Why Great Husbands Are Being Abandoned

[Poitier]

Men who think marriage is archaic are the same as women who think gender roles are archaic. These things have been crafted for 150,000 years for a reason. Don't play yourself.

 

[FinesseKing]

If u knew about the OP's engagement u would understand.

His attempt at marriage was a psyche destroying failure so he spends at least an hour a day rationalizing never trying again

High key, its a very sad defense mechanism

@Emperor_ReinScarf what happened with your marriage bro?

 

[DAlbert]

Men who think marriage is archaic are the same as women who think gender roles are archaic. These things have been crafted for 150,000 years for a reason. Don't play yourself.

so you think marriage is essential?

 

[Poitier]

so you think marriage is essential?

To merely exist like hunter gatherers? No. To have a working society? Yes.

 

[Yup]

Add an avatar

whatever you say love.

 

[Box Cutta]

And you don't think those belief systems were carefully crafted prior?

The point is that they were in fact, crafted.

I don't know how you would define "careful". My assumption? Men wanted to control women and ensure that their children were in fact, their children. Marriage was certainly a good solution to these problems.

Also, in many of these early civilizations, these people wouldn't have looked at marriage as signal to the outside world of being "in love". They would have enjoyed the financial, and/or social benefits however.

You really want to reference the EU and the US right now? Economies being held up by QE and negative birthrates and massive inequality?

Europe and America's economic failures are a result of...the deemphasis of marriage....and not...the failings of capitalism (At least, as practiced in these societies) ?

And which societies modern would you point to that show that marriage is paramount? I'm not being coy, I genuinely would like to know what the counter-nations would be. US and Europe aren't perfect, but they aren't in dire straits either. Most importantly, I highly doubt that their issues result from a lack of respect for the institution of marriage. Quality of life will always be my metric, and US and Euro's sure ain't doing bad.

Negative birthrates...that's a whole'nother ballpark. That's getting into immigration, access to birth control, college education of women, etc. Regardless, marriage doesn't guarantee two children, nor does not being married guarantee not having two children (Word to single mothers), so it's kind of a moot point.

Breh, primates shared ancestor was monogamous.

Fair enough, but we have to be careful when talking about what chimps and other close-relatives do.

Honestly, does it even apply to us?

The world isn't different at all. Let me know when a civilization without a family unit thrives.

We aren't goat-herding horticulturalist. We have manufacturing. We have telephones and internet. We have planes and automobiles. Human civilization can exist without marriage and more importantly, without it's big brother "the church".

 

[Yup]

The point is that they were in fact, crafted.

I don't know how you would define "careful". My assumption? Men wanted to control women and insure that their children were in fact, their children. Marriage was certainly a good solution to these problems.

Also, in many of these early civilizations, these people wouldn't have looked at marriage as signal to the outside world of being "in love". They would have enjoyed the financial, and/or social benefits however.



Europe and America's economic failures are a result of...the deemphasis of marriage....and not...the failings of capitalism (At least, as practiced in these societies) ?

And which societies modern would you point to that show that marriage is paramount? I'm not being coy, I genuinely would like to know what the counter-nations would be. US and Europe aren't perfect, but they aren't in dire straits either. Most importantly, I highly doubt that their issues result from a lack of respect for the institution of marriage. Quality of life will always be my metric, and US and Euro's sure ain't doing bad.

Negative birthrates...that's a whole'nother ballpark. That's getting into immigration, access to birth control, college education of women, etc. Regardless, marriage doesn't guarantee two children, nor does not being married guarantee not having two children (Word to single mothers), so it's kind of a moot point.



Fair enough, but we have to be careful when talking about what chimps and other close-relatives do.

Honestly, does it even apply to us?



We aren't goat-herding horticulturalist. We have manufacturing. We have telephones and internet. We have planes and automobiles. Human civilization can exist without marriage and more importantly, without it's big brother "the church".

So what do you suggest?

 

[Poitier]

The point is that they were in fact, crafted.

I don't know how you would define "careful". My assumption? Men wanted to control women and insure that their children were in fact, their children. Marriage was certainly a good solution to these problems.

Also, in many of these early civilizations, these people wouldn't have looked at marriage as signal to the outside world of being "in love". They would have enjoyed the financial, and/or social benefits however.

It was actually created because of infanticide. To make sure our race continues, 100,000s of years of evolution deemed monogamy was the best way to not only encourage child birth but make sure they reach adulthood.

Europe and America's economic failures are a result of...the deemphasis of marriage....and not...the failings of capitalism (At least, as practiced in these societies) ?
And which societies modern would you point to that show that marriage is paramount? I'm not being coy, I genuinely would like to know what the counter-nations would be. US and Europe aren't perfect, but they aren't in dire straits either. Most importantly, I highly doubt that their issues result from a lack of respect for the institution of marriage. Quality of life will always be my metric, and US and Euro's sure ain't doing bad.

The EU isn't in dire strates? The fiat system isn't in dire straights? I can always say that the EU and America had its highest quality of life when the institution of marriage existed.

Negative birthrates...that's a whole'nother ballpark. That's getting into immigration, access to birth control, college education of women, etc. Regardless, marriage doesn't guarantee two children, nor does not being married guarantee not having two children (Word to single mothers), so it's kind of a moot point.

Marriages make birthrates sustainable. You cite single mothers and yet the birthrate keeps falling.

Fair enough, but we have to be careful when talking about what chimps and other close-relatives do.

Honestly, does it even apply to us?

I meant a shared common ancestor so yes, monogamy was in us before we even became homosapien.

We aren't goat-herding horticulturalist. We have manufacturing. We have telephones and internet. We have planes and automobiles. Human civilization can exist without marriage and more importantly, without it's big brother "the church".

I think you are mistaken. The family unit powered the bronze age, the middle ages, the industrial age and any age that will come. We can remove marriage but that would put our existence on a timer.

 

[Box Cutta]

Men who think marriage is archaic are the same as women who think gender roles are archaic. These things have been crafted for 150,000 years for a reason. Don't play yourself.

But gender roles *are* archaic. And you know what....they're dying out right along with marriage in the west. It's a symbiotic relationship, and as one goes, so does the other. When women in these developing countries break those shackles...they're going to be raising hell and coming for marriage too.

And where does 150k come from? So now it wasn't just the cornerstone of Egypt and the Mesopotamia, but has existed for wellllll before these great civilizations?

So what do you suggest?

There's nothing to suggest. And my perspective doesn't recognize a problem that needs a solution. The topic in the OP is from the perspective of angry men who can't figure out why some women don't want to bother with being beholden to them forever.

People, and their relationships, are just going to evolve naturally.

Edit : I'm the one that should be asking what the solution is. Assuming you and/or @Poitier do in fact, acknowledge that the institution is increasingly shrinking (As articles in the OP, and stats from around the world suggest), and also believe that the future of the west is increasingly in danger because of this, what exactly do Y'ALL think needs to be done?

I assume that @Poitier doesn't give a shyt about the west, but I'm being more theoretical. You're the Prime Minister of a European nation...what are you going to do to "save" marriage in your country?

 

[Poitier]

But gender roles *are* archaic. And you know what....they're dying out right along with marriage in the west. It's a symbiotic relationship, and as one goes, so does the other. When women in these developing countries break those shackles...they're going to be raising hell and coming for marriage too.

I agree but you assume Western society will survive, which it won't.

And where does 150k come from? So now it wasn't just the cornerstone of Egypt and the Mesopotamia, but has existed for wellllll before these great civilizations?

Anatomically modern hominids.

Like I said, our ancestors (chimp like creatures) were not at first monogamous but quickly learned that A. Taking care of another persons child is a no no, cock blocks the p*ssy and killing them is easy B. You don't want your kids to be killed by another primate and raising them ensures protection B. Having children is a must to continue to exist C. Equipping the next generation with the skills to survive once they leave the nest is best done in a family unit

I see no technology changing this.

 

[Rawtid]

this is why men should opt out of marriage entirely. we've gotta stop letting yall shame us into getting into business contracts that doesnt really benefit us.

So how does the woman benefit in a marriage aside from a big party and a dress?

 

[Poitier]

Edit : I'm the one that should be asking what the solution is. Assuming you and/or @Poitier do in fact, acknowledge that the institution is increasingly shrinking (As articles in the OP, and stats from around the world suggest), and also believe that the future of the west is increasingly in danger because of this, what exactly do Y'ALL think needs to be done?

I assume that @Poitier doesn't give a shyt about the west, but I'm being more theoretical. You're the Prime Minister of a European nation...what are you going to do to "save" marriage in your country?

I think the penalties for divorce need to be much more severe for women. No more social safety nets for single mothers, either.

Also more government incentives for marriage.

 

[Yup]

I think the penalties for divorce need to be much more severe for women. No more social safety nets for single mothers, either.

So what are women supposed to do if they can't afford to raise their kids?

 

[Yup]

I think the penalties for divorce need to be much more severe for women. No more social safety nets for single mothers, either.

I fail to see what men are really losing in divorce. Please enlighten me.

 

[Poitier]

So what are women supposed to do if they can't afford to raise their kids?

Adoption or abortion.

I fail to see what men are really losing in divorce. Please enlighten me.

Half of whatever they built up until the divorce