"What I'm saying is that human beings are nasty weak treacherous creatures that are for the most part totally untrustworthy. Experience is my basis for this statement, both mine and others who I know or who have written reliable histories. If you can find a woman to be your companion who is not treacherous, a deceitful little actress, a sly whore or a manipulative nag or a shrieking hag, then you are among the lucky few. Congratulations. I hope your luck continues to hold out.
This guy sure must brighten every room he enters... posted by sharksandwich at 12:40 PM on November 22, 2003
It's about time for a complete reevaluation of the whole relationship thing. Western civ is finally transcending the biological prerogative to start asking some serious questions.
1) What is marriage?
2) Should biological prerogatives be the law?
3) Should sex and reproduction be seen as separate and distinct things?
4) Is reproduction a right or a privilege?
5) Is marriage (lasting monogamy) a right or a privilege?
6) Is sex a right or a privilege?
7) What happens, and what should government do, when there is a significant male/female population imbalance? (China, for one, may soon have 25 million males with no probable chance for sex or marriage. India, similar imbalance.)
8) Should some marriages be based on economic considerations?
9) Eugenics/genetic modification and reproduction. posted by kablam at 12:42 PM on November 22, 2003
Alas, the link seems to be entirely about the bitterness of men who made poor choices when marrying and continued to make poor choices (and hawking some booklet or other). There's little there in terms of rethinking human relationships, but there's plenty of "my marriage sucks so yours should, too" anecdote. posted by majick at 12:45 PM on November 22, 2003
Great link but why did you not post this before I got married? The trick then is to conceal such things and let other men become fools like we were. There is a spot of comfort in that. posted by Postroad at 12:49 PM on November 22, 2003
The problem is, is that when you're young, you just naturally fall into this mind set where your whole self image is based on how women regard you, and so you spend all your money and energy trying to make yourself acceptable to them.
This part is true, more or less, and can really fuck you up as an adolescent.
Then later in life, when the shine wears off and you finally see how inferior they are to men in every way, you realize that you've wasted yourself on a bunch of crap.
This part is bullshit. Women aren't inferior, they're just equally as fucked up and superfical and screwy as men are, but in his mind he'd elevated them to magical beings of desire who held the key to happiness and when they were revealed to him as mere humans, it destroyed his worldview. posted by jonmc at 12:51 PM on November 22, 2003
For a moment I thought I'd accidentally logged onto another one of my favorite sites, Cruel Site of the Day. posted by kozad at 12:57 PM on November 22, 2003
Funny, if you titled this "Why women should not marry" it'd still make sense. Perhaps this individual has had troubles in relationships because he is an enormous asshole. But at least he has realized that because of his hatred of women, he shouldn't have a relationship with a woman. Unless she's foreign, of course. posted by elwoodwiles at 1:05 PM on November 22, 2003
My first reaction was, "Bitter, depressed man creates website. Film at 11." But then I noticed this:
Is the website written by you?
Most of it is not. It's a collective thinking of many different men (I found most of it on various discussion forums).
So it's "Bitter, depressed man plaigarizes other bitter, depressed men to shill self-published book. Film at 11." posted by ook at 1:05 PM on November 22, 2003
I still maintain couples should have to take a test before they can parent. Random but appropriate somehow.. posted by Mossy at 1:11 PM on November 22, 2003
So it's "Bitter, depressed man plaigarizes other bitter, depressed men to shill self-published book. Film at 11."
Given the 90/70/50* rule, I guess there are a lot of bitter men out there.
*90% of single parents are female
*70% of divorces are initiated by women (conservative estimate)
*50% divorce rate
Dare I say men are primary victims of divorce.
(work it out for yourself)
I'm just sayin'........ posted by SpaceCadet at 1:38 PM on November 22, 2003
*90% of single parents are female
And in a large portion of those cases, it's because Dad decided to take a powder. It happened to a lot of people I know. Statistics tell only part of the story. posted by jonmc at 1:39 PM on November 22, 2003
And in a large portion of those cases, it's because Dad decided to take a powder.
Speak plain English. You mean because the father was a drug addict? I think you live in the wrong neighbourhood, if it happened to a lot of people you know.
Have you not heard of the family courts? "Best interests of the child"? Parental Alienation Syndrome? Malicious Mother Syndrome?
I guess not......Spiderman was just a waste of time it seems. posted by SpaceCadet at 1:45 PM on November 22, 2003
Alright, I feel in the mood...
4) Is reproduction a right or a privilege?
Mostly neither - it's a duty.
7) What happens, and what should government do, when there is a significant male/female population imbalance? (China, for one, may soon have 25 million males with no probable chance for sex or marriage. India, similar imbalance.)
What the hell are those figures based upon?
8) Should some marriages be based on economic considerations?
Not just some but all.
9) Eugenics/genetic modification and reproduction.
How is that a question? posted by zerofoks at 1:50 PM on November 22, 2003
Reading this guy's site, I am reminded of a certain little rascals episode. What a loser. No wonder he has a hard time with chicks. posted by adamrice at 1:52 PM on November 22, 2003
Once you're actually married, you'll find that everything about marriage, legal, financial, and emotional, will be about HER and the kids. Your needs will be dead last, or even more likely, not even recognized. You will be just a provider, a mechanic, or whatever type of worker bee the woman and children happen to require at the moment.
Not saying all marriages are like that, but I reckon a big proportion of them arelike that. Don't you think the men of those marriages are regretting their marriage? A simple truth, but isn't one we should recognise? posted by SpaceCadet at 1:57 PM on November 22, 2003
This page sponsored by The Marry Foreigners Foundation. posted by skallas at 1:59 PM on November 22, 2003
Speak plain English.
Meaning left, walked out, abandoned his kids. And I've lived in all kinds of neighborhoods. posted by jonmc at 2:00 PM on November 22, 2003
Wow, spacecadet, I'm just wishing I could have married a gem like you. posted by LittleMissCranky at 2:03 PM on November 22, 2003
China, for one, may soon have 25 million males with no probable chance for sex or marriage. India, similar imbalance
Hows about somebody telling me about a country with the imbalance the other way round for a change. You know, maybe an island somewhere; no male population; lots of bikinis; prgressive attitudes to sex; old fashioned attitude towards cleaning and cooking.
... And I don't want it to be like one of THOSE Star Trek episodes either, where it all turns out to be too good to be true. posted by seanyboy at 2:07 PM on November 22, 2003
Well, LittleMissCranky, I hope you weren't chiding SpaceCadet for this one:
reckon a big proportion of them are like that. Don't you think the men of those marriages are regretting their marriage? A simple truth, but isn't one we should recognise?
Because, while I am not married, I have plenty of thirtysomething friends and acquaintances who are in similar boats. Maybe they picked the wrong women, maybe they're assholes, maybe they're neglectful-- I can't say for sure.
But in any case, their quality of life has plummeted since marriage. They work sixty or seventy hours a week to provide good standards of living for their families, and come home to TV dinners, frigid wives, and kids that view them less as parents than ATMs.
Between the ages of 25 and 35, they lost their autonomies, their incomes, and their sexual partners. And forget about leaving a legacy by sharing their values with their children-- their wives raise their children, because they're always at work, trying to pay the mortgage on the houses that their wives just had to have.
They're fucked. And there's nothing they can do about it. posted by trharlan at 2:38 PM on November 22, 2003
Wow, spacecadet, I'm just wishing I could have married a gem like you.
It's such a shame, LittleMissCranky, that our paths did not cross. posted by SpaceCadet at 2:39 PM on November 22, 2003
If you pick a woman for her bra size instead of her character, and then expect to treat her like a household appliance with sexual privileges, don't come crying to me.
(Not directed to anyone here, thank God.) posted by konolia at 2:46 PM on November 22, 2003
trharlan, you speak the truth that other people are afraid to recognise.
I acknowledge it.
People: give me a reason why men should marry. posted by SpaceCadet at 2:48 PM on November 22, 2003
Yes, spacecadet, I'm kicking myself. And thank you for your clever reference to my ironically self-chosen user name.
What I object to, trharlan, is spacecadet's assumption (that you apparently share), that men regret marriage because women suck. People regret marriage because a) they have unrealistic expectations and b) people in general suck.
I really don't want to hear how men are miserable because they work all the time and how the grasping, selfish women are staying home eating bonbons and maliciously turning the children against their husbands. Please.
Working 60-70 hours a week is a choice, one that many women make as well. If the men don't want to do it, they should sack up and not do it. And believe it or not, it is NOT the woman's responsibility to provide non-defrosted dinners and sex on demand. If you really believe it is, I would certainly advise you not to marry.
I love this site. If a man agrees with these things, it's certainly better for him and for all the women of his acquaintance that he not marry. It's wonderful when things are self-selective. posted by LittleMissCranky at 2:51 PM on November 22, 2003
But in any case, their quality of life has plummeted since marriage. They work sixty or seventy hours a week to provide good standards of living for their families, and come home to TV dinners, frigid wives, and kids that view them less as parents than ATMs...their wives raise their children, because they're always at work, trying to pay the mortgage on the houses that their wives just had to have.
Things were so much better before feminism, back when men and women shared equally in parenting and men weren't expected to work long hours to provide for their families.
Look, these men married women who either wanted to be or were pressured into being stay-at-home moms (I assume they're stay-at-home moms, otherwise complaining about the "TV dinners" doesn't make any sense) and now they're complaining that they're stuck doing the traditionally male jobs in the marriage. What did they expect? posted by transona5 at 2:52 PM on November 22, 2003
People: give me a reason why men should marry.
On the contrary, SpaceCadet, I don't think that you should marry. posted by LittleMissCranky at 2:53 PM on November 22, 2003
I think SpaceCadet & LittleMissCranky should marry eachother.
Fetch Rev. Cardoso. posted by jonmc at 2:59 PM on November 22, 2003
But in any case, their quality of life has plummeted since marriage.
Unfortunately I think that is true for a lot of men AND women, especially if there are small children in the picture. These days one has to choose from one parent staying home, and the real financial stresses that brings, and both parents working-thus decreasing time and energy for the kids and for getting necessary house stuff done, which means there is little or no time for the couple to spend with each other or with themselves.
A tired stressed woman is not going to feel like a tiger at 11 pm. Which makes a tired stressed husband feel rejected, which can't help but affect the rest of their relationship in and out of the bedroom.
I love my husband and kids, but there have been times when the stresses of life were almost unbearable. It does get easier eventually, but for many people it is already too late. posted by konolia at 3:00 PM on November 22, 2003
Actually, things were so much better before feminism when marriages could actually survive on one income. There's no time left to do anything but earn money and then spend it. And, because parents are working harder and harder to keep afloat, kids are now often an unsupervised and exploitable resource. Yay! posted by WolfDaddy at 3:03 PM on November 22, 2003
no one has mentioned love yet, how sad. posted by luckyclone at 3:03 PM on November 22, 2003
It must suck to have a small penis. posted by bradth27 at 3:06 PM on November 22, 2003
no one has mentioned love yet, how sad.
Touché, luckyclone.
It seems to me that love is sometimes a luxury... posted by trharlan at 3:10 PM on November 22, 2003
Actually, things were so much better before feminism when marriages could actually survive on one income.
Nowhere does trharlan say that his friends are in two-income families. If they are, it's especially egregious to blame the long work hours on the wife when she's working too.
And when could families survive without the wife working? Not when people lived on farms. Not in the tenements. Maybe for the middle class in some brief time in the mid-twentieth century (a time when words like "frigid" were considered acceptable.) Even then, my grandfather was a shipping clerk, and they couldn't have gotten by without my grandmother's job (they lived in a basement apartment, not some white elephant McMansion that she "had" to have.) posted by transona5 at 3:12 PM on November 22, 2003
Clearly the only people who should get married are gay people. Maybe these guys should try dating men and see how that works out. posted by Hildegarde at 3:21 PM on November 22, 2003
"It seems to me that love is sometimes a luxury..."
definitely. marriages should be decided outside of the pressures of children and money and expectations. if there is no foundation of honesty and companionship, there won't be a happy marriage. it's easy to be naive about marriage and it's easy to say that all marriage is bad, but i think if two people can see through the bullshit together, the there is a lot of possible happiness.
wow i'm in a good mood today. posted by luckyclone at 3:21 PM on November 22, 2003
no one has mentioned love yet, how sad.
Love is not a reason to marry. You can love someone just as much without getting hitched. Marriage simply bestows upon a couple certain advantages that make their lives much easier. The ease with which a marriage can be dissolved does is proof it is not much more than that; it is not a lifetime commitment regardless of what you may say at the altar.
The conventional wisdom is "If you love someone, you will want to marry them" but that to me seems like as much a non sequitur as "If you love someone, you will want a cheese sandwich." It doesn't follow. posted by kindall at 3:24 PM on November 22, 2003
transona5:And when could families survive without the wife working? Not when people lived on farms. Not in the tenements. Maybe for the middle class in some brief time in the mid-twentieth century (a time when words like "frigid" were considered acceptable.) Even then, my grandfather was a shipping clerk, and they couldn't have gotten by without my grandmother's job (they lived in a basement apartment, not some white elephant McMansion that she "had" to have.)
Wow, what a peice of bullshit. You compare a 50 hour work week + 10 hours of commuting (typical modern job) with helping out on a farm while bringing up children? Hello????? Are you serious? Where were the day-care centres back in the day? How were kids looked after? Extended families? Ahhh, now you're getting the clue....now if you admit that, you will see the benefits of extended family, and family itself. posted by SpaceCadet at 3:36 PM on November 22, 2003
Love is not a reason to marry.
So Kindall, what is a reason to marry? posted by SpaceCadet at 3:38 PM on November 22, 2003
"Gallagher says that one of the strongest, broadest, deepest findings of social science research is that married people live longer, healthier lives than their never-married or divorced counterparts. She cited a 1990 review of scientific literature that found that "compared to married people, the non-married. . .have higher rates of mortality than the married: about 50% higher among women and 250% higher among men." - from a brief google search result at a site that can't possibly have an ulterior motive for these statistics.
250%??? Cripes. You guys had better hustle for those foreign wives. I don't want you to die! Since I only run a 50% chance, I feel I can risk singledom. posted by Salmonberry at 3:43 PM on November 22, 2003
I've worked a 50-hour week. I would much prefer it to "helping out" with farm work (I guess it's "helping out" when women do it and "work" when men do it.) Yes, they had extended family to take care of children. Something happened along the way to make that less common. It's called urbanization and the Industrial Revolution.
Or you could just blame the whole thing on selfish women, but at least get it straight as to whether you're blaming it on selfish yuppie career women or selfish lazy stay-at-home women. posted by transona5 at 3:45 PM on November 22, 2003
Or you could just blame the whole thing on selfish women, but at least get it straight as to whether you're blaming it on selfish yuppie career women or selfish lazy stay-at-home women.
Who's "blaming" anyone here? posted by trharlan at 3:52 PM on November 22, 2003
Who's "blaming" anyone here?
Well, I'm a little curious as to why Space Cadet posted a link about how the institution of marriage is flawed because women are "inferior to men in every way" and then brings up the decline of the extended family, if he didn't intend to hold these inferior creatures somehow responsible. posted by transona5 at 3:54 PM on November 22, 2003
Hey, my parents have been happily married for 40 years now, with two kids that have moved out and more or less achieved success at life. My big sister recently gave them a grandkid, and she's in her 4th year of marriage to a man she lived with for 8 years before that. I'm sorry if some misogynists find it difficult to nurture a fulfilling and loving relationship with the fucked-up gold-diggers, shrews, and failures to thrive they ensnare, but to conclude from their anecdotes that marriage is necessarily a bad idea is... really weird.
Is marrying your highschool sweetheart a bad idea? Probably. Someone you've known for 8 months? Probably. Should you go meat-market shopping and marry the first person you can stand for more than ten minutes? Probably not. If you want to have a kid with the person you've been in a monagamous relationship with for several years, a relationship that has only grown in depth, should you marry then?
Well, duh, yes you should. posted by kavasa at 4:03 PM on November 22, 2003
Space Cadet, you might want to brush up on your history. The nuclear family has been alive and kicking a hell of a lot longer than you think it has. Just because you think medieval children were raised by extended family doesn't mean it's true. posted by Hildegarde at 4:06 PM on November 22, 2003
To each their own.... posted by grefo at 4:09 PM on November 22, 2003
Okay, I'm not sure what SpaceCadet is looking for here. I do, however, have a few thoughts on the issue of marriage though.
I'm now past the age when most of my friends married, and though I've never been married (we'll come back to that) I have been able to watch these marriages both succeed and fail.
The successful marriages I've seen aren't always happy marriages. There are so many things that strain modern relationships that marital bliss is quickly stamped out by jobs, debts, housing payments, children etc. I've known people who have had every damn problem I could've thought of and they fought tooth and nail about every single thing. At the end of the day, however, they stayed together and did what the had to do to make their relationships work. That is what a relationship is, after all: work and lots of it. I've often scratched my head and wondered "why did they stay together? It seems like so much trouble." Logically I've never been able to answer that question, but something deeper in me knows without hesitation why they kept going: Love and lots of it.
I think marriages fail because someone in the relationship isn't willing to work. I don't mean putting in 50 or 60 + hours on some timeclock, but actually trying to stay interested and active in their relationship with their spouse. People seem to think that they deserve love, but it doesn't operate that way. Love isn't something that just happens, like in white-lie movies, but something people have to make happen, everyday.
When I read through the content of the linked site I can't help but ponder how lazy these men seem. They are willing to work to make money and they think that is enough to make them men. They don't understand why they have to work more when they come home, that they have to love and respect their wives in order to get love and respect. Marriage isn't a hot meal and a blow job, it's a interaction between two people who have different sets of needs but have decided to try to fulfill those needs together.
I've never married and it is possible I never will. I haven't gone out and found a wife because marriage is not the point of life. I wonder, at times, if people marry because they think they are supposed too; they can't imagine being single when all their friends on TV (and maybe a few in real life, I guess) are married. I don't want to marry for the sake of marriage. I want to marry because I'm in love with someone who loves me. I want to marry because I can imagine fighting, fucking, laughing and growing old with a woman I love, a woman who could handle the sight of the lifeless siamese twin growing from my neck.
(kidding about the twin, it just seemed like I was getting to hallmark and shit.) posted by elwoodwiles at 4:12 PM on November 22, 2003
This will affect the entire world. We just don't know how yet. posted by kablam at 4:31 PM on November 22, 2003
You compare a 50 hour work week + 10 hours of commuting (typical modern job) with helping out on a farm while bringing up children?
Your astonishment is appropriate. Farm-living for women, especially before modern tools and appliances would have taken 12+ hours a day, every day, what with all the cooking from scratch and cleaning with water drawn from wells and stuff. The "bringing up children" part probably amounted to just making sure they didn't fall into the fire until they were old enough to work in the fields themselves. I suspect a 50hour work week + 10 hours commuting sounds like a dream to most farm women, which is probably why so many women don't choose to live on farms anymore.
A study by a Brigham Young University professor warns that by 2020, China's government will be forced to contend with a population of 30 million surplus young males with no hope of marriage,
So SpaceCadet would think these are the lucky ones. posted by dness2 at 4:45 PM on November 22, 2003
Marriage isn't a hot meal and a blow job.
I don't know, elwoodwiles, it seems to me that to these guys, that is what marriage is. posted by Orb at 4:45 PM on November 22, 2003
Actually, things were so much better before feminism when marriages could actually survive on one income.
You still can, easily enough, in the vast majority of the US.
If you don't mind assuming a 1940's/1950's standard of living, that is. Small houses with one bathroom on small lots aren't that expensive in most of the US, and one unreliable, unsafe car can be had for cheap. posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:47 PM on November 22, 2003
70% of divorces are initiated by women (conservative estimate)
Do you have a link to support this? And what do you infer from it? posted by biscotti at 4:48 PM on November 22, 2003
So Kindall, what is a reason to marry?
Because the two of you've looked at what you'll gain from marriage, and what you'll lose, and have decided that the grass looks greener over in married-land. Legally you become one entity, which has advantages and disadvantages.
Making any major life decision (and merging your household with someone else's is a major life decision) primarily on the basis of emotion can be a terrible mistake. Love is the reason you'll be able to make the marriage work, if you decide to get married; it is not the reason to get married. posted by kindall at 4:49 PM on November 22, 2003
"People: give me a reason why men should marry."
If I'm not mistaken, marriage used to be a dealie where the woman gave the man children, and he gave her food and a house. Sex was the grease preventing friction.
In modern society women are perfectly capable of providing housing and food for themselves, and I'm not sure if sex is something to base a marriage on.
So, to turn the question around:
Give me a reason why women should marry.
I don't care wether other men marry or not, but I'm not going to. It seems that the only things people can come up with in favor of marriage are centered on emotions - I know enough about my emotions to not base the rest of my life on them.
"7) What happens, and what should government do, when there is a significant male/female population imbalance? (China, for one, may soon have 25 million males with no probable chance for sex or marriage. India, similar imbalance.)"
I think the traditional solution to this is to go to war. It will certainly diminish the male population, and if they win they have access to new territories that now have fewer males as well. I'm not saying that this is a moral solution, mind you, but it makes sense from a purely Machiavellian point of view. posted by spazzm at 5:03 PM on November 22, 2003
According to a study of 46,000 divorces conducted by economists Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen, most divorces are initiated by women, and their primary motive in terminating a struggling marriage is to gain sole custody of their children.
But it also seems to be an artifice of custody laws too. In US states where joint custody is the default, there is more parity in the numbers. The imbalance comes from the fact that in cases where the legal system has a traditional view of custody, (s)he that files (usually) gets custody. Since women feel more of a sense of urgency to get the custody if it's sole, they are the ones doing the filing. Therefore, I interprete this number as more women than men want badly to continue their parenting role full time after divorce - maybe women take their jobs as parents more seriously.
The article continues:
A solution to the problem lies in the two shared parenting bills now being considered by the New York legislatures. Assembly Bill A3673, sponsored by David Sidikman (D-Nassau County), and Senate Bill S2818, sponsored by Owen Johnson (R-Suffolk County) create equality between divorcing couples by replacing the option of sole physical custody, which occurs in the vast majority of custody cases, with the presumption of joint custody. Divorcing parents would be expected to create and follow a shared parenting plan, and sole custody would be awarded to a parent only if he or she can prove that joint custody would be detrimental to the child.
Under these bills children would gain from the ongoing emotional, physical, and financial support of both parents that shared parenting allows. And once couples understand that they will be unable to drive the other parent out of their children's lives, cooperation between divorced parents rises markedly. In fact, as the Brinig/Allen research from American Law and Economics Review indicates, the presumption of joint physical custody may even serve to keep some marriages together. posted by dness2 at 5:18 PM on November 22, 2003
If you don't mind assuming a 1940's/1950's standard of living, that is. Small houses with one bathroom on small lots aren't that expensive in most of the US, and one unreliable, unsafe car can be had for cheap.
Hey, do you know me? posted by konolia at 6:19 PM on November 22, 2003
Metafilter: not just a hot meal and blowjob. posted by stbalbach at 6:22 PM on November 22, 2003
marriages should be decided outside of the pressures of children and money and expectations.
I don't agree. When there's no strife, there's no real test. It's easy to be in love and have an idealized view of the person you're with when there's nothing to challenge the resolve of your commitment.
Better to find out you have no job prospects and your "love" is a secret alcohol before you tie the knot (around your neck). See how pressure makes you and your partner react. Do they get angry and defensive? Do they close themselves off from you? Are you the one who's always trying to "work things out?" even if you're not at fault? Strife brings out the best and worst in people -- if you both can see each other at your ugliest and you still want to be together, your marriage will probably be OK. posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:28 PM on November 22, 2003
so much blame and bitterness, so little taking of responsibility and moving onward. i've been thru' just as much (possibly more but i won't divulge to strangers) as anyone else has but there's not a bitter bone in my body because i accept that whatever pile of shite i've landed in has been one i directed myself at. including my rotten first marriage and subsequent divorce. my choices, my consequences, my mess to straighten out.
People: give me a reason why men should marry?
every study i've ever read on the subject says married men live up to 10 years longer than single men. just saying. i'm not in any way a supporter of marriage. some men (and women) should, clearly a lot of them shouldn't.
spacecadet, i guess some really bad stuff happened to you but going all woman bad, man put upon is not going to help you in any way. focussing on stats that support your bitterness, especially after they've been put thru' the spin cycle by those man/father power sites... it's all designed to keep you down - misery loves company, you know. posted by t r a c y at 7:34 PM on November 22, 2003
(After looking around the site)
Wow, that's just a shit-load of bitterness there, huh? I had no idea that the whole site is more of the same screed. It's almost an advertisement against being single -- "Hey, you wanna be pissed-off and miserable with so much time on your hands that you can fill up not only a website but a whole book on how much everyone else is a chump for not seeing life the same way? Well I got the answer for you!" posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:43 PM on November 22, 2003
Thank you, elwoodwiles, for saying what needed to be said. posted by gd779 at 8:21 PM on November 22, 2003
Marriage is a funny thing. For it to work: Yes, you have to be in love. Yes, the sexual spark has to be there. Yes, you have to be compatible in your interests and outlook -- friends as well as lovers. It's a drag being around someone that you don't like, for goodness sake. So why should one want to be in a sexually and emotionally satisfying relationship? Because it makes you happy. Even on those days when the person is annoying you, or there are pressures and problems like a 3 year old kid who is throwing daily tanturms -- the good times get you through the bad. It is the best situation for raising a kid, if that's what you want, and it's something my wife and I wanted. Having a kid... well, it's an incredible bonding experience. It makes you grow up fast, or it should, and you realize, or you should, that there might just be something more important in this world than your petty concerns. So if you're the Daddy with the big paycheck (or the mommy, which happens) you save a little of yourself for the family. You can get by without the luxuries -- the precious thing is to be there in the house, holding that kid up to the ceiling and tickling her, and hugging that wife and being a good person to her and satisfying her in the ways a husband should.
Here's what you get out of it, men:
1. No more 24/7 on the prowl for chicks. You can apply your creative powers to your career, or your family or that screenplay in the drawer.
2. You will be healthier. When you get sick, she will make you go to the doctor. I would have ignored the pains in my back and chest this year -- turns out I needed some surgery. If I had ignored it, could have been a serious problem. So you get to be healthy and live longer.
3. Your bad habits will be discouraged. Probably you won't smoke, drink, toke, drop acid, drive fast, jump off cliffs quite so often. You'll have people counting on you. This seems like a loss of freedom, but it's not really a bad thing. There will come a day when you are too old to jump off cliffs or ride dirt bikes off road. That doesn't mean you won't enjoy your life.
If you want to experiment with drugs, I'd suggest popping a viagra and spending the night in with the wife -- you'll be as hard as a 18 year old with the staying power of 30 -- and you can go at it 2 or 3 times. Sex is a good habit, and if it's monogamous you don't have to worry about any nasty little problems that plague the singletons.
4. You can drop a lot of pretenses and just be comfortable with the person. Every day is no longer a performance.
5. There are tax benefits, especially if you have a kid.
6. It's easier to run a household with someone to help you.
One person cooks, another does laundry, and so on. It's a partnership. posted by Slagman at 8:33 PM on November 22, 2003
So why should one want to be in a sexually and emotionally satisfying relationship? Because it makes you happy.
No, no, no, no. I mean, I'm not married, so take my perspective with a grain of salt, but to my mind this is absolutely backward. The one and only reason to marry is to sacrifice yourself. Only when you love someone so much that you're willing to commit your life to her and give up everything for her, only then should you marry.
Marriage isn't about you. It's about your spouse. It's about selflessness and giving, even when your spouse doesn't deserve your selflessness. As Lewis says in The Four Loves:
It is the very mark of Eros that when he is in us we had rather share unhappiness with the Beloved than be happy on any other terms. Even if the two lovers are mature and experienced people who know that broken hearts heal in the end and can clearly foresee that, if they once steeled themselves to go through the present agony of parting, they would almost certainly be happier ten years hence than marriage is at all likely to make them -- even then, they would not part. To Eros all these calculations are irrelevant -- just as the coolly brutal judgment of Lucretius is irrelevant to Venus. Even when it becomes clear beyond all evasion that marriage with the Beloved cannot possibly lead to happiness -- when it cannot even profess to offer any other life than that of tending an incurable invalid, of hopeless poverty, of exile, or of disgrace -- Eros never hesitates to say, "Better this than parting. Better to be miserable with her than happy without her. Let our hearts break provided they break together." If the voice within us does not say this, it is not the voice of Eros.
This is the grandeur and terror of love. posted by gd779 at 8:53 PM on November 22, 2003
This will affect the entire world.
There is a similar imbalance, for some of the same reasons, in gender stats of children currently in elementary/middle/high school in South Korea. Ten years from now, this will be the primary driver for reunification with North Korea, I predict : not enough women, coupled with the abhorrence most Koreans, even modern ones, feel at the idea of marriage to non-Koreans (tho' it's not so bad if the wife is non-Korean, as the man carries the family line, predictably). Mark my words. posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:56 PM on November 22, 2003
Having a kid... well, it's an incredible bonding experience. It makes you grow up fast, or it should, and you realize, or you should, that there might just be something more important in this world than your petty concerns.
There is nothing in the world more important than my petty concerns. Which is why I won't be reproducing. posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:58 PM on November 22, 2003
"every study i've ever read on the subject says married men live up to 10 years longer than single men"
Correlation != causality.
While the article hints that married men live longer because they adapt healthy habits, it is only one possible explanation.
Another explanation might be that the men that manage to convince a woman to marry them and stay with them are good specimens to begin with - i.e. healthy, strong and without major behavioral defects - thus they would have lived longer anyway. To put it another way: Healthy people have a greater chance of getting married. posted by spazzm at 9:05 PM on November 22, 2003
And another thing about the study mentioned earlier:
They compare married people to non-married (i.e. single and cohabitants), but they do not compare cohabitants and married. Nevertheless, they come to the conclusion that it is marriage that produces longevity, not cohabitation.
I smell bias. posted by spazzm at 9:10 PM on November 22, 2003
gd779
If you read my entire post carefully, you'll see that we do not really disagree. The part you referenced was to address the selfish question raised in some other posts -- what's in it for me? And there are selfish reasons for marrying, though that should not be the sole or main motivation, or the the thing will fail at the first sign of trouble. (Maybe. There are people who marry for the wrong reasons who grow into it and find that it was the right thing, just as there are those who got married for all the right reasons who simply grow apart or discover that they were not seeing clearly in the flush of emotion). posted by Slagman at 9:12 PM on November 22, 2003
spazzm
interesting point re cohabitation versus marriage. I don't care what you call it -- I suspect longterm cohabitation brings the same satisfactions and benefits. I don't think the piece of paper is needed -- though it makes certain legal/financial things easier, because of the way our laws are set up. posted by Slagman at 9:14 PM on November 22, 2003
I do not know which antagonist I should address this to, but here goes. I am 45 years old American male, I now live on a Caribbean Island, have never been married and have no children, am engaged to a Latina who has a beautiful heart and strong family values, and would seem to be unwittingly following the only road toward marital bliss described by the web-site authors. And on reflection I see my decision to follow this path as not a rejection of western women, but a rejection of western materialism. The western Man, and the keeping up with what Mr. and Mrs. Jones HAVE, is as equally caught in this web as is the western woman. The rejection of family and relationships, and the replacement of economic prosperity as the source of happiness, is cultural and shared by both sexes, each with their own agendas, behaviors and in the end with equal culpability. It is in the insane notion among us Moderns that as long as we have the latest stuff, are rich enough, and are independent and free to do as we please, that somehow the true happiness light will shine on MAH LITTLE WORLD. Plato postulated that what would ultimately keep order in his grand Republic was a “great lie” and this is our lie. It is hawked by every ad-man in our media, alive in our daily speech, insidiously unsaid in our gossip, and incredulously believed by the vast majority of both the rich and the poor. Unfortunately, what I hear being spoken of here is not exclusively about marriage, instead I hear the unraveling of the me-generation over the sadness and loneliness its untenable support structure is based upon. And in the ultimate irony this is also what we are globally exporting, often with force of arms, and we call it freedom. posted by Hopoch at 9:35 PM on November 22, 2003
Slagman:
Agreed - what you choose to call it makes no difference.
So why should one choose one over the other?
(Because I don't think it's likely that the legal/financial things being easier can explain 10 years of added life).
And why did the study ignore this distinction?
I'm guessing that the fact that they recommend tax-breaks for married couples gives us one hint - it would be interesting to know if any of the researchers publishing this paper are married. posted by spazzm at 9:35 PM on November 22, 2003
Slagman: yeah, I didn't mean to imply that we totally disagreed, it just came off that way. I simply meant to take issue with the narrow statement that I quoted. posted by gd779 at 9:54 PM on November 22, 2003
Hopoch: I was going to post a comment earlier about keeping up with the Joneses when someone said that you couldn't still live on one salary anymore like you could in the 50s. You can. We've been doing it for 4 years now (and the one income isn't even all that big). It requires self control and not wanting to keep up with the "Joneses".
We just bought our first house, and though we qualified for a loan that would have bought a McMansion, we opted instead to find a smaller, older house that needed some paint and attention on a large lot, thus keeping our mortgage payments below the rent we were paying for our tiny apartment. I drive the '73 Dodge Dart that I inherited when my dad died, and he bought a used Chevy built in the 90s. No payments other than insurance on either of them. They both run fine and when they break we both work on them together. We don't eat out except on special occasions, and don't buy pre-processed foods to pop in the microwave. Fresh foods really are cheaper and better for you.
Meanwhile, I watch our friends going further and further into debt with two incomes, long work hours, enormous mortgages for houses they can't even afford to furnish, and driving one or two of the latest and greatest SUVs on their way to a restaurant every night. And they don't seem very happy. It's like they focus more on the things than on each other, and they can never afford to get enough "things". On the other hand, we scream at each other daily about paint colors and lawn mowing, live in a house that most of them sneer at when they visit, and we are blissfully happy. Why? We love each other, work together to make a life, and we aren't trying to live outside our means or keep up with anyone. We focus on ourselves and each other more than the things we can buy. And now we are focusing on making the house we bought a home that we will both enjoy while our friends are slapping down credit cards to hire designers to do their houses for them (and not a one of them have been happy with the outcome). It just makes me angry sometimes to see how focused they all are on having the very best of everything, when they should realize that if they are with the person they love and care most about, they already have the best of everything.
In the 12 years we have been together, our friends have all been through multiple marriages, because at the first sign that being married isn't "fun" anymore, one of them will bail. Well, it isn't always fun, but at the end of a bad day around here, no one is packing their bags and leaving. We are in it for the long haul. I feel lucky, and I guess I am. It's sad that these men have these horrible ideas about women, and that they generalize it to include ALL American women. We aren't all THAT bad. You just have to be looking for a life-mate and not a trophy wife to go with your trophy house and trophy SUV.
Sorry for the rant. Once I get going, I cant shut up. posted by Orb at 10:54 PM on November 22, 2003
Orb: The Jones-centric outlook is taught to us at an early age. It lives in the rush felt as a child over the purchase by our parents of the new Stingray bicycle, the one you always wanted, and the adrenal rush we felt as we rode our new "thing" to show our friends, and then the sudden sink of the stomach as our best friend or enemy rides up in a bigger and "better" 10 speed. We had spent months living our happiness in the future and based it an object, and shortly after quenching this desire, we discover its fascination fleeting, so on to the next fantasy, the next dream, the next promise of fulfillment and on to more of the emptiness of coveting. It is an old addiction and less than easy to see, and difficult to begin to let it go of, to start the process of being free. Marriage partners for many seem to have become like my old stingray, a temporary satifaction and replacable. posted by Hopoch at 11:45 PM on November 22, 2003
I believe this whole discontinuity arises (not with every couple) because men and woman approach each other with inherently different illusions about relationships. Men are interested in the woman they meet, fall in love in with: the person in front of them. Women give as much or more weight to the man they think will emerge from the crucible of the relationship: the diamond that may result from the pressure (not in a bad sense) applied to the attractive piece of coal before them.
Men seem to become disillusioned because their wives change from the person they first knew. Women become equally disillusioned that the man does not change (or, perhaps, mature).
Bitter and sad types prefer to believe they have been tricked, lured, when really one person has changed and the other has not. As to which is right, I cannot say. I assume neither. Long-term relationships are difficult. And, clearly, not for everyone. posted by umberto at 12:05 AM on November 23, 2003
Slagman: I don't think the bit about discouraging bad habits and crazy risks and whatnot holds true - or quite as true - for men over the age of, say, 32 or so. I know I read this somewhere, but I can't find a page for citation. Most men just get more risk-averse as they get older, regardless of their number or lack of dependents, so marriage generally doesn't make quite as much of that pragmatic sort of difference for them. posted by raysmj at 12:30 AM on November 23, 2003
I always thought the biggest perk to being married was to have someone with whom I can be my grossest, most unpolished, basic human self and still be accepted, respected and hell, even understood. The idea of a relationship of that level of comfort (I would think) is intensely appealing. We spend enough of our daily lives dealing with bullshit, we should be able to have somebody as part of that life who loves us and will listen to us because we listen to them. Who has made a promise to stick around, no matter how much bullshit there gets to be. That, and it's nice to have someone to laugh with, and a regular partner for the horizontal tango isn't such a bad deal.
We're all pretty nasty, selfish, imperfect creatures when you get right down to it, and I think it's because we can't readily admit that about ourselves or our lovers that it becomes so much easier to wax poetic about soul mates and romance and neglected blow jobs rather than shoving up the sleeves and getting your hands dirty with some good ol' fashioned self responsibility.
I honestly feel sorry for the fellows whose bitterness lead to construction of this website, their idea of what a marriage 'ought' to be is awful hard to get these days. Then again, so is mine. posted by nelleish at 12:34 AM on November 23, 2003
Wow, this thread is the captain of pathetic. posted by pemulis at 1:44 AM on November 23, 2003
Hopoch: Then I guess it's a good thing that both my husband and I grew up dirt poor and learned to appreciate the people we had and not the things.
Though I do remember my first bike. I never envied anyone else's bikes, even though most of them were so much better than mine. Purple metallic fleck Western Flyer with the high rise handlebars and the banana seat ... and streamers. It was awesome. And your stingray may be replaceable, but they'll have to pry the keys to the Dodge Dart out of my cold dead fingers (and I'm not parting with the husband either). :D
Bitter and sad types prefer to believe they have been tricked, lured, when really one person has changed and the other has not.
I agree with you on that. I think the reason we have made it as long as well as we have is because we have both changed over the years, and accepted each others changes. I think people should change as they have life experiences, but I know that some just don't and don't like it when their mate does. posted by Orb at 2:15 AM on November 23, 2003
every study i've ever read on the subject says married men live up to 10 years longer than single men.
I think divorced men are at the bottom of the pile. The suicide rate for male divorcees is 10 times higher than female divorcees.
An interesting phenomena in Japan is that most divorces occur when the man retires from work. The woman initiates it as the man has lost his usefulness and they will be forced to actually (shock!) spend time together.
So many people marry because it's an expected "next step" in their lives. I did it. And I regret doing it that way. The woman who suddenly feels isolated because her friends are pregnant and talking all the time about babies suddenly becomes broody herself. A kind of peer pressure. They are thinking more about "I want a baby" than "let's have a family".
My advice to men would be, under the current anti-family court rulings (pick your Western country), marry all you like, but do not have children. There are many broody 35-year-old woman in Western society only looking for a sperm donor. Once you donate your sperm, the State will act as Daddy financially speaking. Not saying it happens all the time, but it sure happens a lot. posted by SpaceCadet at 4:01 AM on November 23, 2003
He's taken to calling me up now at odd hours, telling me all about her depression, her end-runs, her controlling ways. I listen and listen. He continues, alternately praising me for being such a good listener and damning me for ruining my life. He is all over the place, enraged one moment and placid the next.
He is scared she will leave him. He does not say this directly, but trashes his ex-wife's fate as though it was proof of a horrible fate for his current one should she leave him.
Meanwhile, the wife in question is searching around for answers. I listen to her. It is difficult. I always took her side during his pointless verbal abuse. She says that this has to stop. I ask her what she means. She says she doesn't know...yet.
Back when it was easy to muster streaks of outrage at his manipulations, when he was in relative good health, I could've told her to leave him. Leave forever. Now I'm the one hoping she doesn't. He needs her. There's no way out.
I wouldn't choose to die alone and I can't leave him alone and hope she doesn't leave him alone. I can't believe I'm writing this, but it's true. All his toothless efforts at impressing upon us his incredible importance have had the opposite effect. He needs us.
The salient point I'm making is the end game. As in...The End. Suddenly cruelty seems so very petty. He is family. I'm not going anywhere. A family is what he has built over the years. I don't even want to escape anymore. I want him to know that he is loved. This is the point of a marriage and its 'products' for me now. posted by attackthetaxi at 5:06 AM on November 23, 2003
I want to marry elwoodwiles.
Or I guess I could move to China and wait for some of those millions of boys to mature. Or I could continue to live my only very occasionally lonely single life as all my friends' marriages collapse into pits of despair and think: whew. posted by CunningLinguist at 5:41 AM on November 23, 2003
elwoodwiles: Marriage isn't a hot meal and a blow job
I think a good marriage would encompass those two things, at the very least!
But running with that.....
Marriage isn't about being a wallet or being a sperm donor.
Regarding the site itself, what is wrong with being anti-marriage, given the divorce rates and anti-family court rulings that are biased against men?
Nobody is forcing us to marry Western women, who is the most likely to initiate divorce (most to gain from it), and as the site suggest:-
Yes, Latin American and Eastern European women do make better mates because both come from more conservative and family oriented cultures where relationships and commitment are actually revered.
If that is what the authors of the sight seek, what is wrong with that? It's a free world! posted by SpaceCadet at 6:18 AM on November 23, 2003
I agree that the materialism prevalent in our society is the cause of a lot of unhappiness. However, I think that we are also mislead into thinking that another person can make us happy, and that it's their responsibility to do so. I think that a lot of people are unhappy in their marriages because they're unhappy in their lives and wondering why their spouse isn't fixing it. Your own happiness is your own responsibility -- someone else, no matter how great they are, can't do it for you.
SpaceCadet, it's fine to be anti-marriage. What sucks about this site, and what makes you a gigantic, gaping asshole, is the claim that marriage is crappy because all western women are stupid lying selfish bitchy whores. posted by LittleMissCranky at 6:33 AM on November 23, 2003
SpaceCadet, it's fine to be anti-marriage. What sucks about this site, and what makes you a gigantic, gaping asshole, is the claim that marriage is crappy because all western women are stupid lying selfish bitchy whores.
I agree that the site caricatures Western women as being "stupid lying selfish bitchy whores", but I have to admit that it's a stereotype that is growing amongst many Western men (and certainly among non-Western men). Why would that be? posted by SpaceCadet at 7:47 AM on November 23, 2003
Yeah, the site is stupid, but it's true the guy is right not to get married. It wouldn't work for him if he believes the stuff he has cobbled together. But if he has made this decision, why does he feel the need to prosletyze? To make it the focus of his actiivity? It's kind of like atheists who spend all their time arguing about God. I also agree that some of the discussion here has made assumptions about materialism -- that we need all this stuff, that we need two incomes to survive, and so on. I'd love to stay home with the kid while my wife worked, but I played the career game better -- she works part time and we can afford some child care for the overlap. But it really doesn't seem to pay to have her in a full time job -- just more child care costs. We didn't have a kid so someone else could be paid to raise her. But a lot of people live that way, and it's a different argument. There is a culture of "trading up" to trophy wives, of being in debt, having the new stuff, the biggest possible house and so on. All of these desires and pressures also put pressure on the marriage/family/partnership (and again, I don't exclude non-traditional cohabitation or gay partnerships or even polyamory if you could make it work). But it is good for society to have people in stable loving relationships of some sort (even an adult child living with an aging parent, or roommates). Humans are meant to be together. I lived alone for many years, and it made me a little strange. There are others who live alone all their lives and become sociopathic or depressive, threats to themselves or others -- criminals, rapists and killers, perhaps, or depressives at risk for suicide, with no one looking out for them.
On another point, yes, as we get older, we take fewer risks, but a man with something to live for takes even fewer risks.
A divorced man, cut off from that time and disillusioned, might take more risks, of course.
I knew for many years that smoking and heavy drinking were not good for me, and had evidence of my health being damaged, but it was not until I got married, had a family and realized that I might want to be here in 20 years when this kid grows up that I quit doing that stuff. Of course, it's all anecdotal, and a lot of the science is incomplete in these studies. Nor can one conclude that what is true for the aggregate or the majority will necessarily be true for you. There are no doubt a few 90 year old men out there who have had long and rewarding lives of womanizing and solitude with no commitments, with hearts that pump with vigor and minds as clear as a bell. I have not met any, however. posted by Slagman at 8:03 AM on November 23, 2003
i really love my wife and my kids. i still have plenty of sex. we hardly ever fight because we discuss things, EVERYTHING, instead of letting shit boil over. i live in a modest house and we own two modest cars.
most marriages suck because at least half of all people suck. i've worked hard to not suck and made sure i found someone who doesn't suck, and then i fell in love with them and decided to spend my life with them. it's that simple.
no, really. posted by glenwood at 8:07 AM on November 23, 2003
Marriage is what you make of it, and these days, that's most anything. It is usually pretty good for me. The biggest "burden" of marriage is really not being able to take off and go anywhere on demand, but that is countered by actually having a home, which is pretty nice thing at times.
I love my wife, and she makes my life considerably easier and far less lonely. I wish I could say the same thing about my girlfriend or occasional lovers, too. posted by insomnia_lj at 8:13 AM on November 23, 2003
Slagman:But it is good for society to have people in stable loving relationships of some sort (even an adult child living with an aging parent, or roommates). Humans are meant to be together.
The author of the site agrees with you Slagman....but he's just making a point of making sure he marries for life, not for a couple of years and then get shafted in the divorce courts and not have any meaningful access to his kids. He wants what you want. He doesn't like his odds though with a Western woman when compared to a more traditional, family-orientated non-Western woman.
From the site:-
I will go one step further and differentiate between Western women vs. non-Western women. This is not just an American phenomenon, most women in Western countries have that cold, bitchy, superficial, stuck up attitude. A lot of Western women hold themselves as the pure center of the relationship. If the men don't fit a rigid and unrealistic criteria or she doesn't feel the man can take care of her enough (even if she has a higher paying job) then she will drop him like a hot potato, regardless of his character or commitment to the relationship.
Popular Myth: Western men looking for foreign wives are only seeking subservient slaves.
Truth: Most Western men today are evolved and modern and truly believe in the 50/50 system. Most Western men are dismayed by the lack of sincerity of Western women. I can do my own laundry and cooking thank you!
Yes, Latin American and Eastern European women do make better mates because both come from more conservative and family oriented cultures where relationships and commitment are actually revered.
This guy needs to bone up on the art of negotiation. However, he seems like a sexist self pitying miserable ogre. Maybe it's the oncoming senility. Maybe it's his learned behaviour.
Blaming someone else for your miseries, when it's all up to you to change it, is pathetic. Pathetic I tell ya. Blaming the opposite sex, even more pathetic. Will he get therapy? Doubt it, he'd rather wallow in self pity and misery.
People change and it's the ability to embrace change and grow together. This guy clearly doesn't have it. I'll lump Space Cadet in the same category.
adamrice, this guy is the total opposite of that rascals episode [and thanks for the reminder, what a laugh].
What elwoodwiles said. Bingo.
Big up to Orb also. [And I miss my '68 Valiant.]
The negative and stereotypical invective aimed at women from some here is stunning and misdirected, I may add. Have a closer look at yourselves. posted by alicesshoe at 8:31 AM on November 23, 2003
I'm sure those foreign women aren't just looking for a green card.
I'm just sayin'. posted by Hildegarde at 8:44 AM on November 23, 2003
alicesshoe: Blaming someone else for your miseries, when it's all up to you to change it, is pathetic. Pathetic I tell ya. Blaming the opposite sex, even more pathetic. Will he get therapy? Doubt it, he'd rather wallow in self pity and misery.
What happens when your spouse ups and leaves at the first sign of trouble? That's what the author is saying - that if he ever marries, it will be because he will have kids and will want to make sure his wife won't just bail out at the first sign of trouble, (which woman can do via no fault divorce and also benefit from divorce much more than men). What man marries and has kids, knowing he has no legal protection if his wife walks out on him? Conversely, a woman knows that the State will look after her financially and also reward her with sole custody of her kids in the event of a divorce. Many women see divorce as a contingency plan. All men see it as a disaster (hence male divorcee suicide rate is TEN TIMES higher than female divorcee suicide rate). Blaming others? Absolutely - particularly when the system is so gender-biased, blaming others is legitimised.
Hildegarde: I'm sure those foreign women aren't just looking for a green card.
From the site:-
Foreign women from South America, Eastern Europe, and Asia are at the top. Only guys who travel (in other words, guys who are successful and ambitious enough to travel a lot) find these. But they never, ever go back.
I think he's advocating going to their country. posted by SpaceCadet at 9:09 AM on November 23, 2003
alicesshoe:Blaming someone else for your miseries, when it's all up to you to change it, is pathetic. Pathetic I tell ya. Blaming the opposite sex, even more pathetic. Will he get therapy? Doubt it, he'd rather wallow in self pity and misery.
Forgot to add.....can I use that quote against the feminist movement? They've been blaming their ills on a patriachal society for the last 40 years. Do they also need therapy? Or only the people you disagree with? posted by SpaceCadet at 9:11 AM on November 23, 2003
On another point, yes, as we get older, we take fewer risks, but a man with something to live for takes even fewer risks.
Translation: Single people have nothing to live for. Nice. posted by raysmj at 9:12 AM on November 23, 2003
I'm sure there are a lot of "traditional" American men who now feel out of step with the culture here, which has made great progress in empowering women to live the lives they want (including that of a wifely homemaker, and there are women who enjoy a modified version of that lifestyle). So I can understand why they might feel drawn to women from foreign cultures where traditional views are still prevalent. I have no objection to people seeking happiness in whatever country they think it lies. One of my best friends married a woman in Taiwan and settled there. He finds much of American culture repulsive. I live here and find aspects of our culture repulsive. But no matter who you marry, American or foreign, man or woman, gay or straight, you are going to have to deal with a changing human being, with different cultural expectations, and there will be problems that this guy is papering over because his main goal is to stereotype all American woman. Sure, there are women who behave in some of the ways he describes, especially when they are young and foolish, as we have all been (the Valentine's Day entry on the site had some sparks of truth). But when you read this site, you understand completely why he has been fucked over by woman after woman. He wants a 1950's wife that probably didn't even exist in the 50's (ten years later those women started the divorce explosion, "women's liberation" and all manner of upheaval, and their husbands
said things outright that this guy only hints at. Times have changed, for the better, and there's no going back, and those foreign women are slowly following our lead. The only option for guys like this will be to convert to Islam and go to a nation where the women wear veils and are property.) posted by Slagman at 9:24 AM on November 23, 2003
raysmj
Re your translation "single people have nothing to live for"
That's not what I said. I was speaking only of my personal experience and speaking loosely/colloquially -- the correct translation of "something to live for" would be "increased responsibilities outside my own personal goals/desires." With a family, I have a greater responsibility to avoid risk than I did during my nearly 20 years as a single adult. When I was single, I felt little or no responsibility for anyone but myself (apart from doing no harm to others), and I lived accordingly, taking greater personal risks, like smoking or riding a bike without a helmet, because it was my life to trade away for thrills and whatnot. That was my personal calcuatlion; others will have a different approach. No doubt there are single people even now who are encased in protective foam and never go outside so they can live forever. There are single people with fatal diseases for whom every additional second is precious. There are of course a million different kinds of situations. I am not closed-minded about the single life, nor do I hold the view that you ascribe to me with your snarky "translation". Why don't you stick to stating your own views and not put words in people's mouths? You might be more effective in argument.
Here's a better counter to my statements, by the way: There is a flip side to this risk aversion that comes with a family,hat I have seen in some married family men and women, particularly in the workplace -- they lose their courage, they become like sheep, they are quick to look out for No. 1 and undercut others because they must protect their families at all cost. They vote against the strike, they brown nose the boss, they tattle, they protect their asses, they play dirty to get ahead, all in the name of family values. So you see, I am not saying there is something inherently virtuous about getting married and having a family, or something inherently wrong with the single life. Humans are complicated and troubled whether married or single, and generalizations about these two groups should be handled with care. posted by Slagman at 9:40 AM on November 23, 2003
Slagman:ten years later those women started the divorce explosion, "women's liberation" and all manner of upheaval
Then you say:-
Times have changed, for the better
Tell that to all the children who are missing their fathers. Tell it to all the fathers missing their children. You seem to skip over the unsightly underbelly of divorce and the horrors it brings. Seems women's liberation was good for women, but not much use to the men and children.
Someone who isn't married can't get divorced.
The only option for guys like this will be to convert to Islam and go to a nation where the women wear veils and are property.
You like insulting 1/5th of the world's population? (and it's also the fastest growing religion). I'm not a Muslim, but I know you're wrong on both counts with your stereotypes. You should not complain about people stereotyping when you do it yourself. posted by SpaceCadet at 9:47 AM on November 23, 2003
The woman initiates it as the man has lost his usefulness and they will be forced to actually (shock!) spend time together.
And you know this how? It never enters your mind that there could be (and most likely are) all kinds of different reasons for this, including many which are the fault of the husband (yes, men sometimes do things which make living with them untenable, like become abusive, or cheat), or the fault of no-one, it just doesn't work anymore (sometimes retirement changes people to the point where they're no longer compatible - THEY are no longer compatible, not "the poor, blameless man is now useless so the greedy, grasping bitch throws him out", but they are no longer compatible, and it's sometimes the case that after retirement MEN feel useless and take out their issues with that on their wife). The fact that women initiate the divorce does not mean that women are doing so for no good reason, nor does it mean that the women are to blame for the marriage breakdown. posted by biscotti at 9:51 AM on November 23, 2003
Seems women's liberation was good for women, but not much use to the men and children.
Okay, spacecadet, pack up your bags and go to Russia. Please. North America does not need you. I'm sure you'll find a nice woman there who'll feed you borscht and tell you you're sexy. Go on! Quickly! posted by Hildegarde at 10:12 AM on November 23, 2003
Many women see divorce as a contingency plan. All men see it as a disaster (hence male divorcee suicide rate is TEN TIMES higher than female divorcee suicide rate).
So when Newt Gingrich went to the hospital to dump his wife, he was trying to inflict a disaster on himself? When men dump their wives for a younger model, they're just masochists out to harm themselves? When my adoptive father ran off with someone from his law-school class, he was just trying to shoot himself in the foot? Please.
Your comment is certainly a candidate for Dumbest Thing Ever Said On Metafilter, or at least Most Easily Refutable Claim Ever Made On Metafilter. posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:13 AM on November 23, 2003
slagman: It wasn't actually so much a translation as exactly what you said, with the words slightly adjusted. Sometimes when typing out of our ass, we sound confused. Other times, we type what we really mean. I'm not sure what happened there, but it sure came out wrong.
As to why, for me it's pretty simple: I quit smoking about three years ago (I'm 37), I always wear a helmet with my bicycle, etc. Why? I'm not completely sure, but I think age and my love for what I do are important factors here. And even if I do ever get married or completely share a life with someone else, I'll hopefully still love what I'm doing outside of my relationship. I would think that men or women who feel that they have much to live for before getting married would have a greater chance of keeping their marriage alive than otherwise. In those other cases, when the marriage ends, the person's life collapses, and they write nasty, bitter screeds like the ones linked above. posted by raysmj at 10:47 AM on November 23, 2003
I always thought the biggest perk to being married was to have someone with whom I can be my grossest, most unpolished, basic human self and still be accepted, respected and hell, even understood. The idea of a relationship of that level of comfort (I would think) is intensely appealing.
Well, of course it's intensely appealing. But again, I don't see why you have to get married to have this ultimate level of comfort. It's a non sequitur again. People attribute all kinds of miraculous powers to the institution that it simply doesn't possess, and no wonder some of them end up disappointed. No, marriage doesn't cause your mate to accept, respect, or understand you. In fact, if your mate doesn't already accept, respect, and understand you, you probably shouldn't get married. posted by kindall at 10:54 AM on November 23, 2003
(Addendum: Seeing the effects first-hand of not taking care of yourself over time - via relatives and acquaintances, many of whom were married with children - also had something to do with my own lifestyle changes. But that's at least something of an age effect in itself.) posted by raysmj at 11:00 AM on November 23, 2003
So when Newt Gingrich went to the hospital to dump his wife, he was trying to inflict a disaster on himself? When men dump their wives for a younger model, they're just masochists out to harm themselves? When my adoptive father ran off with someone from his law-school class, he was just trying to shoot himself in the foot? Please.
OK, I shouldn't have said "all men find divorce a disaster". My point was that men rarely gain anything from a divorce. They will lose their kids, and most probably their property (often they're the main mortgage payer on the house and are asked to leave it as they're literally outnumbered by wife and kids and it's not in the "best interests of the child" for the children to move out).
Women, on the otherhand, can lose the person they despise, and maintain a financial footing and keep the kids. What a bargain!! This is why most divorces are initiated by women. If you give one gender all the priviliges and advantages of divorce, of course they're going to yield to temptation when the going gets tough. We should punish initiators of divorce, unless there are exceptional circumstances. What happens though? We have drive-thru divorce, no questions, no reasons needed other than a hankering for a new lifestyle.
Are you telling me this is good for society?
Okay, spacecadet, pack up your bags and go to Russia. Please. North America does not need you. I'm sure you'll find a nice woman there who'll feed you borscht and tell you you're sexy. Go on! Quickly!
I'd go there, but it's too cold and they have the highest divorce rate in the world:-
Russia 65%
Sweden 64%
Finland 56%
Britain 53%
U.S. 49%
Canada 45%
France 43%
Germany 41%
Israel 26%
Greece 18%
Spain 17%
Italy 11%
SOURCE-Divorce Center, Time September 25, 2000
Most parents want to see their kids grow up. If there are certain countries that foster stable families, and there are certain countries that don't foster stable families, you are going to want to choose the countries that aid and promote stable families, should you feel the desire to be a parent and have continous contact and influence on your children. No matter how full of moral fibre you are, your wife or husband can change and seek divorce. Does that make the person who didn't initiate the divorce automatically bad? No. Marriage is about trusting the other person won't go off on a tangent and start becoming destructuve to the marriage. It can happen and does happen. Isn't it simply prudent for someone to weigh up the risks before marriage? And doesn't assessing risks also mean they have to observe the environment in which the marriage will take place?
The woman initiates it as the man has lost his usefulness and they will be forced to actually (shock!) spend time together.
biscotti: And you know this how?
It happens in Japan. I spent 3 years there. I have heard so many reports about it, like this and this:-
One trend given prominent media coverage in Japan involves older women who leave their husbands after the men retire and hang around the house all day. The generation of Japanese men now reaching retirement age typically spent most of their working lives apart from their wives, putting in long hours on the job or drinking with company colleagues.
If I was a Japanese guy, I'd loathe and despise the fact that I was used as a wallet for 40 years. posted by SpaceCadet at 11:30 AM on November 23, 2003
Some pearls of wisdom I gathered from this mean little site:
American women offer up a shit sandwich and then get pissed off when men go elsewhere to eat
Marriage turns to crap no matter what you do.
Don't get married unless you are absolutely religiously in love with her. Like carry her sick aged body to the toilet and wipe her ass and be happy to do it kind of love.
If I cheat on my wife, she gets half my shit.
If she cheats on me, she still gets half my shit.
Life: it's all about the shit. posted by groundhog at 11:35 AM on November 23, 2003
SpaceCadet: I wasn't asking if it ever happened, I was asking how you knew that the one reason you gave was the sole reason for those divorces (more than a little unlikely), or was the reason for every divorce. The answer is that you don't, but you choose to place the entirety of the blame on the women because that suits your prejudices. As to your comment about men being "used as a wallet", it's yet another example of how your view of relationships is entirely one-sided, it completely ignores the role the wife has played in the relationship, it completely ignores the fact that MEN often change when they retire (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse), in short, it completely ignores the multitude of reasons for the marriage breakdown aside from the one which fits your narrow worldview.
People and marriages are a whole lot more complex than you seem to accept. It's got nothing to do with divorce laws or custody disputes, it has to do with individual people, some of whom act in good ways, some of whom act in bad ways but very few of whom you know well enough to be able to accurately judge their motivations. You are trying to make a very complex set of issues simple, I urge you to just consider that you just may not be looking at the whole picture. posted by biscotti at 12:36 PM on November 23, 2003
From the statistics I have seen, after divorce more women have a lower standard of living, and some sink to poverty, while many males manage a higher standard of living. I understand there are exceptions, but thinking that men always get the short end is simplistic and in a lot of cases dead wrong.
Marriage is not for the weak. posted by konolia at 12:44 PM on November 23, 2003
For a long time I've been thinking that divorce rates are rising because women have been liberated. Think about it: it's easier to hold together a "relationship" if one person is the clearly delineated boss. Conversely, it's hard for two people to evenly share responsiblity for every aspect of a relationship and continue to get along.
To rephrase my first sentence, divorce rates are rising because women have been liberated; not because they're bitches. (I feel I need to state that even though feminism has complicated things, I like it. I don't need a servant so much as a partner.)
What do you guys think about the foriegn women and american guy thing? I'm in the military and I've been told that if you take an assignment to Japan, the odds are great that you will return with a Japanese wife, even if you initially arrived with an American one. Why do these foriegn women hold so much appeal? Does the site's logic about this issue hold any water? Do those women try harder or are they just more manipulative and less confrontational? I'm trying to think of interesting questions to raise, if you've got better ones, let 'em fly. posted by tcobretti at 2:13 PM on November 23, 2003
if your mate doesn't already accept, respect, and understand you, you probably shouldn't get married.
Well duh of course not. I can see how you could infer something other than what I meant out of my words, but I don't think marriage suddenly bestows perfection on a relationship, it's just two people promising eachother, in a very serious way, that they can and will stand by eachother. I think it's perfectly possible to never get married and have exactly the kind of relationship I'm talking about, just go read Things My Girlfriend and I Have Argued About.
I don't think anyone should get married, it is just a word for an agreement of a public and private nature that nobody really technically needs, it's just a very basic human desire for the kind of relationship marriages, to me, should be based on. That doesn't translate into stomping around saying people shouldn't get married either. posted by nelleish at 2:34 PM on November 23, 2003
For a long time I've been thinking that divorce rates are rising because women have been liberated.
tcoberetti, You observe a fact.
You are honest. I appreciate that in such dishonest, expedient times.
biscotti: SpaceCadet: I wasn't asking if it ever happened, I was asking how you knew that the one reason you gave was the sole reason for those divorces (more than a little unlikely), or was the reason for every divorce.
biscotti, I observe a fact that also Japanese media observe, and you question me? Why? Are you subscribing to the view yet again that because there are exceptions to the rule, the rule itself is invalid? Grow up. Why don't you click on the fucking links I provide in my previous post about Japan and divorce? I'm tired to research my point for you to ignore it. Baka yaro! Honto ni.....
On preview, nelleish, totally agree. Marriage is just legal enmeshment. Marriage fucks up father's rights, on the whole (speaking as a father). posted by SpaceCadet at 2:48 PM on November 23, 2003
SpaceCadet- did you read the rest of my posts, or just the parts that you could agree with? I think we have similar ideas about how legal institution of people private lives is backward, contorted, and generally whacked, but I couldn't disagree with you more about marriage (strictly as an agreement between two people who care for eachother and which to state their commitment publicly) being "evil" and the bane of every American man's existence. For one thing, I think same-sex couples should be allowed the same use of vocabulary differentiating a lifelong relationship from that of 12 year olds holding hands. Somehow I doubt you feel the same way?
The majority of the opinions held in the site you linked horrify me, because it means its not just American women who are self-important, priggish, and only looking out for their own hides. Women who have undergone sexual assault at the hands of men are unmarriageable? (That's 1 in FOUR women, you jerk. How many abusive men does that imply?) Women should be subservient to their intellectually/financially superior husbands and perform sexual service at the drop of a hat? Women are evil nefarious demons who deserve beatings and should be "grateful" for a husband? WTF?
You have stated you are a father, and from that might I infer you at some point had a wife or at least a serious girlfriend. I would then perhaps infer someone hurt you very badly and you are bitter and angry as you have every right to be. But you need to clue in that not all women are alike, as I'm desperately hoping not all men are like those quoted on that site (which by the way, appears to be a long-winded endorsement for mail-order brides, rather than an intelligent deconstruction of why marriages don't seem to work anymore).
I've said we seem to have similar ideas about the current legal standing of marriage, or more specifically, the ending of marriage (i.e. it's messed up). A father plays as vital a role in the lives of his children as a mother, both have a right to an environment and legal standing that promotes the welfare of the children. But I have to be quite frank and say that I hope the general world view held by that website is not your own. If it is, I'm glad I'm not your daughter. posted by nelleish at 3:25 PM on November 23, 2003
Why do these foriegn women hold so much appeal? Does the site's logic about this issue hold any water? Do those women try harder or are they just more manipulative and less confrontational? I'm trying to think of interesting questions to raise, if you've got better ones, let 'em fly.
Look, women from non-Western countries aren't stupid. They've got TV, they've seen L.A. Law. The thing is, customs and expectations are different. For instance, the idea of marrying for romantic love is much more highly rated in the U.S. than it is in Thailand (for example). But in Thailand, when you marry a girl, you marry her family as well. You're expected to take care of them financially, and offer some kind of dowry to boot. The relationship between a girl and her family is almost always paramount, at best equal to her marriage with you, so don't expect her to run away with a disapproved man. Also, I've found that "Eastern" women are much more pragmatic about marriage, so while they may cook and clean more often (just for example), they'll also be the ones in charge of finances -- the finances you earn. Guys who try to take advantage of these miserable situations are bottom-feeding assholes, IMHO.
Websites that claim "Asian women like older men because they are less flighty and more solid than younger men" are really saying, "Women in hard situations will sacrifice their personal preferences in looks for financial security." Russia is a great example of this. Russian divorce rates are high for the same reason Russian women live longer than men, which is the same reason there are all these "Russian wives" websites going around: because Russian men drink more and live less than their female counterparts. You can draw your own conclusions about how increased alcoholism will affect the living situation (i.e., more domestic abuse, more women left to care for their children alone, etc.)
There's no "male pancea" to be found -- it's just that some cultures value certain things more than others. If you go to Japan and expect to find a woman that's subservient to your desires, yet also a great companion and friend, you're going to be disappointed. The qualities I've noticed "traditional" (read: sexist) men like in women are usually at odds with the qualities of a good companion. You either want a marriage of equals and all that entails, or you want a relational heirarchy, with the sublimated resentment that usually results. Have cake != eat cake. posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:55 PM on November 23, 2003
A father plays as vital a role in the lives of his children as a mother
nelleish, I salvaged one comment on your rant that rubs with me. Don't worry, you don't know me and misrepresented my views to a large degree. To summarise: I'm a family man, fucked-up by the liberal tidal wave that has resulted in one boy in this world not being able to have regular access to his father and one father in this world not having regular access to his son. No crimes committed: a travesty of justice, OKayed by the liberal shitheads who believe in anything goes....FUCK ALL OF YOU who shrug your shoulders. Crimes happen everyday, unpunished. Fuck all of you who think this is perfectly acceptable. Two more fucked up people in this world. Nothing to see people, move on, move on. posted by SpaceCadet at 4:02 PM on November 23, 2003
Civil_Disobedient, your last post is possibly the best advert ever for men NEVER to marry.
Civil_Disobedient, how does it feel to be instrumental in the breakdown of society? Are you proud? posted by SpaceCadet at 4:13 PM on November 23, 2003
I observe a fact that also Japanese media observe, and you question me?
Well, given your posting history, yes, I do question you. And I'd question what you said even if you didn't have the history you have. And again, you didn't bother to read my whole post, I'm trying to be reasonable here, and point out to you that tarring an entire gender with the same brush is irrational, unreasonable, and just plain inaccurate, and all you do in return is wonder how I could possibly question something that The Media said - it was printed, it must be true. Just because the media says something doesn't make it a fact, and again, how does the media know that the only reason for these divorces was that the women didn't like spending time with their husbands, that this was entirely the women being intolerant, and not anything at all to do with the men? It's just not that simple. Where is their data supporting the assertion that the sole reason that the marriage failed was because the women decided to make it do so? Very few things in relationships are as simple as that, it's not about "the exception proving the rule", it's about the incontrovertible fact that no two relationships are the same, and no two marriages fail for exactly the same reasons.
I'll also point something out to you - unless the woman is holding a gu
Subscribe
This guy sure must brighten every room he enters...
posted by sharksandwich at 12:40 PM on November 22, 2003