52
53

Young men giving up on marriage: ‘Women aren’t women anymore’ (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by [deleted]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/young-men-giving-up-on-marriage-women-arent-women-anymore

Pew recently found that the number of women 18-34 saying that having a successful marriage is one of the most important things rose from 28 percent to 37 percent since 1997. The number of young adult men saying the same thing dropped from 35 percent to 29 percent in the same time.

Recipe for disaster


[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (33 children)

It makes me really sad to see information like this. All of these feminists complaining about how no one will marry them yet continually ignoring what they can do to fix it because it goes against their dogma. At this rate, things aren't looking good for the next generation in regards to marriage (or even the next few generations).

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (22 children)

I wouldn't blame the feminists. The crisis of marriage is caused by rent-seeking behavior enabled by no-fault divorce. Feminists weren't the only ones lobbying for it.

Here's an economic paper explaining the phenomenon:

https://espe.conference-services.net/resources/321/2907/pdf/ESPE2012_0617_paper.pdf

If you get the State out of the marriage market, you'll see more happy married couples. The State shouldn't have interfered in the first place. It did it a couple of hundred years ago to ban interracial marriage.

Seeing less feminists on social media will have much smaller effect. The problem is mainly economic, not cultural. Let's not be distracted by feminist boogeyman.

[–][deleted]  (5 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (4 children)

    Yes, I should have mentioned it. Excessive alimony payments are part of the problem.

    Let's get the State out of it. We can't expect one version of the contract to fit 300 million people. It's preposterous. Every couple is different. I expect Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Amish, Presbyterians, Baptists, atheists etc. coming up with different terms of marriage contract that reflect reality and not some bureaucratic model of what marriage should look like.

    [–]HarryPeckerCrabbe 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    Much of the entitlement state is centered on delivering benefits to single women when you really think about it. It is no surprise that more men lean towards the Republicans (even they are also Statists today) while women are more likely Democrats advocating State entitlements (of course secured through the use of State force).

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    That might be of interest (title: "Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?"): http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf

    Don't get me wrong. I don't want men to have votes either. Democracy is grossly overrated. Particularly dangerous is its conflation with liberty.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    And you hear intellectuals like Noam Chomsky conflate democracy with liberty all the time. We are on a rapid downward slope towards a 1984 hell hole, and it's entirely because the democratic majority have been voting for politicians that have legislated us here. Democracy has proven itself to be extremely tyrannical - even the checks that the Constitution put on it weren't enough to stop it, just slow it down. The "Will of the People" is tyranny. Always has been; always will be.

    Democracy and government are the enemies of liberty and they must be abolished before it's too late. The free market is the only way.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    even the checks that the Constitution put on it weren't enough to stop it, just slow it down.

    “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

    ― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

    Democracy and government are the enemies of liberty

    I would use the word "State" instead of "government". Using the word "government" leaves the room open for equivocation.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (15 children)

    No-fault divorce certainly has a hand in the fact that divorce rates are higher. There's no denying that fact. I also recognize that the government doesn't need to be putting its nose into people's personal lives like that.

    I'm not completely blaming them, but I know the feminist ideology has a hand in the falling marriage rates. The problem is that they don't see what they're doing to marriage while sitting there complaining about the fact that nobody wants to marry them, so they're not helping things at all by ignoring that they are partially at fault or even saying that marriage should change to accommodate them.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (14 children)

    Yes, feminists certainly aren't helping, but I maintain that State interference is much more dangerous than screeching feminists. If it wasn't for State-funded education we wouldn't have so many so-called "gender theoreticians" in the first place. Who would in their right mind pay them on the free market for inventing that nonsense. It takes State to do that.

    We can't expect people not to respond to economic incentives. Best way to fight perverse economic incentive is to remove it.

    Feminists can be defeated. They're mostly utterly ignorant of economics. Their own propaganda may be used to push the State out of the marriage business.

    In the beginning of the twentieth century marxists wanted to abolish "bourgeois marriage". There's a great overlap between marxists and feminists. Today campaign to abolish "patriarchal marriage" could be started. We could make useful idiots out of feminists. They wouldn't know what hit them.

    Personal anecdote: On one party I managed to convince tattooed feminist with skrillex haircut that State should not interfere with marriage. Feminists are clueless.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (10 children)

    I agree that useless degrees should not be paid for; for state-funded education, it should be a requirement that whatever you're studying have actual value. What can you do with a Women's Studies degree? Nothing that a high school graduate can't do. All you get to do with that is have a "voice" in the feminist community, which is useless in and of itself.

    It's going to take quite the revolution and education to change things, though.

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (8 children)

    for state-funded education, it should be a requirement that whatever you're studying have actual value

    That's the problem right there. It is NOW the requirement that for state-funded education whatever you're studying has to have actual value. The problem is HOW it is decided.

    It is decided by the State, and not by profit and loss signal from the free market. You can't expect the State to make judgement calls that reflect the conditions on the labor market. It is impossible. The system is rotten to the core. State employees don't suffer losses and don't earn profits. They're not guided by profit and loss signal. They're walking in the fog.

    Sorry for being such a hard-ass. It's only because I care.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Your participation on this thread was enjoyable thanks! ♂

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Thank you.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

    Well, that's ridiculous for them to do. It doesn't take that much to check the labor market out. Why give useless majors the same amount of funds as the rest?

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    The problem goes deeper. It's not possible to efficiently allocate resources without profit and loss signal. I'm not saying it's hard or not politically expedient. It is impossible in the strictest sense of the word.

    In a business you know when you're making mistakes. You suffer losses. The price system guides you to do what is most wanted by the consumers. If you do a lousy job you go under.

    There's no such guidance in State bureaus. Every metric conceivable is necessarily worse than profit and loss signal from the free market. It is impossible do to better than the price system. You can have all the well-meaning and brilliant people there and they still would do worse than the free market. Of course, in the real world State employees are far from well-meaning and brilliant.

    If that piqued your interest, there's a definite book on the subject available for free: http://mises.org/document/875

    The author is in my opinion the most brilliant economist that ever lived.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Well, that's just sad. sigh

    I'll check out that book, though.

    [–]HarryPeckerCrabbe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Most brilliant economist indeed! Thanks.

    [–]HarryPeckerCrabbe -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    Women's Studies degrees > heavy student loan burden > unemployed or under-employed > yet another Obama bail out to garner votes.

    The Statist business plan is fairly straightforward.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    yet another Obama bail out to garner votes.

    I would drop Obama's name from that phrase.

    When you scrub off the fiery rhetoric, you'll see little difference between Mr Romney and Mr Obama.

    Here's a great quote that describes the problem perfectly: http://i.imgur.com/phn1M.jpg

    [–]squishles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    You just need texas or california to do that in the US, they decide everyone elses textbook.

    [–]squishles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    dude.... read this if you haven't already: The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu

    they're already doing that >.> It's pretty much all 3rd wave feminism is. Tumblr feminism is just it's vomit bucket.

    [–]johngalt1234 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Feminists help fuel the size of government in the 1st place. Its not like a state is an isolated entity thaf grows without impetus.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Yes, sir. The State isn't an isolated entity. I wasn't suggesting that. But I disagree about the direction of cause and effect.

    The State is a monopolist of final arbitration within a given territory. That includes any conflicts involving its agents. As a corollary, such a monopolist can make laws. And he who can legislate can also tax. That is a very powerful position to have.

    "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton

    Given human nature, we can't expect such power not to be used for plunder. I would even argue that plunder is raison d'etre of the State.

    Feminists are a threat only because they're very effective at using the State to do their bidding. Remove the State from the equation and suddenly patriarchy theory becomes inconsequential.

    [–]Spore2012 1 point2 points  (9 children)

    Doubt it, the feminists aren't winning anything lately. They just bitch about stuff.

    In fact they are losing on some fronts http://www.reddit.com/r/Loveline/comments/2c4d7t/interesting_docu_series_that_led_to_cutting/

    Every single one of those gender studies people he interviews are such pieces of shit. I can tell immediately that they have childhood issues (with parents/dad) and that's what causes them to be such narcissist idiots rejecting all that logic and science because they are angry at dad.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

    They're not technically "winning" with this, though. They're screwing themselves over by messing up marriage so badly. It's their fault men don't want to marry, essentially.

    So long as enough of them exist (and push the ideas onto their children), there's going to be a problem. The stats don't look too good right now.

    (Not that I'm saying they're not losing on some things and that they do more than just bitch.)

    [–]Spore2012 2 points3 points  (4 children)

    I don't really think feminism is to blame for marriage's decline. I think it more has to do with the laws and legal system being a profit/corruption industry and it's easier to screw the man than the woman. And the woman is easier to take advantage of because she gets more emotionally invested and manipulated to screw the man (screwing them both really though).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZTOT6DKfZ8

    parts of this movie go into how divorce is handled in some european countries and USA has it so fucking complicated when it doesn't need to be. It's all about money.

    [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

    So you don't think their bad attitudes, contributions to hookup culture, complete defiance of gender roles (for no good reason other than "I don't like doing dishes"), and blaming men for women's problems isn't contributing to marriage's decline?

    I recognize that the divorce system is very skewed, but it used to be less of an issue due to there being more stigma around divorce and the fact that women relied more on men for financial stability, among other things.

    If there were a lot more good women out there, I think more men would be willing to commit and not have to constantly be paranoid that a woman's going to screw him out of his money. The betas commonly get married despite knowing that they could get screwed out of their money (because they think they've honestly gotten a good woman who won't screw them over). The rest of the men refuse because they openly recognize the lack of good women to marry; the pros don't outweigh the cons, essentially. When the pros don't outweigh the cons, there's no point in doing it. So we have LTRs that don't turn into marriages and even more single people despite many expressing the desire to have an SO.

    [–]Spore2012 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    There are plenty of good sane women, many of the women on this sr for example.

    I know a lot of girls IRL that don't give a shit about feminism and some are against it. In fact I don't think I really know any that are the opposite. Even my older sister who will argue for women's rights understands that a lot of feminism stuff is just angry trauma survivors who hate their dads for abandoning, neglecting, abusing them. That's all the movement is about these days. It's not about equality.

    These feminists wouldn't even know what to do with anything if we let them have everything they wanted. And they would still be angry and bitch about something else.

    It's pretty easy to avoid feminists. Even disregarding the visual cues (short hair and looks boyish or ugly/fat).Just steer clear of dumb and angry.

    [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Oh, I know the movement is crap, and I also know radfems personally. There are also the more minor issues that exist even in the more normal women, like denial of gender roles (refusing to cook, clean, etc. when the man doesn't want to do it either and preferring to divvy up household chores despite the fact that men also do extra things around the home) and refusal to accept having the man lead the relationship (arguing over who's right, lack of trust, etc.), that are getting in the way of happy LTRs and happy marriages. Not to mention hookup culture, which gives men another reason to not bother because they can get plenty of sex elsewhere, something that young women are embracing way too much to the point of having ridiculous partner counts.

    I'm not saying you're completely wrong, I just think feminism has a bigger hand in this issue.

    [–]2cats2hats 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    It's all about money.

    Not to mention how elaborate the whole wedding thing ends up costing.

    More and more people are waking up to how bad an idea it can be to have the government(and some the church) involved in your life, including marriage.

    [–]johngalt1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Feminism is so successful thaf most people do not realize they are egalitarian feminists. Its only the more extreme manhating forms of feminism that is opposed.

    [–]johngalt1234 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Feminism is so successful thaf most people do not realize they are egalitarian feminists. Its only the more extreme manhating forms of feminism that is opposed.

    [–]aaron_the_just 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I disagree with this (becoming rather popular lately) assertion.

    A woman says she's not a feminist, and then someone else tells her "You are actually an egalitarian feminist but just don't realise it."

    Classic Scotsman fallacy

    [–]jamieoneal82 12 points13 points  (15 children)

    Recipe for polygamy. 80/20 rule.

    [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (14 children)

    Polygamy=civilizational disaster

    [–]jamieoneal82 3 points4 points  (13 children)

    From what I can tell the research goes both ways on this. I think it probably depends more on other cultural factors.

    There are pros and cons.

    [–][deleted]  (12 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]jamieoneal82 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      I'm not a polygamist, at least not in the strict sense, and don't really care to defend it here. Google turns up quite a few links about it if you're really interested.

      Either way, I'm not going to say there aren't downsides or that the pros outweigh the cons. Just saying it's a bit simplistic to deny that there aren't any benefits or that it necessarily will, singlehandedly, cause the downfall of civilization.

      [–]pickup_sticks 4 points5 points  (6 children)

      I was going to say it wouldn't work in Western society, but now that I think about it... If there are multiple women, all with skills to work, then a larger household with multiple incomes might actually be a net plus. Those who have young children could stay home, while those with no kids or older children could re-join the labor force and thus contribute more to the household.

      This of course leaves out a few elephants in the room - jealousy, what if one woman wants a divorce etc. It's like a family-sized version of communism. A benevolent dictator might be able to hold it all together...

      [–][deleted]  (4 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]pickup_sticks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Fair point. It was just a thought experiment.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]aaron_the_just 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Observe polygamist societies that actually exist and that have strict sexual codes

          [–]jamieoneal82 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I'm wondering that too. Since it would mostly be delta males left being single, they tend to just mope along with whatever society gives them anyway.

          On the other hand, most omegas and many low-betas might be left in the cold too, so they might be a problem.

          [–]jamieoneal82 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          A benevolent dictator might be able to hold it all together...

          Obviously in a polygamist society most of the men with wives would be alphas and sigmas anyway, so this shouldn't be too much of a problem.

          [–][deleted]  (3 children)

          [deleted]

            [–][deleted]  (2 children)

            [deleted]

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

              [deleted]

                [–]johnnight1 Star 11 points12 points  (9 children)

                Unfortunately the situation will follow the rules of the market for lemons. That means that many women, who deserve to be trusted, will hear that they can not be trusted with marriage, because they are indistinguishable from the bad ones (lemons). This is both rational (from the point of view of the "buyer") and unfair (to the good "sellers").

                The economics of the situation dictates that the buyer is only willing to offer a low payment that takes into account the risk, while the good seller respond that this is not enough for the high-value good and will not accept such a low offer. A market failure forms because of the asymmetry of information (the asymmetry being that the seller knows the quality of his goods, but the buyer does not).

                [–]PanComedor 2 points3 points  (4 children)

                The difference here is that when the "product" being sold is yourself, the "seller" cannot be trusted to evaluate themselves properly. Just think of how self-esteem doesn't always correlate with actual quality as a person. Some people may incorrectly think they are high-quality and deserve a high "price".

                [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

                That's not correct, sir. Product being sold is not a person.

                Product being sold is performing certain actions in a certain manner at certain times. In traditional marriage that would be exchanging sexuality for being a beast of burden.

                There's no categorical difference between a marriage contract and let's say a visit at a barber's shop. Asymmetry of information can be dealt with. Even today people screen each other for potential problems before signing a marriage contract. The problem is that the terms of the contract cannot be adjusted based on the results of the screening process.

                [–]aaron_the_just 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                A secondary problem is that the marriage contract can change at the whims of a third party - if divorce laws change, your original marriage contract just magically changed.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                Yes, that's a good point. That's exactly what I've been alluding to. In the case of the State interference the problem is insoluble. And I wouldn't call it a secondary one.

                Please, take a look on my other comments on this thread. You might find it interesting.

                [–]aaron_the_just 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                The proper thing to do is treat a marriage licence for what it is - a legal and economic contract. Each party should assess their counterparty risk (which includes the vagaries of enforcement).

                The other aspects of marriage, social, religious, etc. should be evaluated on their own merits.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                Asymmetry of information is not the problem per se. Markets are great at dealing with asymmetry. Division of knowledge and labor in society is crucial to success of the markets. Asymmetry of information becomes a problem when the State intervenes.

                Relevant publication (there are no mathematical formulas present, technical knowledge is not necessary): https://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae14_2_6.pdf

                [–]Phokus 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                That's poppycock, Asymmetry of Information IS a market failure and has nothing to do with government. When you go to a mechanic, unless you know a lot about cars, they can say whatever the fuck they want about what needs getting fixed and you basically have to trust them not to screw you over. This dynamic doesn't change when government isn't present.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Sir, I urge you to read the publication I linked and think this through. In economics correct answers are often counterintuitive.

                [–]aaron_the_just 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                These dynamics with a mechanic can be mitigiated:

                • Go to multiple mechanics and evaluate what each says

                • Go to a mechanic whom a friend who knows a lot about cars trusts, and thus that mechanic does not want to risk losing that friend's business by ripping you off

                • Choose a mechanic who works for a larger business structure where there is a manager to complain to if you suspect foul play

                [–]aTweetingBird 17 points18 points  (0 children)

                Young men rejecting marriage to today's women? can't possibly imagine why

                [–]greyngreen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                Marriage is a very changed social institution compared to the past. I feel sorry for men that don't realize what a bad deal it can be. Luckily, some people are waking up to it. There won't be any wide-scale acknowledgment of the problems until enough men boycott it, which seems to be happening.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

                I don't see marriage as healthy at all or synonymous with "healthy monogamy", I'm also not sure if anything such as "healthy monogamy" exists, its just healthier in comparison to a contracted relationship. Real love shouldn't have anything to do with contracts, though I tend to think that only exists platonically, I'm obligated to care about women related to me or coworkers but I don't have any obligation to care about or protect anyone else. Peace treaties between countries have great similarity with the marriage contract, the contract exists because there was never any real peace to begin with, and these contracts come into being to hide the lie beneath them.

                [–]aaron_the_just 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Pray tell, sir, what is "real love"

                [–]aaron_the_just 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                Pray tell, sir, what is "real love"

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                When I say "real love", in this case, I was talking about a long term relationship, platonic or sexual, based on reciprocal love, which men and women can obviously both lack when their sex drives are in the way. Though in reality, any emotion is real if it exists, I'm getting worse at explaining the growing jumble of thoughts in my head. But as I said I tend to think real love only actually exists platonically or via honor, which appears to be moreso a male trait based on the survival of a tribe, or simply female honor exists but is unimportant to women in comparison to their own mate selection, which continues on a tribe in a different way. Functional familial blood relationships would be the closest example to honorable love, but also platonic relationships or friendships which mirror traits from those relationships.

                Romance culture has no deep biological basis. If monogamy has any basis in biological past it seems more likely in sexual jealousy, though for women they would react more to a man becoming emotionally involved with other women, which would be a potential protector/provider loss, where a male who would probably have more sexual jealousy. Monogamy is somewhat a combination of sex with a platonic relationship or friendship, but is threatened by longstanding sexual imperatives from men and women, that do not exist in platonic relationships.

                A marriage contract, fair for both genders or not, acts like paper chains on female hypergamy or male polygamy where the reality is the biology is generally stronger than the romance culture we created and sustain-- which comes out of the general human capacity for romanticizing anything, but certainly damages men and women when they accept it like its inherent in our biology and we don't have different sexual imperatives. This isn't to say long term relationships can't work with these imperatives. But there's simply something less cold and transactional about platonic relationships in general, mostly either because they involve men, or if women or a woman is involved, her sex drive usually isn't. The lack of honoring another's emotions in sexual relationships when it exists in any other healthy relationship to me, partly comes from male polygamy, but also comes out of an understanding that maternal instincts, even for non-existent children, can be as a brutal as the most angry, irrational male on the planet.

                Just my logic driven .02.

                [–]aaron_the_just 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I'd beware of biological essentialism.

                We are more than a tribe of primates driven only by hedonism.

                [–]Spore2012 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                [removed]

                [–]810809 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                In western societies? Yes I'd say it is a problem. It's not a problem as bad as India and China overpopulating the world with poor hopeless people but still.

                [–]AFPJTRP Endorsed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                ITT: Feminists realize they can't legalize Marriage Quotas in the name of "equality". Panic ensues as they begin to realize that they've become such rotten human beings that even all of this shit is no longer sufficient to fool even the most culturally conditioned and repressed men into a relationship.

                Side effects: the few remaining women who are also decent human beings suffer.