Decline Of Marriage And Possible Solutions To Reverse The Trend

[Maggyie]

There's some weird MRA stuff going on in this thread.

Just an OT note ion Maury Povich. The girl almost certainly knows who the father is. She likes being on TV. If Maury finds out who the father is she has to go back to her horrible neighborhood where no one pays any attention to her, and that's the end if it for her. For these people appearing on Maury is the pinnacle of fame and success.

[the171]

Hey, it's Poland again!

[the171]

Yay misogyny! My favorite!

[polskieserce]

I've seen/done a couple of hundred divorces. Did five for my secretary. Don't know where you are getting your stats from about alimony. Most of the time if alimony is given, it is only given where the husband is at fault, and the marriage lasted at least ten years.

As down as you are on women, I hope for my sisters' sakes that you don't find one that meets your requirements.

 

Why should alimony be awarded at all?  The fact that the very concept of alimony even exists in written law is an insult to men.  It's enough that a woman was a house wife for a couple of years and a judge will order her ex to pay for alimony.  I know of a case in my immediate circle where alimony was awarded (longer marriage, yes) but the husband was not some sort of malicious wife beater.  That's basically what you get with a feminized, no fault divorce system.

 

Seriously, women like you are the reason guys hesitate to speak up in person about marriage.  There are a lot of women out there who are ignorant about marriage and the hypocrisy of their own goals.  You can find plenty of young girls in their early 20s who say they want to get married and have their blissful, fairytale wedding that's a beautiful tradition.  Yet, how many of those girls have actually been following all of the other traditional demands that society placed in women when marriage was in its heyday.  If I was a true misogynist like you are implying, then I would not even care about marriage at all.  It would be much easier to sleep around and not worry too much about relationships.  It would not make sense for to use a woman for anything beyond sex if I hated them.  I do hope to get married someday to a girl who sees marriage as a purely religious endeavor, not the monstrosity it has turned into the last couple of years.  But like I said before, in order for me to get married, the relationship has to meet the requirement.  If I'm risking more than the potential reward, then I will tell the girl straight up that she either needs to get it together or find another guy.

 

REWARD > RISK

 

Yay misogyny! My favorite!

 

Anyone who questions the utilitarian benefits of marriage is a misogynist?

 

 

I will say this in general.  A few people on here have talked about some different incentives, but for the most part, people have not had solid answers to this question.  You can argue tooth and nail that "God said to go do this....", but the majority of the population does not care about such arguments.  The numbers are pointing in the direction of a marriage decline.  Most people are too secular to reverse the trend along theological lines.  Therefore, a discussion about the legal and economic incentives is the only effective plan of attack.  People can argue all they want on here about this and that, but for men especially, there are far fewer utilitarian benefits to be reaped from marriage than in the 1950s.

[NotreDame]

Yay misogyny! My favorite!

 

That's a big word to throw around so lightly. 

[Basilisa Marie]

That's a big word to throw around so lightly. 

 

So is "patronizing." :|

[havok579257]

Why should alimony be awarded at all?  The fact that the very concept of alimony even exists in written law is an insult to men.  It's enough that a woman was a house wife for a couple of years and a judge will order her ex to pay for alimony.  I know of a case in my immediate circle where alimony was awarded (longer marriage, yes) but the husband was not some sort of malicious wife beater.  That's basically what you get with a feminized, no fault divorce system.

 

 

 

 

 

alimony should be awarded if the couple decides the female should stay home and raise children and forsake a career and/or an education.  how many wives support their husbands as they go to school to get better jobs forsaking their own education at the expense of their husbands.  marriage is give and take.  one side does not benefit more than the other.  if you think so, you really have no concept of how a marriage works.

[havok579257]

 

There are two points I want to make.  Serious practicing Christians (regardless of what branch they are) as a whole do not make up the majority of the population.  What I'm getting at is what it would take on a political and economic level to spark interest in marriage among the general population, not just serious practicing christians.  The 2nd point is that it's illogical to make a decision without thinking about possible negative consequences.  If signing a marital contract gives the woman legal claim over assets that she never worked for, then the man has a logical reason to be concerned and question the necessity for such an unfair contract.  It's as simple as that.  Going by your logic, people should not bother with car insurance, since it's thinking about the outcome of a future car accident.

 

 

 

 

 

nope, if your considering divorce before going into marriage your not properly practicing your faith.  thats not on the government, the courts or the wife, that's soley on you.  your not practicing your faith as a proper male catholic if your considering divorce.  so before you worry about divorce, unfair government and unfair courts, how about you first look in the mirror and decide to practice your faith properly and truly and say if you get married, your not getting divorced.  plain and simple.

 

as about your claim the majority of people aren't practicing christians, how about work to fix that instead of some mythical unfairness to men that you have made up.

[havok579257]

 

I will say this in general.  A few people on here have talked about some different incentives, but for the most part, people have not had solid answers to this question.  You can argue tooth and nail that "God said to go do this....", but the majority of the population does not care about such arguments.  The numbers are pointing in the direction of a marriage decline.  Most people are too secular to reverse the trend along theological lines.  Therefore, a discussion about the legal and economic incentives is the only effective plan of attack.  People can argue all they want on here about this and that, but for men especially, there are far fewer utilitarian benefits to be reaped from marriage than in the 1950s.

 

your right because in the 50's men could beat their wives, rape thier wives without any reprisals because law enforcement rarely believed the women and nobody believed rape could happen in marriage.  so are those some of the benefits your talking about from the 50's?

[Maggyie]

Why should alimony be awarded at all? The fact that the very concept of alimony even exists in written law is an insult to men. It's enough that a woman was a house wife for a couple of years and a judge will order her ex to pay for alimony. I know of a case in my immediate circle where alimony was awarded (longer marriage, yes) but the husband was not some sort of malicious wife beater. That's basically what you get with a feminized, no fault divorce system.

Seriously, women like you are the reason guys hesitate to speak up in person about marriage. There are a lot of women out there who are ignorant about marriage and the hypocrisy of their own goals. You can find plenty of young girls in their early 20s who say they want to get married and have their blissful, fairytale wedding that's a beautiful tradition. Yet, how many of those girls have actually been following all of the other traditional demands that society placed in women when marriage was in its heyday. If I was a true misogynist like you are implying, then I would not even care about marriage at all. It would be much easier to sleep around and not worry too much about relationships. It would not make sense for to use a woman for anything beyond sex if I hated them. I do hope to get married someday to a girl who sees marriage as a purely religious endeavor, not the monstrosity it has turned into the last couple of years. But like I said before, in order for me to get married, the relationship has to meet the requirement. If I'm risking more than the potential reward, then I will tell the girl straight up that she either needs to get it together or find another guy.

REWARD > RISK


Anyone who questions the utilitarian benefits of marriage is a misogynist?


I will say this in general. A few people on here have talked about some different incentives, but for the most part, people have not had solid answers to this question. You can argue tooth and nail that "God said to go do this....", but the majority of the population does not care about such arguments. The numbers are pointing in the direction of a marriage decline. Most people are too secular to reverse the trend along theological lines. Therefore, a discussion about the legal and economic incentives is the only effective plan of attack. People can argue all they want on here about this and that, but for men especially, there are far fewer utilitarian benefits to be reaped from marriage than in the 1950s.

So. The chicks. They do not dig you. Amiright?

What I want to know, is what kind of relationship you have with the females in your family (namely mother).

Women also have to evaluate risk and reward... And the risks associated with being married to an MRA type are too great to bear.

[Norseman82]

nope, if your considering divorce before going into marriage your not properly practicing your faith.  thats not on the government, the courts or the wife, that's soley on you.  your not practicing your faith as a proper male catholic if your considering divorce.  so before you worry about divorce, unfair government and unfair courts, how about you first look in the mirror and decide to practice your faith properly and truly and say if you get married, your not getting divorced.  plain and simple.

 

as about your claim the majority of people aren't practicing christians, how about work to fix that instead of some mythical unfairness to men that you have made up.

 

Again, what about "innocent spouses" who don't want to divorce and don't consent to it, but the other spouse goes through with it (see CCC 2386)?  (CatherineM can probably speak more on the legal aspects of what goes on there).  I recall that one of our PMers went through something like this within the past few years. 

 

Keep in mind too that CCC 2383 tolerates divorce if that is necessary to protect certain rights.

 

I think that instead of looking at this as a gender-bashing rant on either side, we need to look at this thread as a "how do we strengthen marriage" issue (that is what the title refers to, after all).

Edited February 22, 2014 by Norseman82

[PhuturePriest]

To answer the question of the title: There's not much we can do to reverse this. Marriage is in decline, morality is in decline, and the Church is most certainly in decline. Pope Benedict XVI said the Church was soon going to be very small and not have much influence in the political and cultural spheres, and I believe him 100%.

[CatherineM]

My Dad would have said that there are some folks that aren't worth wasting good spit on.

[polskieserce]

alimony should be awarded if the couple decides the female should stay home and raise children and forsake a career and/or an education.  how many wives support their husbands as they go to school to get better jobs forsaking their own education at the expense of their husbands.  marriage is give and take.  one side does not benefit more than the other.  if you think so, you really have no concept of how a marriage works.

 

That's simply not true.  In many dysfunctional marriages, it isn't uncommon to see one spouse pulling more weight than the other spouse for no good reason.  In this day and age, there is no reason why both spouses should not be working.  Most couples are not having 8-10 kids like they did in the distant past because modern medicine greatly improves the odds of surviving until adulthood.  I can understand taking 1-2 years off to be by the child's side, but there is absolutely no reason to forsake an entire career over 1-2 children.

 

nope, if your considering divorce before going into marriage your not properly practicing your faith.  thats not on the government, the courts or the wife, that's soley on you.  your not practicing your faith as a proper male catholic if your considering divorce.  so before you worry about divorce, unfair government and unfair courts, how about you first look in the mirror and decide to practice your faith properly and truly and say if you get married, your not getting divorced.  plain and simple.

 

as about your claim the majority of people aren't practicing christians, how about work to fix that instead of some mythical unfairness to men that you have made up.

 

Havok, I can't control the future.  If I marry a woman and she starts sleeping around with other men, I'm not going to risk my own health and possibly catch an std just to be with her.  If she gets bored of me and wants someone else, there's nothing I can do about that.  I'm not going to shackle her to the bed posts.  If the marriage becomes so bad that there are screaming matches every day and our child(ren) is/are enduring emotional trauma because of it, then it would be inhumane for everyone involved to continue such a relationship.  Divorce should only be seen as a last resort, but it does not mean that two people should continue a dead relationship.

 

your right because in the 50's men could beat their wives, rape thier wives without any reprisals because law enforcement rarely believed the women and nobody believed rape could happen in marriage.  so are those some of the benefits your talking about from the 50's?

 

I'm talking about the fact that marriage was not set up as an institution of female privilege back in those days.  Family court judges did not see men as untapped crude oil ready to be tapped into for the woman's benefit.

 

So. The chicks. They do not dig you. Amiright?

What I want to know, is what kind of relationship you have with the females in your family (namely mother).

Women also have to evaluate risk and reward... And the risks associated with being married to an MRA type are too great to bear.

 

You are merely trying to derail the conversation because you are not able to counter the factual points I made.  There is nothing wrong with being a critical thinker and evaluating an institution for yourself.  I am not the only one who has made the claim that the current  legal marital contract creates an institution centered around female privilege and male submission.  There are not many safeguards in place if one of the spouses is feeling vengeful and wants to argue every point in court just to drive up their ex's attorney fees in hopes of getting a higher out of court settlement.  Yes, women have to evaluate risk/reward, and in the case of marriage it gives them a lot of legal rights/entitlements.  So of course they will want to get married.  Using your own head to think critically about the world is a trait that should be promoted, not ridiculed.  There is already way too much collective thinking in the world today and it would do people a lot of good to form their own views and opinions rather than trying to go along with everyone else.

[HisChildForever]

 

I think that instead of looking at this as a gender-bashing rant on either side, we need to look at this thread as a "how do we strengthen marriage" issue (that is what the title refers to, after all).

 

I just finished "The Meaning of Marriage" by Tim Keller. He's a Protestant pastor so it's not Catholic theology but a lot of his thoughts on the matter are excellent.