that I didn’t, until I read about it here and checked out the statistics for myself.

Encouragingly, several women commented to correct him on his error, and point out the divorce was usually initiated by women. He accepted the correction, and his posts on the subject immediately changed in tone, even to mull over whether priests should get out of the civil marriage business altogether, in protest.

I think a lot of the older priests aren’t necessarily aware of the state of things out there, but the statistics coming out now are making the dire state of marriage and fatherlessness more visible, and it is beginning to change the conversation.

Also, I think they’re just getting tired of being nagged at and bossed around by a bunch of idiotic feminists. Even the Pope is starting to sound a bit ticked off, which is quite a feat. If the Catholic Church ever did start to come down hard on this stuff, it would immediately change the dynamic of the fight.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
Gunslingergregi September 29, 2010 at 14:35

””””I think a lot of the older priests aren’t necessarily aware of the state of things out there, but the statistics coming out now are making the dire state of marriage and fatherlessness more visible, and it is beginning to change the conversation.

””””’

Are you telling me woman have no consciounce and are not confessing their lies?

Priests having an ability to say they didn’t know?

he he he

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Lord Viktor September 29, 2010 at 15:20

This article succinctly illustrates why I laugh at the LBGT community desperately clamoring to repeal Prop 8.

What, you want a chance to play Russian Roullette with FIVE CHAMBERS LOADED like the rest of the straights fools who slipped the ring on?

Oh, sure, go ahead, buddy! Try the odds! Spin the wheel, maybe you’ll win! Pull up a seat and squeeze the trigger, you dumbass!

I’m gonna be laughing my ass off as you gays and lesbos get hauled off to Divorce Court, getting your tits in the same wringer we straight guys have endured for the past thirty years!

Laughing!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Alte September 29, 2010 at 17:03

They already are. Remember that lesbian-custody-fiasco last summer?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
Steve September 29, 2010 at 17:28

The most egregious and muddled thinking was in this statement:

Rather than giving the name of “marriage” to virtually any kind of sexual arrangement, Archbishop Nienstedt argued, “government is meant to support marriage between a husband and a wife,” to provide social support for “the raising … and the protection of children.”

No, the Archbishop has it wrong. He assigns the Church’s responsibility to the government. This is blame and making excuses. If he REALLY believes in the Sacrament of Marriage, as successor to the Apostles, he must promote the Sacrament and not merely defend a trashed ideal against further redefinition. I give him no quarter! Most of the Apostles (and early “Church Fathers”) paid with their lives and Archbishop Nienstedt accepted those same duties and responsibilities. His postition is not one of privilege but of responsibility, as is with all fathers.

Can you imagine a economic correction of the entire advance since the addition of the 19th amendment to the US Constitution (women suffrage)? Consider it! History may prove that only a economy at a relative zenith can afford such folly. This may be what it takes and may be what it comes to. The Catholic Church will catch up and survive, but it would be preferable if it were better prepared and promoting the foundation of civilization… fathers.

Grand Supercycle Timeline

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Alte September 29, 2010 at 18:05

Oh, thanks for pointing it out, Steve. I didn’t see that. I suppose I was too excited about him even bringing up no-fault divorce as going against Natural Law, that I missed it.

That said, what he said isn’t necessarily incorrect. I do believe that the state should support and protect the institution of marriage, especially for the children’s sake. But I believe the state can do that through contract law (prenuptual agreements, wills, etc.) rather than with (anti)family law. And I think that when the state’s rules are making a mockery of marriage, we should disengage ourselves from the state’s rules and declare them invalid. We shouldn’t be following the rules if the rules are contrary to our religious beliefs (which they obviously are). Our rules have primacy, of course.

In Rerum Novarum (a personal favorite of mine) it says:

12. The rights here spoken of, belonging to each individual man, are seen in much stronger light when considered in relation to man’s social and domestic obligations. In choosing a state of life, it is indisputable that all are at full liberty to follow the counsel of Jesus Christ as to observing virginity, or to bind themselves by the marriage tie. No human law can abolish the natural and original right of marriage, nor in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage ordained by God’s authority from the beginning: “Increase and multiply.” Hence we have the family, the “society” of a man’s house – a society very small, one must admit, but none the less a true society, and one older than any State. Consequently, it has rights and duties peculiar to itself which are quite independent of the State.

That right to property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must in like wise belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, that right is all the stronger in proportion as the human person receives a wider extension in the family group. It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, it is natural that he should wish that his children, who carry on, so to speak, and continue his personality, should be by him provided with all that is needful to enable them to keep themselves decently from want and misery amid the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now, in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance. A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, “at least equal rights”; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.

The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. “The child belongs to the father,” and is, as it were, the continuation of the father’s personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that “the child belongs to the father” it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, “before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents.” The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.

I couldn’t have put it better myself. In this case, the state’s interference is clearly unlawful because it is attempting to supercede paternal authority without just cause.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
Alte September 29, 2010 at 19:10

Priests having an ability to say they didn’t know?

Not many people go to confession anymore. Especially not the “cheating wife” portion of the population.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
trent13 September 29, 2010 at 19:19

@ Alte What a great encyclical to quote

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
David Collard September 29, 2010 at 20:29

Strangely, Rerum Novarum is (or was) a great favourite of the Left, I think because it spoke of workers’ rights. Nice to see the unashamedly patriarchal language in that text. Leo XIII was a fine pope, and a lot better than the wimpy John Paul II on the woman thing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Steve September 30, 2010 at 05:50

This is supposed to be a parody
Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Alte September 30, 2010 at 05:57

Yes, it’s a brilliant piece. The author was clearly an intellectual and moral powerhouse, and this text is my all-time favorite encyclical. And I’m certainly not on the left. It’s very patriarchal, and was meant as a reasoned response to socialism, not a justification of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
Alte September 30, 2010 at 06:04

This is supposed to be a parody

A shame it’s a parody, because the point stands. The arguments do apply equally in both cases. No-fault divorce should be eliminated. Ideally, divorce should be eliminated and replaced with legal separation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5
SingleDad September 30, 2010 at 09:32

I have learned my lessons regarding co-habitation and divorce. But what about my son.

At a certain age boys stop listening to their fathers and want to figure things out on their own. Hearteningly he has started to say that the girls in his school are mean. Also, he mentioned that he noticed how hard divorce was on he and I.

I would love to see a mandatory required course like sex ed called relationship ed in schools. Maybe they could pair a girl in class with a boy and make them negotiate important things together.

Like make them share the lunch money for a week. Then seperate the girls and boys and tell the boys to say “no” to their “wives”.

Maybe they could be asked to negotiate the purchase of something like a book they would both then have to read.

They would have no choice, must stay together.

Then at test time the girls would give themselves their own grade and would also determing the grade the boys get. Permanent grades that go on your permanent record.

This is, in my opinion, a fair model of modern marriage.

This sort of training is what we owe our sons. The current culture of marry or your a loser is child abuse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Steve September 30, 2010 at 10:36

SingleDad,
“Relationship Ed” would have a feminist bias and would be even more destructive than nothing. Teach your son to never give his power to a woman and never let her determine his success or grade. Most importantly, you HAVE to teach him Game, for his survival!

Men make promises and women make promises. A man’s promise is based on his word. A woman’s promise is based on her emotions and is completely valid and binding to her while she is feeling emotional conditions similar to the time she made the promise. (When have you EVER heard that “a woman is only as good as her word”?)

When a man breaks a promise, he will usually admit to it. He may feel guilty or not. When a woman breaks a promise, she will convince herself that it is not a valid promise, or breaking the promise does not count because she no longer feels the same as she did when she made the promise. Yes, this especially applies to marriage. It is very common for a woman to refuse to even acknowledge that she broke a promise and she will use mental gymnastics to avoid any feeling of guilt or responsibility.

Women are emotional creatures but giving a woman opportunity to violate her promise with no repercussions and rewarding her for it, is so destructive to society and children. This happens often in little ways and commonly in big ways.

Also do some study of the increase of BPD in women and NPD in men, although each sex can have either. A Shrink for Men

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Alte September 30, 2010 at 12:28

When have you EVER heard that “a woman is only as good as her word”?

The female correlation would be “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”

Historically, a woman’s word is considered relatively worthless, which is why they weren’t allowed to give evidence against a man in court, or they were regarded as dubious witnesses. Women get hysterical a lot, as well, and then they just say a lot of nonsense or make up things that seem true to them, or which they find expedient for their own vengeful purposes.

Not all women are like that, of course, but enough of them are that they were not considered reliable witnesses.

I think that might be one of the reasons that women’s movements tended to be curtailed. The onus of proving an injustice was on them, because they were assumed to frequently lie or be easily confused or mistaken. So if they ran home to their father and said, “I got drunk, went home with someone I didn’t know, got undressed, laid down in his bed, and then he raped me!” the father would be inclined to punish her for being so stupid as to jump into bed with a strange man. So she was inclined to protect her own virtue by having chaperones, avoiding being alone with strange men, not engaging in questionable behavior, etc.

Now the onus is on the men, which makes it nearly impossible for him to protect himself. It is very difficult to prove you have been raped, but it is even more difficult to prove you are not a rapist (or even that you pushed her or intimidated her). Hence, the recent resorting to video evidence, using fake names, etc.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
Bambino September 30, 2010 at 19:11

Fellas,

Marriage = game over.

Go chase your own damn dreams.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Kathy October 1, 2010 at 05:52

“Not many people go to confession anymore. Especially not the “cheating wife” portion of the population.”

Why go to confession if one is not sorry?

More to the point..
Many Christians today have lost the “sense of sin”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Alte October 1, 2010 at 09:17

Why go to confession if one is not sorry?

That’s true. If morality is relative, then confession is pointless.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: