5 ms·

I think the job/economy weights much less then the fact that marriage gives absolutely zero benefits for men in western society and implies a lot of risks.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
The article implies these men aren't even getting to the stage where they can make the decision on whether it's beneficial.
- supreme_sublime 9y ago
  It implies that but in no way proved that. The only statistic it offers is the marriage rate. As if women are the only ones who select mates. Of course they are the sexual gatekeepers. It makes me wonder how much single motherhood is involved. I'm sure many men aren't willing to start a relationship with a single mother. Not to mention single mothers have a different outlook for what they want in a man than a single woman. Perhaps if we had a more traditional way of life, fewer women would get pregnant out of wedlock to begin with, those who did would feel pressure to marry, and the fathers would as well. However now it is practically glorified to be a single mother, encouraging these women that they don't need men. I think this is pretty damaging to everyone, men, women, and the children.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    "Dorn and his colleagues find that when towns and counties lose manufacturing jobs, fertility and marriage rates among young adults go down, too. Unmarried births and the share of children living in single-parent homes go up. Meanwhile, places with higher manufacturing employment have a bigger wage gap between men and women, and a higher marriage rate." It seems clear which way the cause and effect goes from that.
munchor 9y ago
AFAIK marriage does give enormous significant breaks in most western societies.
- sreaching 9y ago
  with enormous liabilities - http://www.realworlddivorce.com/ http://www.realworlddivorce.com/
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  If you are referring to tax incentives, then in the US it depends on the variance in income and children: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/16/upshot/marriage-penalty-couples-income.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/16/upshot/marria... High income couples are actually penalized, and even worse off once they have a child!
- bufferoverflow 9y ago
  Until the divorce, then men get wrecked financially most of the time, losing houses, half the money, forced to pay alimony.
  - watwut 9y ago
    You pay alimony only if you expected women to give up work for marriage.
    - hajile 9y ago
      You also pay off she says, "I don't want to work." Considering that it's illegal (as it should be) to force your spouse to work (or stay at home), your point is irrelevant.
      - watwut 9y ago
        It is relevant, because in majority of marriages in USA both partners work. Stay at home women, especially stay at home women without small child at home are minority among married women. You all make it sound as if stay at home women was the norm, but it is not the case.
    - narag 9y ago
      In practice it's very difficult to prove you didn't. So even if she lost her job for unrelated causes or simply quit against your wishes, juries tend to concede alimony unless you make disproportionate efforts to produce proof.
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
That's so true. When you're not married, you can decide one day you want to quit, and that's it, the end of the story. When you're married, you need to prepare to lose money. And why? The only reason is because you signed a piece of paper. It's a very bleak perspective. This is strengthened by culture: look how the marriage is presented in the movies, for example. The woman is anxious if he's going to propose, then he has to buy a very expensive ring just to propose, then she is extremely happy as if she won a lottery (not because he loves her, but because he decided to marry).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
- michaelt 9y ago
  there are a lot of potential negatives [...] Why in the world is tying all of your assets [...] a thing? This started making much more sense to me when I noticed that, among my friends, 95% of people who get married have a baby within 12 months. Once you think of "get married and have a baby" as a single atomic decision, all the "downsides" of marriage are overshadowed by the _inherent_ downsides to having children. Marriages are difficult to get out of? Well, children are almost impossible to dispose of. Marriages can be personally costly? Children will take up a lot of time and money, no matter how rich you are. Marriages can involve one partner shouldering more than half the burden? Well, a man can't breastfeed a newborn at 4am no matter how much he wants to. And so on. pitching the idea of marriage minus mixing finances, [...] resulted in hours of crying. The discussion might go more productively if you approach it from a different angle: Start by deciding if you want children together; then discuss the things that follow from that.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Absolutely zero benefits for men? Wow. You sure don't have anything like my marriage. I got a woman who is a joy to be with for the rest of my life. 27 years later, and she's still a joy. I wanted to spend the rest of my life with her then, and I still do now. Now, you could argue that I could have gotten the same deal without marriage, just living with her for. But first, I could not have gotten that deal - not with her. It was marriage or nothing. And second, I didn't want just living together either. I wanted the real thing, with the commitment. I wanted to commit to her, not just to an institution or a tradition.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago

The article implies these men aren't even getting to the stage where they can make the decision on whether it's beneficial.

supreme_sublime 9y ago
It implies that but in no way proved that. The only statistic it offers is the marriage rate. As if women are the only ones who select mates. Of course they are the sexual gatekeepers. It makes me wonder how much single motherhood is involved. I'm sure many men aren't willing to start a relationship with a single mother. Not to mention single mothers have a different outlook for what they want in a man than a single woman. Perhaps if we had a more traditional way of life, fewer women would get pregnant out of wedlock to begin with, those who did would feel pressure to marry, and the fathers would as well. However now it is practically glorified to be a single mother, encouraging these women that they don't need men. I think this is pretty damaging to everyone, men, women, and the children.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  "Dorn and his colleagues find that when towns and counties lose manufacturing jobs, fertility and marriage rates among young adults go down, too. Unmarried births and the share of children living in single-parent homes go up. Meanwhile, places with higher manufacturing employment have a bigger wage gap between men and women, and a higher marriage rate." It seems clear which way the cause and effect goes from that.

munchor 9y ago

AFAIK marriage does give enormous significant breaks in most western societies.

sreaching 9y ago
with enormous liabilities - http://www.realworlddivorce.com/ http://www.realworlddivorce.com/
lotsofpulp 9y ago
If you are referring to tax incentives, then in the US it depends on the variance in income and children: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/16/upshot/marriage-penalty-couples-income.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/16/upshot/marria... High income couples are actually penalized, and even worse off once they have a child!
bufferoverflow 9y ago
Until the divorce, then men get wrecked financially most of the time, losing houses, half the money, forced to pay alimony.
- watwut 9y ago
  You pay alimony only if you expected women to give up work for marriage.
  - hajile 9y ago
    You also pay off she says, "I don't want to work." Considering that it's illegal (as it should be) to force your spouse to work (or stay at home), your point is irrelevant.
    - watwut 9y ago
      It is relevant, because in majority of marriages in USA both partners work. Stay at home women, especially stay at home women without small child at home are minority among married women. You all make it sound as if stay at home women was the norm, but it is not the case.
  - narag 9y ago
    In practice it's very difficult to prove you didn't. So even if she lost her job for unrelated causes or simply quit against your wishes, juries tend to concede alimony unless you make disproportionate efforts to produce proof.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

That's so true. When you're not married, you can decide one day you want to quit, and that's it, the end of the story. When you're married, you need to prepare to lose money. And why? The only reason is because you signed a piece of paper. It's a very bleak perspective. This is strengthened by culture: look how the marriage is presented in the movies, for example. The woman is anxious if he's going to propose, then he has to buy a very expensive ring just to propose, then she is extremely happy as if she won a lottery (not because he loves her, but because he decided to marry).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

michaelt 9y ago
there are a lot of potential negatives [...] Why in the world is tying all of your assets [...] a thing? This started making much more sense to me when I noticed that, among my friends, 95% of people who get married have a baby within 12 months. Once you think of "get married and have a baby" as a single atomic decision, all the "downsides" of marriage are overshadowed by the _inherent_ downsides to having children. Marriages are difficult to get out of? Well, children are almost impossible to dispose of. Marriages can be personally costly? Children will take up a lot of time and money, no matter how rich you are. Marriages can involve one partner shouldering more than half the burden? Well, a man can't breastfeed a newborn at 4am no matter how much he wants to. And so on. pitching the idea of marriage minus mixing finances, [...] resulted in hours of crying. The discussion might go more productively if you approach it from a different angle: Start by deciding if you want children together; then discuss the things that follow from that.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

Absolutely zero benefits for men? Wow. You sure don't have anything like my marriage. I got a woman who is a joy to be with for the rest of my life. 27 years later, and she's still a joy. I wanted to spend the rest of my life with her then, and I still do now. Now, you could argue that I could have gotten the same deal without marriage, just living with her for. But first, I could not have gotten that deal - not with her. It was marriage or nothing. And second, I didn't want just living together either. I wanted the real thing, with the commitment. I wanted to commit to her, not just to an institution or a tradition.