Thread: Death of Marriage, Slow at First Then All at Once

The following graph shows net support for toughening (easing) the legal requirements for obtaining a divorce in the US. Annual values are calculated by taking the percentages of respondents who think divorce should be made more difficult to obtain and subtracting from it the percentages of respondents who think it should be easier to obtain, with the percentages who think it should remain the same being netted out:


No fault divorce laws began sweeping across the country fifty years ago. Until very recently, though, these laws were only begrudgingly accepted by large swaths of the population. Pluralities and in several years outright majorities thought it was too easy for couples to disavow their vows. By 2010, though, a sharp drop in support for toughening requirements had occurred and as of 2018 a plurality approaching an outright majority thinks divorces should be even easier to obtain than they are now. The 2020 iteration of the survey, which will be released in a couple of months, may well be the first in the survey’s four decades where an outright majority of Americans express support for making divorces easier to enact than they currently are . . . .

We were told the legalization of same-sex marriage would strengthen the institution, so it’s doubly confusing that support for more easily ending it has increased dramatically since the judiciary legalized it. . . ."
Full article: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/death-...n-all-at-once/


Commenter: 'I suspect this is why MGTOW don’t get married. They don’t want to share power with women . . .

The mechanism examined in this paper is a change in divorce regime and we interpret the evidence collected here as an empirical endorsement of the idea that family law provides a potent tool for affecting outcomes within families.

"Legal marriage mattered when men were the breadwinners of the family. This was reinforced as medical insurance and pension benefits were tied to a man’s (usually) long term employment. In fact, in 19th century America men were often MADE to take custody of the children if they wanted out of the marriage, the idea being that a woman would find it easier to find a new spouse if she was not encumbered with her ex husband’s children. It had the opposite effect for a man seeking a newer, younger wife. That’s all broken down over the last 50 or 60 years"

A commenter named "songbird" wondered how the responses broke down relative to sexes of the participants. That was my question, too. I don't think it would be too far-fetched to assume females were responsible for most of the graph's downturn. Easy divorce, biased judges, free money. Run the game once or twice more and you're set for life. You can sit on your ass for the rest of your life while you eat bonbons and watch MSNBC, PBS, and The View because they're all totally unbiased of course.

This society has become so prejudiced against men, it baffles me why a man would want to socialize in any way with a female, or even speak to one unless absolutely necessary. They can label that however they wish. I really don't care. It's truly become a question of survival at this point.

Originally Posted by kru-kut

A commenter named "songbird" wondered how the responses broke down relative to sexes of the participants. That was my question, too. I don't think it would be too far-fetched to assume females were responsible for most of the graph's downturn. Easy divorce, biased judges, free money. Run the game once or twice more and you're set for life. You can sit on your ass for the rest of your life while you eat bonbons and watch MSNBC, PBS, and The View because they're all totally unbiased of course.

This society has become so prejudiced against men, it baffles me why a man would want to socialize in any way with a female, or even speak to one unless absolutely necessary. They can label that however they wish. I really don't care. It's truly become a question of survival at this point.

A good buddy of mine just lost his inheritance (£250,000) to his ex wife in the UK. She took the house and everything. He is left with nothing and now she is threatening to move his son halfway up the country, in which he is told he must travel 3 hours there and back to see him on a Sunday..

Of course this is a great result for women - it allows hypergamy where you can de-marry your husband easily, then take all of his wealth. Women have been using it for years. Feminism has the monopoly on culture, film, media, you can't even argue with a feminist anymore without their army of simps calling you a incel. They're using the same tactics they used to destroy PUA, they call in their media stooges like Vice to taint any man-movement they do not want to take off......

You know what they recently did as well? They banned the word SIMP from twitch recently. Notice what is happening? Society NEEDS to bring up simps as it keeps everything going. Without simps society would collapse. They would prefer men be docile, blue pilled, and throwing money at women to keep them appeased.

Glasses up to the free thinking tolerant society we have.

@ShogunRonin I don't know you or your buddy but i do feel for him and i get angry when i hear about stories like that.

Yet another example why we shout LONG LIVE MGTOW!!

Originally Posted by ShogunRonin

A good buddy of mine just lost his inheritance (£250,000) to his ex wife in the UK. She took the house and everything. He is left with nothing and now she is threatening to move his son halfway up the country, in which he is told he must travel 3 hours there and back to see him on a Sunday..

Of course this is a great result for women - it allows hypergamy where you can de-marry your husband easily, then take all of his wealth. Women have been using it for years. Feminism has the monopoly on culture, film, media, you can't even argue with a feminist anymore without their army of simps calling you a incel. They're using the same tactics they used to destroy PUA, they call in their media stooges like Vice to taint any man-movement they do not want to take off......

You know what they recently did as well? They banned the word SIMP from twitch recently. Notice what is happening? Society NEEDS to bring up simps as it keeps everything going. Without simps society would collapse. They would prefer men be docile, blue pilled, and throwing money at women to keep them appeased.

Glasses up to the free thinking tolerant society we have.

At this point in time in the world is when men have to be on high alert as women are looking to cash out. Even during uncertain economic times women will pull the plug because they see a jackpot winning just for existing as a wahmen.

Originally Posted by CPRA

Commenter: 'I suspect this is why MGTOW don’t get married. They don’t want to share power with women . . .

Well, no. Why is this a surprise? As any feminist (not to mention, any wife) knows: men and women are natural adversaries. Members of political classes locked in a class struggle. Now that men finally are finally beginning to develop class conciousness, women - who have had it all their own way for two or three generations now - don't like it one bit. They hate MGTOW for the same reason that bosses hate unions.

Let's suppose that men really do have this "power" of which feminists speak (the power to do useful work and earn money, basically). It's the most natural thing in the world to not want to give it up or share it.

Reread that, in fact: according to this author, marrying a woman means sharing your power with her. We see that the usual feminist story, that the horrible "power" that men have is the power to abuse women, is a lie. That's not what male "power" is at all, because that's not a thing that you "share" on marriage, and not something that anyone would complain about mgtow for. No, no, no, no, no. From just that one little sentence, it's clear that male "power" is income-earning capacity. That's what it means, and what it has always meant.

Death of Marriage, hope so. I have a colleague who is a lesbian, 29 years old, 2nd divorce has just come through and is planning her 3rd marriage. Epic breakdowns over minor problems.

Marriage is the exploration of an abandoned mine.

A mine where you smack all the rotted timbers with a sledgehammer to test their integrity.

Gay marriage was promoted because the marriage and divorce industries were losing customers among the straight population.

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

Gay marriage was promoted because the marriage and divorce industries were losing customers among the straight population.

Gay marriage is gonna confuse the shit out of the presiding judge, they have no underling to place all the burdens of restitution on, how on earth will they be fair and impartial this far down the road to perdition? I bet most of them will flip a coin to see who gets fucked and who gets fancied! They wont have gender to base that decision on, just the heads or tails of a coin. That's better odds than we ever got!

Originally Posted by mgtower

Gay marriage is gonna confuse the shit out of the presiding judge, they have no underling to place all the burdens of restitution on, how on earth will they be fair and impartial this far down the road to perdition? I bet most of them will flip a coin to see who gets fucked and who gets fancied! They wont have gender to base that decision on, just the heads or tails of a coin. That's better odds than we ever got!

Agreed.

However, it is women's nature to "marry up." When they are young, they seek partners with more Physicality and Social Status. When they hit the wall, it is a partner with more Re$ources.

Divorce judges instinctually "punish" the partner with more Re$ources, because money is fungible, easily divisible. It is hard to redistribute Physicality and Social Status.

Ratifying an amicable separation agreement is no fun for a divorce judge, as it gives them no power to play God, in the guise of "delivering justice," or the more pernicious concept of "equity."

Bringing an acrimonious separation to a divorce court is like swimming with a bathing suit made out of raw liver in the shark tank. It gets the judge excited. They will deem one of the pair a "villain" and come the rescue of the "victim."

The system is designed to "punish" men (often under the guise of "ensuring the children's welfare" - translate that to mean "keeping women OFF welfare").

It is an easy switch for judges to look at same-sex couples, decide who is playing the "man" role and who is playing the "woman" role and start punishing and rewarding accordingly.

The problem is that same-sex couples have more complicated exchanges of "Youth/Beauty/Virtue/Pleasing Personality" (women's incentives) for "Physicality/Re$ources/Social Status/Pleasing Personality" (men's incentives) than men and women do.

Gay men can ride the carousel for decades, but as men, they are expected to pay their own way. So, when they do marry, they don't give up the carousel and agree to monogamy for just any old beta male provider.

Gay women are women, and as women, they are much more able to detect other women's bullshit. The "spells" that women can cast to enrapture a man don't work on a woman. They are less likely to detect the woman that is just looking for a meal ticket. Men become "sugar daddies" for women all the time, and a few women subsidize "sugar babies," but it is much less the case in the gay community.

Gay couples don't have the disparity of incomes that divorce courts look to "equalize." And the process to acquire children, either through adoption or surrogacy, is so daunting, it screens out the people that are looking for a quick payout.

A woman's main power is getting other people to get shit done, either having or faking beauty or having or faking a good personality.
A man's main power is getting shit done through aggression, risk, sacrifice.
Women need to STFU whining about the natural order of things. Men should not be attacked just because our power grows while hers fades.
If women are bitter about modern marriage they only have to look in the mirror for the culprit.