| « | A Really Stupid Story to Lighten Your Evening |
»
|
|
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Should Men Marry?
Apologies for the long absence. I've been very sick -- I'm still not really well -- in consequence of a botched medical procedure, and have had trouble staying awake long enough, and thinking coherently enough, to compose one of these tirades. Amazing what a few microbes can do to you, eh? But sooner or later one must say fie! to the little buggers and get back into harness.
If there's a more painful non-political subject in our discourse than American men's loss of the grounds for trusting American women, I'm unable to say what it might be. The problem has too many facets even to enumerate them all. Many are tied up with legal enactments and judicial tendencies that seem unalterable by any mechanism short of revolution. Others stem from the relentless propagandization of American women about how men are inherently their enemies, who'll take every opportunity to oppress them. Still others are the consequence of a hyper-sexualized, hyper-glamorized culture that encourages women to leap from "you can have it all" to "you will have it all, and you're allowed to do anything you can think of to get it all, and if you don't get it all, you've somehow been cheated."
The worst of the risks to men arise from the prevailing legal and judicial attitudes toward the institution of marriage. Psychologist Dr. Helen Smith quotes from Steven Baskerville's book Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family.
There is mounting evidence that as men discover the terms of marriage and divorce today, they are engaging in a marriage boycott or marriage “strike”: refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife walks out and how attractive the divorce industry has made it easy for her to do so. ….Sonja Hastings of Fathers-4-Equality says that “no matter how decent, hardworking, and caring you may be as a father, that in the event of separation, you will more than likely not get custody of your child, you will lose up to 80% of all of your assets, you will have to pay up to five times the cost of raising a child, and most importantly you could never see your child again.” In Britain a fathers’ rights group tours university campuses warning young men not to start families. Even one attorney writes a book concluding that the only effective protection for men to avoid losing their children is not to start a family in the first place.
Dr. Helen, one of the true ornaments of the Blogosphere and herself a devoted wife, also mentions some comments made at her blog, by men who were frightened by the legal risks from marriage, or whose marital experiences had soured them on it:
I’m a single, never married guy. Professional, good job, etc. Have been dating a great lady for almost a year. I thought I was ready to ask her to marry me (she has been hinting for months that she wants to marry). Problem is, at least 7 out of 10 guys I talk to tell me that it is one of the worst mistakes that they ever made. Some tell me not to marry American women, that they are all feminist at heart. One married guy told me that I could get the same effect by selling my house, giving all my money away and having someone castrate me. This is really starting to un-nerve me and the more I learn about the legal bias against men, I’m beginning to back off of marriage. I love my girlfriend, but all of these guys say their girlfriends changed once they married and begin to dominant and control. I am starting to think marriage in America can not be saved.I met a woman that I was sure was my soul mate. I was deeply in love and so, I thought, was she. All this changed when I lost my high paying job through downsizing. To my credit, I went to work immediately and had two jobs, but still only made about 80% of my old income. My wife gave me a year and then began sleeping with a man who hadn’t lost his job in my bed while I was at work. She left with him, taking almost all of my savings and anything else she could carry. Her explanation was that she was “an expensive bitch” and she was unhappy because I worked so much. The adultery doesn’t seem to matter to the court and she got essentially everything. Besides the financial losses, I was so devastated by the betrayal that I could barely function for months. She treated me like garbage and I never worked harder at any endeavor in my life.
Dr. Helen admits that she was shaken by the comments above and others like them, and began to wonder if men should marry at all, given the legal and social conditions that currently obtain in America.
Let's not blind ourselves to the realities. At this time, the legal obligations of the marital state fall de facto on the husband. If the wife becomes dissatisfied, she can simply declare "irreconcilable differences" and haul stakes, taking any children and much of her husband's income and savings along with her. The "social service" agencies -- why yes, those are "sneer quotes" -- are well known for encouraging prospective divorcees to file fraudulent abuse charges against their husbands, for the legal advantages such accusations confer. Courts routinely accept anything the wife says against her husband without requiring substantiation, while even absolute proof that the wife committed adultery, neglected the children, or was malfeasant with the family's money is regarded as legally irrelevant.
Socially, things are at least as bad. There's absolutely no stigma attached to divorce any more. Indeed, it's become fashionable to have a divorce in one's past. A wife who's not getting what she wants out of her marriage is encouraged in numerous ways to pull the ripcord; it might even open new social and commercial circles to her. Seldom will the odium, if any, for the failure of her marriage attach to her; it's nearly always allocated preemptively to her ex-husband, who's presumed to be a neglectful, abusive, adulterous cad unless he can prove otherwise.
The situation poses the marriage-minded man more risks than he's ever faced before. Given all the above and its implications, should men marry? has become a question many find it quite reasonable to ask.
But "should men marry?" collectivizes the subject in a fashion that makes any imaginable answer useless at the personal level. Ask rather, "Should I, John Q. Smith, get married to Mary Jones?"
Maybe. How well do you know her? How well do you know her family? A woman's family is often a great influence on her state of mind and her ability to hold to her commitments. What about her desires for the future? When she speaks of them, do they seem individualistic or family-oriented? How well do those desires mesh with your own plans and aspirations?
Does she have her eye on something hazy and distant, failure to achieve which is likely to sour her over the long term? Most of us never achieve our highest goals, and many of us suffer serious personality and character deterioration when we realize that our defeats are permanent.
Is she obsessed with material goods? Virtually every man knows times of hardship, whatever the reason. Would she stand by you loyally, should you experience one, or would she add to your stresses? What would her family and friends say to her in such circumstances?
Probably the key questions are about her attitude toward children. Do you both want children? (If not, why marry?) If so, can you be reasonably sure that she'll undertake the responsibilities of childrearing willingly and with adequate devotion? Or will she come to feel herself a victim because of the burden? Don't kid yourself: childrearing is the mother's task. Men are not suited to it, for reasons of basic evolutionary biology and psychology. If she's averse to childrearing duties, then nothing she says about wanting children is trustworthy.
Time was, we took our time getting to know a prospective spouse. Getting reliable answers to the questions above was the reason.
It's common for a romantically intoxicated man to think that "it won't happen to me:" that the legal and social dynamics outlined above don't apply to him. It's equally common that he has insufficient reason to believe it.
I'm not categorically condemning the institution of marriage, even under the strained circumstances of our time. Children ought to be raised in two-parent families, always; if you intend to produce children, don't even dream of doing so in an unmarried state. Also, it should go without saying that some marriages do "succeed:" that is, the spouses stay together until one of them dies. But clearly, the conditions that currently obtain make it imperative that a man contemplating matrimony assure himself, by reliable means, of the character of his intended. There is no substitute for character, especially when the influences to behave immorally and unethically are as pervasive and strong as they are today.
So, single men of these United States: herewith, a checklist for you:
- Character is at its core a mature understanding that some things are absolutely wrong. Does she agree to this premise, or is she inclined to relativism? Do the two of you become outraged at the same things? Does her overall sense of justice accord with yours? These things are a consequence of upbringing; therefore, get to know her family, especially her mother and her sisters. Their behavior will be reliable guides to hers.
- Character is tested at the margins. Is she willing to "chisel" to gain small advantages? Will she allow others to believe falsehoods if there's some benefit to her? Is she honest toward small tradesmen and retail clerks? All erosion of character proceeds from marginal departures; watch for them.
- Character includes fidelity to one's promises, whatever the circumstances. Does she promise lightly and back away when pressed to deliver? In dealing with persons who lack the ability to enforce their rights, is she inclined to "welsh?" Does she attempt to impose obligations on others beyond what they've promised her -- beyond what she has a right to expect? These are clues to the "entitlement syndrome" that wrecks many a marriage.
- Character demands candor about what one expects from others. What does she think of the sentiments expressed in this essay, or this one? The two of you simply must see eye to eye on your expectations of one another. A significant asymmetry could doom you, and an unacknowledged imbalance between your demands from your match is the worst kind.
Time will pass. The two of you will change; there's little to be done about it. Some of those changes will be "for the worse:" you'll both experience multiple disappointments, some of them with one another, and your looks, vitality, and sexual energy are guaranteed to fade over the years. Some of them might be for the better: your children might make you proud, your family income might increase, and your standing in your community might develop to make you persons of local importance. But marriage is "for better or worse." Just about anyone can endure "better," but only persons of strong character can withstand "worse." Make sure she has it!
Yes, make sure you have it, too, but that goes without saying. Doesn't it?
Comments
Quote: Don’t kid yourself: childrearing is the mother’s task.
Are you serious? A simple Google(tm) ‘fathers raising children’ turns up hundres of links...read DaddyTypes and other “Stay At Home Dad” blogs and I think you’ll find differently.
Here’s a quote from (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/singpar.htm)
“Researchers at Ohio State University compared a sample of 456 15- and 16-year-olds who lived in single-father households with 2,583 teens who lived in single-mother households. The results showed that the two groups were very similar in terms of deviance and behavior at school, relationships with others, and school performance once factors such as family income and parent education are accounted for.”Admittedly it’s related to single parents...but the points made are equally valid.
Are you a father? I am.
Posted by on 11/01/2007 at 09:20 AMYes, I am a father, and yes, I am serious.
“The points made” are not valid precisely because they concern single-parent homes. Single-parent homes are all about equally functional, whether headed by a man or a woman. That is to say, on average, not very. It’s what you might call a dominant characteristic.
There are exceptions to my generalization that men aren’t suited for childrearing, just as there are exceptions to the generalization that men are taller and stronger than women. But that word “exceptions” is the key to understanding any subject in which generalizations may be made. I stand by my contention.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 11/01/2007 at 10:01 AMHmmm. It is the fact that you were generalising that caused me to comment. Because there _are_ so many exceptions, generalisation becomes more dangerous.
http://daddy-dialectic.blogspot.com/2006/08/mommy-wars-vs-daddy-wars.html
Also:
• Pre-schoolers who spend time playing with their dads are more sociable when they enter nursery school•Involvement of dads with children aged 7-11 predicts success in exams aged 16
• Where dads are involved before the age of 11, children are less likely to have a criminal record by time they are 21
Source: http://www.fathersdirect.com
I also disagree with your statement that parents should be married. What does marriage have to do with it? A happily co-habiting couple is equally as good as having a marriage certificate!
Posted by on 11/01/2007 at 10:54 AMIn my experience—55 years worth, much of it spent traveling the world—there are few, not many, exceptions.
No argument that fathers should be involved in their children’s lives, but that’s beside the main point: that it’s mothers who are best suited to do most childrearing.
“A happily co-habiting couple” is a provably unstable platform for child development. The lack of commitment of the spouses to one another is seldom well enough disguised, and the insecurity this germinates will frequently prejudice the child against commitment as an adult.
In short, disagree if you like, but the statistics bear me out, as does virtually all the anecdotal and historical evidence. What’s changed is mostly our willingness to allow that an unmarried couple, or a single parent of either sex, might be an acceptable custodian for a minor child. But an attitude, however dearly held, cannot alter the facts, whatever they may be.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 11/01/2007 at 11:55 AMI’ve been married for four years now, and glad of it despite the occasional bump in the road; but I will advise my son not to marry before about age 30, and only then with extreme Due Diligence. And after reading from the experiences of Dr. Helen’s commenters.
Posted by Robert Pearson on 11/01/2007 at 01:33 PMI plan to be married to the same man for the rest of my life. He says he feels the same. I have faith that he is being true and honest to his word on that. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
I did take note during our courting phase that his parents were still married, that was important to me, but they did divorce a few years after he and I were married.
I think the products of the marriage stand to lose the most in a divorce. I never hear anyone say, “Well, you do realize that your divorce affects not only your children, but all of their children and so on?” The pain of a divorce can and will be felt for generations. I don’t think people consider this, or worse they don’t care.
At every family event we are treated to the awkward situation of having those two people in the same room together, anymore we just avoid it by not inviting one of them. We all have to deal with their divorce for at least the rest of their lives. The bitterness between them is palpable.
My grandparents divorced before I was born, it changed my life in ways unimaginable. Who knows what things would have been like had they stayed together?
I suppose it is a bit of a gamble, no matter how well you think you know someone, they could very well flake out on you and file for divorce, or have an affair. It is a risk all married people take.
Posted by Heather on 11/01/2007 at 03:20 PMAs someone who is approaching marriageable age (I have about a year or so left at university) perhaps sooner than he would have liked, concerns such as these have been weighing a bit more heavily on my mind. This post reminds me of a point I made in an earlier thread we had here on sex in contemporary America - that the degree to which we legitimize both sex with many individuals one at a time but outside of marriage and sex with many individuals all at once seems to be correlated with a high level of mutual suspicion is most relationships among people my age. I might phrase it as an issue of respect - you can never be sure if the other truly respects both him/herself and you, or if the relationship is simply about one party’s lust. An economist might say that such a history just makes it much harder for you to trust someone to remain faithful and hence be worthy of dating and marriage. Either way, this is a case where more “freedom” (actually, license) is actually damaging to the human psyche.
I have wanted to write about this for some time, but I am still undecided as to my true feelings about the subject. Like anyone else, in the realm of dating and relationships I’ve done some things I’m happy with, some I’m indifferent to, and others I regret. To the extent that my feelings about each outcome were conditioned by the above dynamic and some of the factors you cite, I’m not sure.
Posted by on 11/01/2007 at 04:36 PMhell with the essay, just glad you’re alive, and hope you’re on the mend. In our prayers as always.
Posted by og on 11/01/2007 at 06:15 PMGood post. I’m married (11 years), and have three kids. My wife and I are both committed Christians, and we intend to be together “‘till death do us part.” Much of what you are describing is due to the rise of radical feminism in the ‘60s and ‘70s. They’ve endeavored to make men irrelevant and replace husbands and fathers with the almighty government. But, give this piece of advice to the single guys: not all women are like that. There are still many who understand what marriage is and the role of each spouse.
Posted by Jezla on 11/01/2007 at 06:38 PMA very good post Fran. While I’d echo your sentiments about character, the salient point for me would be this:
“Time was, we took our time getting to know a prospective spouse. Getting reliable answers to the questions above was the reason.”
You nailed it there. You’ll have no idea what someone’s character is overnight and I mean that in every sense of the word (overnight).
I consider myself a very lucky man. I married much later than most of my peers. That alone seems to have been for the best. But I was also friends with my wife for a long time before we ever even dated. And I knew her as my sister’s friend long before that. Consequently, I know her very well. I’ve known her family a long time and am blessed with great In-Laws. My wife’s character comes from them.
Posted by Jim Sullivan on 11/01/2007 at 07:45 PMI’ve been on this topic for a long time. This is good, as far as it goes. Sticking to the question of “Should”, it makes perfect sense.
The real problem with the way things are today re men and marriage is that those of us that have been married a long time didn’t sign up for this situation. Men with marriage on thier minds at least have the option. Its frightening to wake up one day and realize that your very life is in the hands of someone else. It doesn’t matter if you love that person and she loves you, the fact that my wife (or any man’s wife) has the power to completely destroy me is a scary thought.
Good to talk about it for “the kids” getting married today, but what about us old timers?
Posted by Sinner on 11/01/2007 at 08:39 PMMy husband’s choice of wife was in part related to his respect of my father - he admired my dad’s intelligence. As he came to know my mother, he grew in respect for her special qualities - tenacity, loyalty, upbeat attitude.
Both our parents were married for life - his parents for 30 years, until his father’s death. Mine for 46 years, until my mother’s death.
Certainly, seeing your parents argue, and yet act like adults - not walking out in a huff, apologizing for bad temper or acting like an idiot, making up (with laughter and some relief at finally being friends again) - all of these contributed to our own lengthy (34 years this January) marriage.
How can you not want your children to experience this unique experience - of taking a stranger, and making him/her your family?
Posted by Linda F on 11/01/2007 at 09:36 PMSinner, I don’t know what one can consider as an “old Timer” but I do consider myself one in more ways than age. God has constructed us with a number of flaws. Subsequent to puberty we men undergo the torture (yes, that is what is) of a raging hormonal drive. Depending on the moral and psychological tools bequeathed to us, succumbing to these torments can horribly impact not only our own lives but innocents’ as well. As a callow fellow I never gave up on marriage even after a bitter initial experience (or three). But time has passed and the raging hormones have abated. As the reformed drunk says: “I have been dry (faithful) for lo these many years” (21+) and they have been the happiest of my life. It is difficult but not impossible. I only regret the wreckage in the wake of this passage and pray for forgiveness both received and bestowed.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ on 11/01/2007 at 10:50 PMOnly people of good character should marry, both women and men. Those who do not have the requisite strength of character should stay out of marriage and content themselves with meaningless one-night stands, shack-ups, etc.
The idea has been expressed, “why put your life in someone else’s hands?” I have to reply, “why not? My life is at least as safe in my wife’s hands as it is in my own.” You see, I can trust my wife, and that is the critical point.
The benefits of marriage are manifold in terms of personal happiness, fulfillment, companionship, and longevity. It is the only way to give the most of yourself to someone else, both to a wife and to children, in a stable home. These things simply cannot happen in a cohabitation arrangement because of the tentative nature of that arrangement.
By all means, men should marry, but they should be sure that they are doing it for the right reasons with the right woman. Then it is really easy to have a happy, enduring marriage with no fears of a breakup. (For those that wonder if I know what I am talking about, let me say that my wife and I are approaching 35 years.)
Posted by on 11/01/2007 at 11:16 PMBy all means do get married but by all that’s holy DO NOT MARRY AN AMERICAN WOMAN!!!! Kill yourself now, rather.
If you have a choice, go asian. Yes there are bad seeds in that lot too and they are almost as good at taking as are American women, but they generally are raised in such a way that they believe in the “give” part as well. If you are willing to assume the responsibilities of being a man but feel that it is only fair that your mate should relatively cheerfully assume the responsibilities of being a woman, you vastly improve your odds of happiness by marrying an asian woman. This is the voice of experience.
Posted by on 12/05/2007 at 11:58 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
