wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

] NABNYC from Southern California

Utter rubbish....

If the vast amount of information/wisdom on what a lousy deal marriage is for men were available pre-internet days (when I met my soon to be parasitic ex-spouse), I would have never married. As for the comment by the 41 year old who feels defensive when explaining whey he is single - Don't!! Your life when compared to one of your contemporaries males who may be earing the same amount of money as you, but has to support a wife and several kids is far superior than that poor soul. You have the freedom and resources to do what you want with your life. In many respects this is far superior to any so called "benefits" of marriage.

Google "the marriage strike" people.

http://menforjustice.net/cms/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/

http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/

http://my.opera.com/khankrumthebulgar/blog/2008/11/22/kay-hymowitz-of-city-journal-recognizes-the-complaints-of-men-in-marriage

http://blogs.brisbanetimes.com.au/citykat/archives/2008/01/beware_the_pete.html

http://www.angryharry.com/

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/02/05/single-young-males-a-defense/

“Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina.”

Ester Vilar, The Manipulated Man

Marriage is an obsolete institution.
It must be abolished.
Unmarried people are happy. Married people are not.

Marriage is good for women and children, but is a raw deal for men. Children benefit from the stability of two parents in the home. In the US, the male is usually the main or only breadwinner. In about 50% of cases, the marriage will end in divorce. The ex-wife will (usually) get the children, the house, child support and alimony. The ex-husband will get the bills and will effectively be a slave. There is absolutely nothing that males get from marriage that they cannot get outside of marriage. Western marriage has become a bad business decision for men.

>>Can your guest please comment on the "Marriage Strike" by men in the US and what is his opinion about American men going overseas to live and raise families with foreign women? Are all these new trends a reaction to the state of marriage in the US?

I know nothing about this. Living here in the mountains of Mexico with my Mexican wife, I may not be totally informed on the latest developments in the US. Sorry.

Heh, heh.

Marriage is primarily an institution by which men are allowed to own one or more women (depending on the culture). The women then become child bearers and servants of the men. Children born during the marriage are presumed to belong to the husband, and also become servants of him.

Of course in modern society, we have an overlay of hearts and romance to disguise the underlying basis for the institution.

The original foundation for the institution is no longer valid. People don't have large numbers of children for the purpose of acquiring servants or workers for the family land. Women are no longer kept as kitchen slaves, confined to the home as a servant for the husband and children. But they're also not given the financial opportunity to escape the system, since women continue to be paid only 2/3 of what men are paid for the same job, which means women are always financially dependent on men.

But at the same time most men are no longer able, in our society, to earn enough to support the entire family on their own. So the basic assumptions of the institution are no longer valid in this country. Maybe that's why there is so much disappointment, frustration, and divorce.

In response to comment #3 (andrew)

"Marriage is an old land contract devised when people lived to be 40 years old and never traveled more than 5 miles from where they were born their whole life, and no would could ever be married for more than 20 - 30 years."

There may be some truth to this. But keep in mind that average life expectancies in the 40s doesn't mean most people lived to be 40. It means a lot of people died as children. Plenty of people lived into old age.

I think that a lot of people like being monogomous regardless of what your guest thinks. Men included in or outside of marriage.

How else could a bank expect to receive a two-salary-based 40 year mortgage unless their debtor is legally bound?

the problem with marriage in the u.s. stems from the same root as the majority of our other problems - we have reduced unification among human beings to a materialistic endeavor and have missed the point entirely.

in this respect, i do believe the unmarried europeans have a better idea of what family is all about, but i simply MUST take SIGNIFICANT exception with the notion that "[the emphasis on marriage] just wouldnt happen anywhere else". since when have we reduced our entire planet to either side of the north atlantic? sorry buddy, but the societies built upon unmarried couples are in a TINY minority of the worlds population, and dont even encompass the whole of europe.

unless (which i suspect is the case), he thinks anyone outside the richest part of the world is not really civilized and therefore not worth considering - in which case, he is just as guilty for seeing the world through a materialistic lens as the ridiculous pro-marriage people he criticizes. awful.

Marriage is inherently patriarchal, as no marriage which doesn't put the man at the center is doomed to fail. If the woman feels (rightly or incorrectly) better or superior to her spouse, she will not respect him and the marriage is effectively over. A man needs a wife to have children; a woman needs a man to get support. If women feel insufficient support, or if the man is denied access to his children, then it's war.

Half of all marriages fail because half of all people in marriage think they can do better than remaining with their spouse. And half of marriages remain intact only because the participants don't see anyone around who is both much better and actually still available to be snared.

The last called commented that she felt pressure to marry, even suggested that she felt like an outcast for not being married. Why? Why allow oneself to succumb to a system that, for whatever reasons, isn't right for you. I'm 40, unmarried, and in a long-term relationship. I'm proud of choosing to not be part of a system that, 50% of the time, results in divorce. I can love freely without a state certified license. Please. It's 2009.

I was speaking with my boyfriend of over 4 years about this last night. Both of us feel like the emphasis in the us on marriage has been skewed. We are considering doing this, but without all of the pomp of the typical marriage. I am also considering having a wedding without getting married.

As a 41 year old professional male, I always feel on the defense when I explain that I am not married , even though I have been living with my partner for several years and we just had our first baby. With today's traditional and stodgy attitudes about marriage in this country, I can see how relationships in other parts of the world seem to be more relaxed and positive.

This is the kind of conversation that makes NPR an adjective.

The most important aspect in the push for same sex marriage in the U.S. are the financial advantages and benefits given to married individuals. Inheritance, etc.

Two comments:

1) The marriage fixation is not specific to the US!: marriages in other European countries, in France and especially Italy, are often as extravagant and costly as here, and marriage carries the same social weight.

2) One reason for the greater stability of marriages/lower divorce rate in some European countries (France) is the greater acceptance of extra-marital relationships, for both men and women, - I hear a caller making the same point.

sounds like a conversation I might expect at The Watering Hole

marriage isn't a big deal in scandic and european countries in general due to:

A. most scandic people are secular and don't believe in the religious traditions connected to marriage

B. a strong common law that binds couples legally often provides the same assurances is only afforded married couples in the states

C. people don't spend as much on weddings when they do marry in europe because there isn't this need to be ostentatious about financial privilege and the idea of the 3 wedding with a pre party followed by a ceremony followed by a brunch on the sunday is absolutely unheard of.

Marriage is an old land contract devised when people lived to be 40 years old and never traveled more than 5 miles from where they were born their whole life, and no would could ever be married for more than 20 - 30 years. No one ever thought people would live to be 80+, and travel dozens, hundreds, and thousands of miles, etc. and live a very different lifestyle. It's silly and absurd to expect 2 people to have "congruent" lives for 20, 30, + years. People change, sometimes they grow apart, no harm, no foul, move on.

Can your guest please comment on the "Marriage Strike" by men in the US and what is his opinion about American men going overseas to live and raise families with foreign women? Are all these new trends a reaction to the state of marriage in the US?

I always thought that marriage in the US was way too costly. For example, buying an engagement ring that costs 10% of your annual salary I always thought was way too extravagant. Then, spending $20 - 30K on a wedding seemed ridiculous too. Add in your combined college debt then you're starting out in your new married life in serious debt. How is this addressed in Europe or other industrial countries? Do they go "underwater" to get married?