Why many men in the west are reluctant to get married

[BoredPerson]

Okay. Well....if ever you should change your mind, I've fashioned a special stick of birchwood just for you.

 

What would I want with that ?

[sally4sara]

The number one reason for divorces is money.

 

That translates to the man is not making enough of it.

 

I am not digging on women, as much as I am how roles have changed.

 

When people used to marry, they stayed together for a lifetime. They had good character, values, morals etc. Both parties had a NEED for each other, so marriage made a lot of sense.

 

The reality is that 70% of divorces are initiated by women. And today it is still women that want to be married more than men. Why? They have the advantages of choosing what they want. They can work, stay home, work part time, etc and if they choose to be alone they then can keep the kids, home, and part of the husbands income.

 

If you don't like the roles change, it implies an unwillingness to be more active in raising children because you prefer to be a money maker over a care giver to children. If you are unwilling to be more active in hands on care giving to children and cleaning a house, how do you expect the courts to change the way they handle divorce?

And if YOU don't want to actively raise your children or clean the house you and your family live in, why would you think ANYONE would want to have to do it for you?

Sounds to me that some men are angry that women don't want to be ONLY maids and baby sitters for someone who WON'T do it and comes home wanting sex when the urge hits them. Didn't we abolish slavery?

And don't even try to say it's so hard to go out and work a job that women owe it to their husbands to be this way. They've already figured out they can fill this role just as easy as a man can.

It's time for men to show they can just as easily fill the homemaker role so easily as well. Who knows, maybe you'll like it and then you'll have proven who has the better deal in traditional marriage!

[Thaddeus]

If you don't like the roles change, it implies an unwillingness to be more active in raising children because you prefer to be a money maker over a care giver to children.

Sally4sara makes a good point here, but there's an element to the argument that she's missing.

 

If a man decides that he wants to play a much bigger part in the household, raising the kids and all the rest, that's going to detract him from earning a living. The way that our economy is set up, earning the big bucks comes at a price, and that price is family time.

 

But so many people want it both ways. They want the lavish lifestyle and all the toys and the freedom that a large income can provide, but they also want to spend more time with their kids/spouse/community/whatever.

 

Unfortunately - and it truly is unfortunate - those concepts are mutually exclusive.

 

So you can have the big bucks, or you can have extensive family time.

 

Pick one.

[sally4sara]

Sally4sara makes a good point here, but there's an element to the argument that she's missing.

 

If a man decides that he wants to play a much bigger part in the household, raising the kids and all the rest, that's going to detract him from earning a living. The way that our economy is set up, earning the big bucks comes at a price, and that price is family time.

 

But so many people want it both ways. They want the lavish lifestyle and all the toys and the freedom that a large income can provide, but they also want to spend more time with their kids/spouse/community/whatever.

 

Unfortunately - and it truly is unfortunate - those concepts are mutually exclusive.

 

So you can have the big bucks, or you can have extensive family time.

Pick one.

 

Exactly. When did the ability to waste money and ignore your offspring journey to adulthood become a virtue.

 

I just feel that the taking time off to raise the kids or going out into the world to earn money should become an any gender role. We would force the employers of the world to really pay equal for equal work. We would raise our children to be more well rounded and better prepared adults.

No more princess complex "be pretty and you won't have to be smart or useful" crap. No more men too impatient to really guide their children and have good relationships. No more men silently stressing their way to a heart attack because they are the only one educated and motivated enough to support their family. No more feeling like if they CAN'T do this, they are failures as men. The courts would have to actually become fair if two people find themselves divorcing.

I could go on, but I think it is becoming obvious:

If you are male and cannot pull yourself out of old, unnecessary and antiquate roles and become a real team player, you're right; modern marriage isn't for you.

 

Adaptability is the quality of the future and men really need to decide if they want to be a part of the human future. Especially now that it is possible for two women to produce a child that is genetically both women's offspring.

[Thaddeus]

Exactly. When did the ability to waste money and ignore your offspring journey to adulthood become a virtue.

When "corporate America" and the pursuit of the "American dream" became an end unto itself, rather than a means to an end.

If you are male and cannot pull yourself out of old, unnecessary and antiquate roles and become a real team player, you're right; modern marriage isn't for you.

Sally4sara, I think you've really got this nailed. Props to you.

 

Here's a wrinkle, though, that I see common in married couples around me, one couple specifically:

 

Couple works hard to develop a decent lifestyle for their children. But, because human beings have this tendency to want more and more money, stuff and whatnot, the adults spend more and more time at work.

 

At some point, one or the other begins to resent all the time the other partner spends at work and would like the other partner to spend more time at home helping with the kids, the housework, etc.

 

Partner agrees. Income levels remain static or even start to drop. Suddenly one partner, or both of them, start wanting the extra "goodies" that working so hard allowed them to attain.

 

Now there's a whole new set of stresses: The raised expectations that they could satisfy when both partners were working full-tilt now have to be lowered. And often one or both partners resist lowering their expectations.

 

I've got this exact same situation happening with friends of mine - a couple married nearly 20 years. He worked insane hours and brought home the big bucks. She grew resentful of all his time at work. At her request, he changed jobs. He's making less money but now can spend more time at home. She's now resentful that he's not making as much and she has less to spend on shoes (yes, really... apparently it's all about shoes ).

 

No matter what the guy does, he's screwed.

 

That particular situation has yet to come to a head, so the final chapter isn't written yet.

 

(I hasten to add something here, lest I be accused [again] of misogyny. This is not a gender-specific dynamic. In the instance that I examined above with the couple that I know well, I'm just outlining how it is for them. I have no doubt, however, that the situation plays out similarly when the genders are reversed.)

[The Collector]

This is not a gender-specific dynamic. In the instance that I examined above with the couple that I know well, I'm just outlining how it is for them. I have no doubt, however, that the situation plays out similarly when the genders are reversed.)

 

Not so much. You ever hear of a man dumping his girlfriend or wife because she lost her job or switched careers?

[sally4sara]

I think many people are living in a fantasy land of what "should" be, and ignoring inherent differences in the genders.

 

The thread is about why Western men do not see value in marriage. If a man has to work just as much, then work at home just as much, only have one sex partner, and then give away his life savings and financial security to a woman, where is the upside? Marriage is not for all females either, especially if you are the type who cannot sacrifice or are self absorbed.

 

Fact: Most women are attracted to ambitious or high earning males.

 

Fact: Ambitious or high earning males MUST spend lots of time working, and often times travel for work.

 

So yes, it sounds very nice to say "The man should help out more at home", but it is not realistic in many cases. I wonder how many women would be supportive of her husband taking a huge pay cut to play with the babies a little more?

 

I think this is good advice to all men.. MEN, STAY AWAY FROM THE FEMINIST TYPE. THEY ARE GOOD FOR CASUAL SEX, BUT NOT FOR MARRIAGE.

 

These traits exist because we've fostered them past the point of relevancy.

A woman who is comfortable with a man paying her bills is a byproduct of the outdated roles we are discussing. She is a victim of patriarchal standards.

A man who was never encouraged to evolve and needs a less capable partner to feel like a man is a victim of patriarchal standards.

When his wife grows tired of doing the work he feels would emasculate him for its lack of importance or perceived difficulty and divorces him, the courts make him a further victim of patriarchal standards.

 

I can only speak for myself and the women I personally know; I find a man who can just as easily stay home and play with the baby as he can go out and earn a living to be more my equal than a man who only knows one role. I have been a single mother so I know I can do without a partner. I still want a partner because while I know I can do without one, it is a better plan to have one so long as the person is actually willing to be a partner. It is also more enjoyable and enriching to my life as well as the life of my child. I value a hands on father rather than just a walking paycheck.

 

 

I'm marrying such a well rounded man as I speak of this January. Our sex is not casual.

 

I am a feminist.

[sally4sara]

Not so much. You ever hear of a man dumping his girlfriend or wife because she lost her job or switched careers?

 

Yes I have. A friend of mine has a sister who is completely ignoring the value of being self sufficient. She lives off their parents. They've paid for her to flunk out of 4 colleges. She started skipping again and won't hold a job. Her boyfriend dumped her because he felt she was doing absolutely nothing with her life.

 

Women want men's approval just as much as men was women's approval. If men stop tolerating the princess type, they will disappear. It is no different than women no longer tolerating the Archie Bunker type of man.

[sally4sara]

When "corporate America" and the pursuit of the "American dream" became an end unto itself, rather than a means to an end.

Sally4sara, I think you've really got this nailed. Props to you.

 

Here's a wrinkle, though, that I see common in married couples around me, one couple specifically:

 

Couple works hard to develop a decent lifestyle for their children. But, because human beings have this tendency to want more and more money, stuff and whatnot, the adults spend more and more time at work.

 

At some point, one or the other begins to resent all the time the other partner spends at work and would like the other partner to spend more time at home helping with the kids, the housework, etc.

 

Partner agrees. Income levels remain static or even start to drop. Suddenly one partner, or both of them, start wanting the extra "goodies" that working so hard allowed them to attain.

 

Now there's a whole new set of stresses: The raised expectations that they could satisfy when both partners were working full-tilt now have to be lowered. And often one or both partners resist lowering their expectations.

 

I've got this exact same situation happening with friends of mine - a couple married nearly 20 years. He worked insane hours and brought home the big bucks. She grew resentful of all his time at work. At her request, he changed jobs. He's making less money but now can spend more time at home. She's now resentful that he's not making as much and she has less to spend on shoes (yes, really... apparently it's all about shoes ).

 

No matter what the guy does, he's screwed.

 

That particular situation has yet to come to a head, so the final chapter isn't written yet.

 

(I hasten to add something here, lest I be accused [again] of misogyny. This is not a gender-specific dynamic. In the instance that I examined above with the couple that I know well, I'm just outlining how it is for them. I have no doubt, however, that the situation plays out similarly when the genders are reversed.)

 

It is probably a bit more complex than just shoes. It always is you know.

 

I would like to see less of this too. It will only happen if we smash the traditional roles. This seems to keep getting stalled because some men actually believe they stand nothing to benefit from a partner who is just as capable to fill their role as they are to fill her's.

I don't see the sense in choosing a partner simply for the doing of things I won't or would rather not do. There will always be things that need to be done that I'd rather not do. I feel the only good reason to choose a partner is that they can help you accomplish a shared goal faster than you can accomplish it alone. They can cover you while you take time out to better yourself or chase a dream. You can do the same for them. What one achieves should be the benefit of both. That is the very definition of a partnership is it not?

What good is expecting rigid and fixed roles? Life is not going to stop in front of your door and say "oh we can't bring this upheaval (perhaps a triple bypass surgery for him or breast cancer for her) to this family's doorstep, they are not ready for it!"

If a man marries and has two children with his wife and then gets in a car accident that requires a year out of work to heal from, he'd be damn glad to have a partner that could hold things down in his absence wouldn't he?

[sally4sara]

Well maybe the second go around will be better for you..

 

Here is the problem..

 

Very rarely do women want to be true 50/50 partners. As in pay half the bills, pay for dates, pay for everything 50/50.

 

If my future wife wants to do 100% of the money earning , then you better believe i would have dinner ready for her and a spotless home. I would do 100% of the other things, She can give birth, go straight back to work, and I will take care of the home. Now what % of women do you feel want to support a man?

 

All I know is I would not marry to come home to a tired nagging wife whom is also working, then cook for myself, clean the house, change diapers, and do yard work.

 

Division of responsibilities is a beautiful thing that makes life much easier.

 

The % that can't find a partner unwilling to build a life with a women incapable of being an equal partner?

[sb129]

Yes, this is the fate of traditional men. Expect a woman to play traditional roles and the courts standards (created by men!) will favor her. And they should; she knows the children better than the father so of course the children will stay with her for the most part.

 

Marriage today works for women and men who don't insist on taking little interest in the kids, managing a home, or feels emasculated by a wife who works. If a man is the one doing the majority of child care, more and more often, the courts give him the kids and the wife pays support.

 

It is up to men to change their view of marriage and their role within it.

Women already have. Women know they are capable of both roles. I'll bet men are too, they just don't find pride in doing anything but bringing home the bacon. Why should the courts consider them equal in their decision regarding the children or child support while they act like doing the "woman's job" removes their balls? If you think of it as a mother's role, why on Earth would you complain when the woman gets the kids?

 

Quit yer bitchin and start playing catch up.

 

Great post.

 

Division of responsibilities is a beautiful thing that makes life much easier.

 

Sure is.

 

Oh, and C- I am taking 4 months off after the birth of our child.

I will not be "paying back" my H for that time thanks to some good investments of mine, I will still continue to have a salary for those 4 months.

And if you think that working while being pregnant and all the other sh*t that goes with carrying and birthing a baby is easy, think again.

 

H will be working, but as a teacher he gets 2 months (paid) off over the summer which coincide with the final 2 months I will be having off.

 

We are both looking forward to BOTH being at home, BOTH looking after the new baby and BOTH still getting paid.....sharing everything equally as we have done our entire relationship.

 

I love my life. :):)

[FleshNBones]

It is probably a bit more complex than just shoes. It always is you know.

 

I would like to see less of this too. It will only happen if we smash the traditional roles. This seems to keep getting stalled because some men actually believe they stand nothing to benefit from a partner who is just as capable to fill their role as they are to fill her's.

I don't see the sense in choosing a partner simply for the doing of things I won't or would rather not do. There will always be things that need to be done that I'd rather not do. I feel the only good reason to choose a partner is that they can help you accomplish a shared goal faster than you can accomplish it alone. They can cover you while you take time out to better yourself or chase a dream. You can do the same for them. What one achieves should be the benefit of both. That is the very definition of a partnership is it not?

What good is expecting rigid and fixed roles? Life is not going to stop in front of your door and say "oh we can't bring this upheaval (perhaps a triple bypass surgery for him or breast cancer for her) to this family's doorstep, they are not ready for it!"

If a man marries and has two children with his wife and then gets in a car accident that requires a year out of work to heal from, he'd be damn glad to have a partner that could hold things down in his absence wouldn't he?

Gender roles? How about more support and maturity from the wife?

 

What happened to sharing RESPONSIBILITY? It seems like feminism has liberated women from it, and turned marriage into a cash cow.

[sally4sara]

Gender roles? How about more support and maturity from the wife?

 

What happened to sharing RESPONSIBILITY? It seems like feminism has liberated women from it, and turned marriage into a cash cow.

 

Did you read anything I wrote?

 

I am aaaallllll about equal contribution and equal responsibility.

You seem all about arguing.

[sally4sara]

Ok ladies..

 

You tell us guys what the advantage of marrying a feminist is.

 

Being single we have far greater financial security.

 

We have more freedom to travel, go out etc.

 

We can have different sexual partners, instead of vowing to sleep with one woman forever, which is a big sacrifice for men. This is far easier with the "liberated woman" these days.

 

Now if a woman makes MY life easier, I would consider marriage. If my life is basically the same, except now I lose most of my freedom and my financial security is in her trust, what is the big advantage?

 

I see the advantage for women, as women seek security, and having many sexual partners is typically not in the female nature.

 

As a single person, I quite enjoyed sowing my oats with whom I wished when I wished. It is a sacrifice for us too, to ride the same stick every night.

True I seek security and can create it for myself when I need to do so. With someone else in the picture, we can create more of it or create it faster.

The advantages of marrying a feminist were covered in my previous posts where I talked about having a partner just as capable and willing to earn money as they are to care for children and home. Someone who will accept a man stepping into the care giver role just as much as he can accept her bringing home the paycheck. Or whatever role becomes necessary for their life together.

We travel together more than we traveled alone because we can decide what amount should be saved to go wherever, and earn it twice as fast as alone. Enjoy it more too for sharing it with a compatible partner.

Compatible means you share the same values for child rearing, spending, lifestyle etc.

 

My partner isn't expected to carry me through life. He will if it becomes necessary, but no part of necessary is included in him being the man. I can carry him if it becomes necessary and no part of necessary means he is less of a man.

[Thaddeus]

The advantages of marrying a feminist were covered in my previous posts where I talked about having a partner just as capable and willing to earn money as they are to care for children and home. Someone who will accept a man stepping into the care giver role just as much as he can accept her bringing home the paycheck. Or whatever role becomes necessary for their life together.

Sure, but will you kill your own spiders?

[sally4sara]

Sure, but will you kill your own spiders?

 

Sure will! My own deer and fish too!

[stillafool]

Well maybe the second go around will be better for you..

 

Here is the problem..

 

Very rarely do women want to be true 50/50 partners. As in pay half the bills, pay for dates, pay for everything 50/50.

 

If my future wife wants to do 100% of the money earning , then you better believe i would have dinner ready for her and a spotless home. I would do 100% of the other things, She can give birth, go straight back to work, and I will take care of the home. Now what % of women do you feel want to support a man?

 

All I know is I would not marry to come home to a tired nagging wife whom is also working, then cook for myself, clean the house, change diapers, and do yard work.

 

Division of responsibilities is a beautiful thing that makes life much easier.

 

Well if you marry a woman who is a "high earner" you won't have to worry about the cooking, cleaning, kids and yard work. You two can hire someone to do all of those things. That's the beauty of marrying a woman of equal earning power.

[sally4sara]

A woman can work and not be a feminist. Millions of them do work. You do not need to be a feminist to have a job.

 

So you were easy. That is what I said before. Feminists types are easier to get into bed. At least you have lots of experience, so maybe your husband is a lucky guy?

 

So basically the advantage is that you can work..

 

I'm talking about both people treating the life they build together with honor and sincerity. A woman shares with you that she values being an equal partner and accepts an equal partner and the best you can come up with is to imply something sexually untoward about her character?

 

That is pretty cheap. Good luck with life.

[Woggle]

I have no issue cooking because I actually enjoy it and I do my half of the cleaning but I will not be with a woman who criticizes everything I do and has nothing positive to say whatsoever. Many stay at home women are like this as well though so whether or not she has a career is not a factor in this.

 

What somebody said about not all working women are feminists is right. I know women who are successful and independent yet actually like men and don't view us as the enemy. These are the types who soundly reject the feminist label.

[BoredPerson]

Sally4Sara with your attitude I doubt you will ever have a successful marriage. You are intent on twisting words to detract from them any meaning to state a completely fallicious point of view.

 

There will never be an equal share of work because one partner will always be more interested in the other and they will have different ideas of what amount of work needs to be done.

 

This operation of the family unit is in stark contrast to the family courts where men and women are not treated equally which is the reason so many men are reluctant to marry.

 

The other problem with your argument is that you cannot prove that women are doing all of the domestic work around the house which based on my life experience it would be a ridiculous proclamation to think that men do not do their share of housework.

[FleshNBones]

Did you read anything I wrote?

 

I am aaaallllll about equal contribution and equal responsibility.

You seem all about arguing.

You made no mention of responsibility. Tamare brought it up, but I do believe it is in regard to men being responsible for choosing the right wife.

 

You do have an odd sense of "equal contribution and equal responsibility". You seem to put a lot more weight on the men (weighted average). You want a man to be the breadwinner as well as take care of the choirs, and then you complain about there not being enough quality time with the family in general. Of course, fewer choirs would mean more quality time for the family, but you can't compromise on that now can you. A little more thinking insead of feeling, and who knows, maybe your relationships will last longer.

 

Few experiences are as lonely as being constantly worked without a sanctuary.

[sally4sara]

Sally, you were the one claiming you do not like to ride the same stick every night and in the past you rode lots of them.

 

You were the one acting like monogamy was difficult. I simply made comment that it isn't just a change to a man's life when entering a relationship.

 

You can keep that double standard firmly planted where ever it pleases you.

[sally4sara]

You made no mention of responsibility. Tamare brought it up, but I do believe it is in regard to men being responsible for choosing the right wife.

 

You do have an odd sense of "equal contribution and equal responsibility". You seem to put a lot more weight on the men (weighted average). You want a man to be the breadwinner as well as take care of the choirs, and then you complain about there not being enough quality time with the family in general. Of course, fewer choirs would mean more quality time for the family, but you can't compromise on that now can you. A little more thinking insead of feeling, and who knows, maybe your relationships will last longer.

 

Few experiences are as lonely as being constantly worked without a sanctuary.

 

I was in a choir in high school. I'm not now. Choirs?

 

As for responsibilities? I spoke about them much. I don't feel I said anything untoward. I simply said an equal partner to me would be a man who is just as capable as myself. If he ends up being at home with the domestic end OR if he ends up out earning money, we would be best suited to be interchangeble to be able to field what changes life might bring.

 

I simply said there is no "man's work" or "woman's work". It works well for us thanks.

[sally4sara]

more ignorance for no reason other than I wish to respond negatively to any female poster

 

We don't speak the same language BP. It won't bother me so you shouldn't let it bother you.

[sally4sara]

I have no issue cooking because I actually enjoy it and I do my half of the cleaning but I will not be with a woman who criticizes everything I do and has nothing positive to say whatsoever. Many stay at home women are like this as well though so whether or not she has a career is not a factor in this.

 

What somebody said about not all working women are feminists is right. I know women who are successful and independent yet actually like men and don't view us as the enemy. These are the types who soundly reject the feminist label.

 

I don't view men as enemies. I view ignorance as a detriment and anyone who seems content to stay so a detriment.

I actually do like men and I am a feminist. I will never soundly reject that label because my beliefs are my beliefs because I believe they benefit everyone.