A
female
age
36-40,
*higirl
writes:After having heard some comments last night, and searching the web a bit for answers, I have this question, and would like to hear different inputs. The topic is marriage, and it appears to me that there are certain stereotypes out there. As a woman, whenever I say I would like to be married one day I am often hit with comments (from men) such as "trapping the man" or "kids and white picket fence", and similar stereotypes. It gives the impression that women to want to marry just because we want the stereotypes, and that women, not men, are the ones who seek marriage, while men supposedly are "trapped" into it against their wills. Similarly, when talking to men and the topic of marriage comes up, several express being opposed to marriage. They say why marry when you can just live together and have children and a house and the whole package, what use is there in marriage these days. I've heard reasons like "50 percent of marriages end in divorce anyway", and "why marry just so she can rob you financially when you divorce" or "why marry just for the piece of paper". It appears that the stereotype is that women only want marriage because we like pretty dresses, and without having any real good reasons to be married. The stereotype continues to say that men hate marriage because they feel trapped and financially exploited. Then at the same time, if a woman isn't married there's a negative meaning added to it. She isn't married "because no one wants her" or "she can't get a man". If a man however isn't married he is looked up to as successful, he didn't "let" a woman capture him. Or as the comment I heard last night "I've got it better in life than him, he's trapped in marriage after all!" When searching online there are several topics on "why men don't want marriage", but when you reverse the search you end up with "why some women will never get married". Just that slight difference in the use of words alters the meaning. My question is why are these stereotypes out there? Why are women who want marriage being ridiculed and laughed at, while at the same time if we aren't married we are looked upon as having "failed", we "couldn't get it"? And why are men being taught to recent marriage, thinking about it in such negative terms, given reasons not to marry? How would such comments make a married man feel, when he is constantly treated, and told, that he didn't marry because HE wanted it, but that his woman "trapped" him, and that he is somehow missing out on life because of being married? Why is it a stereotype that says it is negative for a man to be married, while it in contrast says it is negative for women not to be married?
View related questions:
divorce, married man, trapped Reply to this Question
Share |
Fancy yourself as an agony aunt? Add your answer to this question! A
female
reader, chigirl +, writes (24 November 2011):
chigirl is verified as being by the original poster of the question Many great points! Thank you!
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (24 November 2011): it's only in the past generation that women were "allowed" to have careers and be financially independent to support themselves. Up til then, women were financially dependent on men for survival. That's why the stereotype of women wanting marriage, because in the past if a woman didn't get married she'd have no other option to live a decent life since she wasn't "allowed" by society to be an independent person on her own.
As for men rejecting marriage. I think the stereotype comes from the religious and societal requirement that marriage means monogamy and loss of personal freedom. Again, since in the past women were financially dependent on men, men would see marriage as acquiring a dependent, someone who would drain their money because she is not allowed by society to go out and earn her own money.
these days, many married couples still live in traditional marriages where the woman does not work outside the home even though she is able to. So if such a marriage ends, if assets were split evenly we say the man got screwed over because it's his money after all that he earned yet half of it goes to her. But if assets were not evenly split and went only to whoever earned it (meaning the man), we would also say it's unfair because the woman - during the course of the marriage - gave up her independence as part of the agreement with the man so why should she be screwed now that the agreement has ended and she's left with nothing.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (24 November 2011): When it comes to American men the poster "Odds" covered it perfectly. These days the marriage situation is ridiculously biased against men in the USA. Even lots of men who have always wanted to get married are deciding against it.
There is also the effect of the feminist movement of the 1970s. Women demanded the right to choose not to get married, and still get to have a sex life and relationships and kids. Well, much to women's surprise, it turned out that men liked that idea even more than they did. I think now women are collectively furious at men for indulging in the same thing they wanted to do.
Now a woman who decides to remain unmarried can call herself "independent" and "throwing off the shackles that the male-dominated society tries to place on her." But if that same woman wants to marry a man and he does not ever want it, he gets told he needs to "man up" and "take responsibility" and all that other crap.
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (24 November 2011): Men do want to be married, once they get past a certain age they feel inadequate if they're not married. I've read articles that said the results of surveys show that men consider the highest status symbol to be not an expensive car or cool job, but to have a family of their own. think of it this way. Men want to feel "manly" and it's considered "manly" to be The Provider for a whole bunch of people, i.e. wife and kids. If men - past a certain age - aren't married with kids, people do wonder if it's because no woman wanted him or saw him as "manly" enough to want to mate with.If all men hated marriage, then only very few women would be able to get married no matter how much they wanted it, right? So the fact that most people are married or have been married at some point means that men want it every bit as much as women. just for different reasons.
...............................
A
female
reader, KittenPaws  +, writes (24 November 2011):
Hi all,I couldn't resist adding a few comments... Firstly, I think that Odds made some very valid points there. Secondly, I'm a woman, and I don't see the 'point' of marriage for either gender, except for it being a rather nice idea.... It is my view that if you are both sufficiently committed and in love that you would marry, then you shouldn't 'need' to get married because you already both feel all the love and security that you could ever 'need' (Not to say that it isn't a lovely idea, mind you!)As for the 'you should get married before/ once you have children' argument; if anything, I would think that having children together is FAR MORE of a commitment to each other and to your children than marriage could ever be anyway. (Anyone that ever thought; I won’t stay for you for the sake of our relationship which makes us both happy or for the sake of our children who we both want to support and raise together... but I WILL stay with you for the sake of a marriage certificate' is looking at it backwards.So I just don't see a valid 'reason' for either gender. I'm certainly not looking to fleece anyone for their money (least of all the one I love!!) and although I'm happy to promise to stay with my boyfriend for the rest of my life, I don't feel any drive / need to 'validate' that by getting married. The love itself is all the validation we need.I also feel baffled by any single person that claims any 'need' to get married. It's one thing committing the rest of your life to someone you love, but quite barmy to 'need' to commit to someone forever before you even found that person that you would want to commit to?!Once, again, I've nothing against marriage in and of itself- it's a lovely gesture; quite expensive, and wholly unnecessary, but then whoever said life and love needed to be rational anyway!
...............................
A
female
reader, Miamine +, writes (24 November 2011):
 Also sposal support and child mantainence is not for life here. It lasts as long as the child is 18 (or 19 and in full time education) You can go back to the courts at any time to ask for your settlement to be reviewed if the situation has changed. If you have joint custody and the children spend time with both parents, of course the arrangements are different. But you are right, the courts and society always have a presumption that the mother should get full custody of the children. This is unfair, but very few men seem to want to challenge this in anyway. We do have a fathers pressure group in the UK, and they have been vocal, and have done some dramatic stunts to draw attention to the whole issue.On the whole, again statistics suggest.. Men do better in marriage, they are more likely to get promotion, they are earn more money than their single friends, they live longer, are healthier and report higher levels of happiness... Divorced men do the worst, even worse than if they had not married at all.Women on the other hand, do better when they are single. Earn more money, have better jobs, etc.. Women who are single with kids are more likely to live in poverty, women who are married seem to display more problems with health, e.g high stress levels and high blood pressure. Not sure about divorce women though, haven't seen anything about that.
...............................
A
female
reader, Miamine +, writes (24 November 2011):
Ah yes, thought so.. alimony or spousal support laws are different in every country. The american system is well known for it's seemingly unfair awards. Just quickly checked the UK version. You don't just get alimony like that, it has to be proved that you are unable to support yourself adequately. This law goes back to when women got married and became housewives and were out of the job market for so long that they lost all skills and experience. If they had not married, they would have been able to gain what was needed to get proper employment. By this view, in the past, alimony is seen as a form of employment redundancy. Now, few people can claim, because most women and men work outside the home, even when married.Also the house doesn't automatically go to the woman. It's a case of whoever has the kids, gets the house. But, that's not the end of the story. The courts often demand the house be sold, and each couple will get a share to set up another home. Even when there are kids involved. A recent legal ruling, means that you get back whatever money was put into the house. (woman and kids in home, she continues to pay the mortgage, husband only gets back what he spent when he was there)There are a couple of cases of rich Russians and Americans who come to the UK to divorce. The UK does not do 50/50 settlement, instead each case is looked at and judged based on it's merits. They come because, as stated above, they can claim, that they are unable to find work that gives them enough money to continue the lifestyle their husband (or wife) has introduced them too. Paul McCartney's divorce was one such case, and the judge would not give her all she asked for, because he did not deem that she needed that she had been made financially worse through marriage, or that she did not have the ability to provide for herself adequately.Where it comes to the financial settlement upon divorce, I think the UK is blind. I know of women who have given up the house, pay child support and alimony to men who refuse to work, but that's outside the courts. I've never known one woman to claim alimony. But that's because I don't know any housewives, most women work now in the UK.You may also be right about women wanting a nice engagement ring, big wedding and such. But as a male friend once told me angrily, men can like weddings too. Many men do get involved with the planning and the financing of weddings. It's a big party after all.. and men like that as much as women.I'm more accustomed to hearing stories of abusive men, who women have to divorce, who refuse to pay child support and abandon their kids. Not because that's all I want to listen to, but even the research shows that in a divorce, it's women who suffer most when it comes to money and finances. A large percentage of women who divorce and have children live below the poverty line. That's why the government has given them extra funding in the form of single parent payments and has set up the child support agency due to the millions of men don't pay anything and are willing to let their children starve. Unfortunately I'm not very knowledgeable about divorce in the UK, but I think our system is different from the USA and Canada.
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl +, writes (24 November 2011):
chigirl is verified as being by the original poster of the questionI've read through a lot of this legal jargon now, and it is too much to write in here. But, the general ideas and laws seem to be around the same, in principle. I think the reason the laws are seemingly in favour of the women is not because they actually are in favour of the women, but because women are the the position to be favoured. They are financially weaker. In addition to being financially weaker they do, most often, get the custody of children.
Women getting the custody of children is questionable, as they are often given them by default. Which I agree with you isn't fair. But that's a slightly different topic, as people have children and custodies without marriage as well. The part that is strictly related to the marriage is the alimony part. We do have that in Norway too. But, the law does not say anything about who this alimony should be paid out to, and it is only being paid out if certain demands/criteria are met. This financial contribution is to be within what the paying spouse can afford, and only if the receiving spouse because of the marriage/divorce isn't able to support themselves/and children at an "appropriate" level.
This financial contribution can also only last for 3 years unless the marriage was long term and there are other factors in favour of a prolonged alimony.
I haven't been able to investigate the dept-situation yet. I am curious to find out whether or not the dept you bring into a marriage automatically becomes the spouses debt, and whether or not such debt can be transferred to the other partner in a divorce.
I am curious to know, if your friend lived in Norway, to my understanding of the law here, for his ex wife to be able to get that much from him after such a short marriage, does he earn a lot of money, above average and beyond? The wife would in Norway only be getting his house if there was NO pre-nup, and if he earned way more than the value of the house. Which in Norway would make your friend a millionaire.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (23 November 2011): And about the ring. Thats a Pagan tradition that the world or at least 1st world nations have adopted. In LDS world, you are married by the power of God and there is no Ring Ceremony. So thats just a petty aruguement that a man doesn't want to spend money but if a man truly loves a woman and its going to make her happy- he wants to give her the world, the moon but settles for a ring. ;)I can't believe that the arguement that marriage is about money. Sorry that isn't what the vows say at all. Its what materialistic, bitter people impose on what marriage is.Marriage is about Love, Friendship, and two people wanting to build a life and home and family with one another.There is risk in every decision so we should stop making choices and stay holed up in a cave because we don't want the negative consequences or responsibility of others choices and life itself?DUMB!The Alimony and Divorce and Child Custody issues are what happens after the breakdown of a marriage.But that's enough to deter people from marriage? It takes two to make it work, one to walk away. That's just how it is. Its hope, love, and unity that brings two people together and that is a POWER unto itself.Life is bad things may happen. But good things happen too.What a crock of poop this discussion turned into.Just a mindless debate forum about if you believe and uphold marriage or you don't and the arguements boils down to money and property and viewing children as assets and not people who are victims of divorce?To Each Their Own.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (23 November 2011): Alimony is for those women who gave up a career to raise a family. I have seen, in my youth, countless men in my parents age group, after graduating University and having a young wife and kids at home, leave their family and married other women and jet setted.Those women have provided care for the kids and husband while he bettered his job vocation for the sake of his family then abandons them?Those women have typed up papers while Husband napped. Those wives drove husbands around, ran errands to help him while in school, even took part time jobs to pay bills and make ends meet.I totally say its fair to compensate such Honourable women that still remain Mother 24/7 while the Men take off and spend the money on stupid, selfish pursuits, and marry some other woman and have a family with another woman.We put our health, our bodies, our physical fitness on the line to produce such mens children. We face other men not wanting to be apart of anothers man offspring and put his earnings into those kids when the same resources can go to his own children.Its stupid but it is part of it all. So why the hell should a woman not get alimony?Its up to the courts to decide who is entitled to alimony. Like those women who are used to a high standard of living and then are poor because the man Leaves the marriage?
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (23 November 2011): I had two men that could not uphold their vows. One was an abusive ahole that lied about drinking, smoking, and seeing his EX Stripper GF, the other controlled by his MOther and Bi Polar and NEVER would get help.So when they left, they pulled the this is mine, I want this and guess what?Take all that materialisic bull crap- it can be replaced with my hard work, my money and will be MINE. Just get your sorry sack out of my life, off my doorstep.I never understood why people pull all that drama. When the only people getting hurt are the children. Bunch of selfish, pig headed, dinks. Both Men and Women who begin the war and try to hurt one another by what, fighting over things that don't last forever and can be taken from them any moment due to recession, debt, fire, other natural disaster, theft?A marriage has ended. Many feel like they go through suffering a death or loss of loved one. And they have. Their significant other, their family, the safety, the haven, the home, the children, the unity, the friendship.All because of stupidity. FEAR, SElFISH, ME this, I WANT...Seriously, if world war III struck tomorrow, who would you want at your side? Bar mates? GFs? The princesses and playboys of the world? Shallow of heart and mind?This world is full of selfish, mindless, weaklings and I'd want the ones that can have years of marriage of ups and downs and remained by one anothers side on my team over another who hasn't really seen trials and gained that wisdom, insight, hope, and knowledge that all things can be overcome with love, friendship, unity, devotion.Not to say someone who doesn't want to be married cant be reliable. Just they would have to prove themselves to me to be on my team. IF you can take down me, my daughters, or my Sisters, Dad, and Mother in hand to hand - maybe you might get my respect. And I have respect for those who know what they are capable of and what they want and commit to , weither it is indeed marriage or remaining single and not have children.Its the in between people that hem and haw and go back and forth and are easily swayed by others that drive me mad.
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl +, writes (23 November 2011):
chigirl is verified as being by the original poster of the questionI googled alimony as I haven't heard of that before. I don't think people who divorce gets alimonies in Norway, which might help explain why I am so confused at why men are opposed to marriage.
But, why is it always the woman who gets an alimony? Why is it never the man? And why should there always be an alimony? The way I understood it, an alimony is a.. continuation of the financial agreement made when entering a marriage. I assumed such an agreement (to financially provide for each other) would naturally end after marriage. But maybe that's just here in Norway, and not the case in the USA. It still makes me curious why only WOMEN get this alimony?
In the modern day where women are allowed to work, wouldn't the woman also have to pay alimony, if the husband was, say, unemployed?
Other than that I am stunned by what you have told me.. actually. It is insane that such things can go on. I think before I consider marriage I will investigate how the laws work around divorce in Norway, because what you described is shocking. I have never heard of that happening, that the wife can put her dept in HIS name AFTER the marriage ends. I understood that upon entering marriage all financial burdens are shared, but also assumed they would be split to each respective part after divorce, or at least split evenly, not that one part sits left with the entire lot.
Here in Norway is is very unusual for young singles to be able to afford a house or apartment on their own. They are so expensive you usually rent until you find someone you can either marry or buy a house with through other arrangements (living together, or having your parents spit in the money), so it is rare to already have a house if you marry before the age of 35.
You saying that the man usually brings the house into the marriage tells me that women do not work, or earn, as much as men in the USA. Otherwise they'd have their own house to bring into the marriage. So I think that is an important note to make, that this is a disadvantage to the men in the societies where women do not earn as much and are economically equals to the men.
I wouldn't bring abortion into this. That's a different topic altogether. Man isn't robbed of a choice just because the woman is actually given a choice, and most Americans, if I am correct, are voting in favour not of the man also having this choice, but for the woman not to have this choice either. And I'm more for that one, either the woman gets to decide, or no one gets to decide. Although, like I said, that's another topic.
I think you would be surprised to hear that I think many women, especially feminists, would support a more egalitarian law system. After all, modern feminism is about creating equality between genders. That means the women should have their own jobs, and would have to support their husbands when they are unemployed, just as men would support women when unemployed. And should there be a case of alimony (although I hope alimonies are a dying custom... they sound ridiculous) at least it should be regardless of gender. However, if women aren't making an equal amount of money from the same jobs as men, and aren't being hired because of a general non egalitarian social system, then I understood why this is carried along into the law system. It's like domino's, at least the way I view it.
This is getting long, I'll read up on laws here in Norway and get back to you on it. I don't think it's anywhere near as favourable to women as it is in the USA.
...............................
A
male
reader, Odds  +, writes (23 November 2011):
 Correction on my last post: friend was married 10 months, not 6. Apparently I'm not a math person after all. Not sure if that matters, but there it is.
Anyways, won't be able to respond for a while, got Thanksgiving to get to, so apologies in advance if I end up leaving you hanging over any other clarifying questions.
...............................
A
male
reader, Odds +, writes (23 November 2011):
@ Chigirl & Miamine
Yes, a lot of the things that happen when a marriage ends can happen when a relationship with kids ends (not that I see "Well, bad things can happen anyway!" as a particularly strong argument for marriage). But a girlfriend can take the kids and child support, but she doesn't get alimony, the house, the car, or the ability to drag you through crazy and tiresome divorce proceedings - unless the man was dumb enough to live with her long enough to create a common-law marriage (basically, if he acts like a husband for 1-4 years depending on the jurisdiction, they're legally married).
Prenups don't help. They are easy for any half-competent lawyer to toss aside. Claim duress or adhesion if the marriage promise was contingent on the terms of prenup. Claim lack of consideration for any terms that give up legal claims to alimony. Claim any of a dozen other things (my knowledge of contracts is pretty limited; I'm more of a math and computers person).
Plus, there's no supposed lifelong promise getting broken if you're not married in the first place. That's not an insubstantial emotional bonus.
I don't know the Norwegian laws, but here in the States, assets tend to be split evenly - but the man generally had more going into the marriage in the first place, so he's giving up what was his. Usually this includes the house and car. Of course, any debts the couple have taken on since the marriage are usually assigned to the man (a close friend of mine was married to a girl for six months, put her student loans in his name, and the court ordered him to pay those loans after their split - separate from the actual splitting of assets). *After* the split, the court then declares an amount of alimony and child support to go to the mother, meaning after losing half his stuff, the man now has to continue paying the woman to support the "lifestyle to which she has become accustomed" - in other words, the better he provided for her in marriage, the more he has to pay in divorce. Not that he'll get anything to support the lifestyle to which HE has become accustomed.
The courts are also notoriously harsh about enforcing money transfer from husband to wife, and notoriously lax about enforcing visitation rights. If he was accused of wrongdoing, such as abuse, he is made to give up more of his stuff (often just in settlements to get the accusations withdrawn); courts do not typically punish false accusations for fear of creating a "chilling effect" on real victims, and proving a flase accusation is very difficult, so it's a common tactic for the woman's lawyer to accuse the husband of DV without evidence.
As I said, power corrupts. It's not women, it's the system - men would be just as bad in a reversed system. Honestly, I think a guy would have to be an idiot to have kids, too, in this legal environment. The government does not do a damn thing to protect a father's legal access to his children the way it does for mothers, and the marginalization of fathers is unconscionable. Since I have no faith in the lawmakers to ever fix this problem, the only thing that would satisfy me would be to get the government 100% out of marriage (which would have the nice side effect of de-facto allowing gay marriage by deregulating it, but that's another topic).
*Why* the stereotype exists is because of how many men have been screwed over by the current system compared to the women who've been screwed over. It's further spread by the (probably accurate) perception that very few women (if any) would ever vote to change the system to be more egalitarian. Ask any man: does he think any woman would support laws enforcing a father's rights to his children, or to ending alimony, or to ending no-fault divorce, or to ending presumptive female custody? Ask any woman: would she support those things? Child support is one thing, but if women are so independent, why should they get alimony, or any of the man's assets? Claiming they "need" it longer than it takes them to get a job (if they didn't have one already) puts the lie to the idea of independence.
More that feeds the stereotypes: How many women would get married without an expensive engagement ring? How many women actually want a smaller wedding than their own husband-to-be does? How many women would ever support laws giving a husband any legal say over his wife's right to abort or not abort *his* children? Even though prenups are easy to discard, how many women are insulted by the idea of prenups? How many women are insulted by the idea of paternity testing?
How many women think this system is completely fair and okay? Can you see why men would have a problem with any of this?
And when a man objects, the response is always some platitude about "manning up" or "making sacrifices" or "taking risks for love" or "being a selfish Peter Pan." Because for all this, there is no benefit.
...............................
A
female
reader, ShiShisAdvice +, writes (23 November 2011):
 My feeling is that women are labeled with the sticker that she cannot get a man. That something is wrong with her. So we fight to escape that label. So many people say that they are happy being alone, but I have been there and I just don't believe it. I just don't.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (23 November 2011): I see it you are either Selfishly motivated or Selflessly motivated and this being a part of character will actually be a deciding factor in if you want and believe in marriage and will do and give your all to uphold your marriage vows and commitments.
Bascially, like anything else, its a choice. Has everything to do with who you are, at your foundation.
;)
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl +, writes (23 November 2011):
chigirl is verified as being by the original poster of the questionThank you for the replies. But still, verifying that these stereotypes are out there don't help me sort out WHY they are out there. Why for example is it pointed out that marriage holds nothing in it for men? Does it really hold that much more for women than for men, with women being able to make their own money these days and having independency? What do women gain from marriage that men don't? Why is it assumed as a RISK for men to be married, and not assumed to be a risk for the woman as well?
And why is it thought that WOMEN are the ones with naive ideas about marriage, why is it not just as much men who are naive and rush into things.. I mean they do marry, after all, 50 percent of all heterosexuals who marry are men... So why is it thought that THEY didn't willingly enter marriage? Why is it thought that the women alone are the pushers for marriage, and that the men are supposedly sensible who do not enter marriage?
Why is it assumed that just because a woman wants to get married, all she thinks about is the dress and the party? Sure, maybe some do, but does that justify stereotyping all women who value marriage?
You say that marriage gives women power over the man.. I just don't see in what way. Kids? Is that what it all comes down to, that the woman usually gets the kids in case of a divorce? But the woman who is not married just as often splits up with her partner as well, if not more often, and gets the kids as well, and can still file for child support. So I don't see how marriage gave her that power. If so, the real risk is having CHILDREN with her, not marrying her...? If I understood it correctly.
I don't see how a divorce will favour a wife. Maybe you can help explain that in more detail. Using logic, when a man and woman divorce they split whatever they bought together while married. Aren't these things split evenly? You mentioned you wouldn't get married until the laws change, so maybe it would help to explain if you told me about these laws. Do they favour women in case of a divorce, contra being fair to both parties?
I will also mention that in Norway few, if any, can afford having a stay-at-home wife. Women are working just as many hours as men, but we tend to earn less (a matter of equality, the government is working to even out the differences in pay-checks between the genders, but that's another topic). But with many women taking higher education in the later years, there are bound to be women who marry men who earn less. 2 couples I know who recently got married are in such a situation. The woman earns about twice if not three times as much as the man, which, in my logic, would put HER at a much higher risk should the marriage end, as all she earns while married also belongs to her husband. Does such a situation impact the stereotype at all?
For example, the friend of mine who commented last night that he was LUCKY he wasn't married has no education, earns just about as much as me even though he doesn't study on the side (I work an study and still earn the same as him), and has less savings than me, and all in all is poor.. Yet he still described marriage as a "trap". But in his case, wouldn't he WIN on marrying a woman with money? On his own he wouldn't be able to afford buying a used car, let alone a home. How can a man in his position still refer to marriage as a risk? Wouldn't he rather benefit from it, at least financially? He was referring to a friend of mine actually, one of those who married a woman who makes 3 times what he makes. Still he called that man "trapped" in marriage. I'd rather say he got the golden ticket, because his wife is paying for everything in life and supporting him, and without her he'd be back with his parents and without money to pay his student loans. His wife is the one shooting in all the money for buying a house, so he's getting a free ride. Yet he is still referred to as "trapped", and I don't get it.
...............................
A
female
reader, Miamine +, writes (23 November 2011):
But odds, don't you have some of the same problems by just living with a woman.. she can still ban access to the kids, they can still force you to pay child support. Even worse, when your not married, the woman can just take the kid and go away and then claim he's not yours. You don't have a right to force a DNA test, and the courts will have a hard time arranging fair access or joint custody. Relationships break up all the time, what are the statistics on how many long term relationships break up. As far as I know, kids get hurt when parents leave, marriage isn't the reason why the get upset. I don't think the courts are thinking about divorce as a way to punish men. The money follows the kids, I think, that's why you can't claim alimony for a lifetime. If the man want's to bring up the children, he can claim alimony, child support and the family home.As to the rest - from what you say, I'd thought the no brainer was never to have anything to do with the opposite sex, or as many have done, short term relationships with the strongest contraceptive ever.Kids do better when the parents are happily married, all statistics say that. That's why I think many women see marriage as a good option. Thanks a lot for your words it does provide insight into the problem.
...............................
A
male
reader, Odds +, writes (23 November 2011):
Actually, that view describes mine near-perfectly. I can't speak for everyone who holds that view, but I'll throw my two cents in if it helps.
Why men shouldn't marry:
Because there is nothing in it for us. At all. At least, not since the advent of no-fault divorce, combined with incredibly sexist (even misandrist) divorce laws. 50% of marriages end in divorce; 70% of those are initiated by women. Most of those are no-fault (though I've seen conflicting numbers between 50 and 75 percent, which is a big enough variance that I'm uncomfortable attaching a number to it - not even sure how there can be such a discrepancy). This means that, even if a man does everything he can to try to be a good husband, there is a still a good chance that the marriage will end. That wouldn't be such a big deal if the man's children weren't taken from him 85% of the time. Oh, plus alimony and child support, which may be garnished from his wages - and he may be imprisoned for contempt of court if he can't pay (it's incredibly difficult to reduce payment rates, even if he loses his job). No man gets married thinking, "Yeah, this will be over in five years," but it's arrogant to think one can beat the odds.
That's without even getting into the serious harm (I would go so far as to abuse in no-fault cases) done to children by divorce. Or into the marriages that don't end, but are still miserable.
In exchange for this risk, the man gets... nothing. Sex? Love? Children? Companionship? You can get these without marriage - I suspect they are actually easier to get outside of marriage, given the superior "bargaining position" (for lack of a better term) of a man who can walk away without any consequences. Actually, where I diverge from your portrayal of the unmarried woman is in women who live in this sort of arrangement - ones who have and care for good families without forcing the man to take on the risks of legal marriage. Good for them.
It's a stupid risk for zero gain, and the only argument against this position basically boils down to "man up and do it because it's your responsibility." Which is the male equivalent of "stay in the kitchen." The social contract has changed; both statements are nonsense.
Why I look down on unmarried women who want to be married:
That second part of is the important qualifier - if she doesn't want to marry, I have no problem with her. But the ones who want to marry, without having been married, I feel are indulging in incredibly selfish, short-sighted fantasy. The vast majority of women obviously don't think, "Oooh, I'm going to marry this guy and take everything from him!" They seek marriage in good faith, and that's good for them. Where it gets short-sighted is that most women, from what I've seen, want to GET married, not BE married. They want a husband, a big party, and a bunch of kids, but once the reality of it sets in, they honestly change their minds about it. Then they divorce the husband, and hey, why not take what they can while they're at it? Why not take the kids away from him? Here in America, false accusations of domestic violence are a common tactic for getting the upper hand in child custody disputes.
They aren't thinking long term, and they aren't willing to even consider the impact of keeping their lifelong vows. When the married life gets tough, they split it up right on the spot and do more damage than could possibly be justified. Yeah, I know, Not All Women Are Like That (tm). Too many of them are, and they've spoiled it for the rest of them.
I've got no problem with women as a group, but anytime you give someone that much power of another, corruption is inevitable. It would be just as bad if the stats were reversed and men had the ability to take everything from their wives by divorcing. Even if a woman doesn't divorce, the threat of it still creates an unhealthy power dynamic - it's awful if you're an egalitarian, but far worse if (like me) you believe that women are most attracted to powerful men (give a woman that much power over him, and he starts to seem weak).
In short, men who get married are taking a stupid risk, and women who want to get married are putting them at risk.
Don't get me wrong - I think lifelong, monogamous marriages are vital to society. That's the best way to raise healthy, functioning children who have the best possible shot at a better life than their parents had; it's the best way to pass on good morals and opportunities to the next generation. A civilized society without the majority of the population getting into monogamous marriages will not last long. But that's not what we have today. The vows are not respected, few people even know how to have a successful marriage - fewer still possess the wherewithal to try.
It's not a risk I'm willing to take until the laws change, and until the culture changes. I've never been married, but I've seen too many friends and relatives destroyed by divorce, or even just unhappy marriages with formerly-wonderful girlfriends that became shrewish wives.
One last disclaimer: some marriages work, some men are happy as husbands, some women are awesome wives. Good for them - both deserve a pat on the back. They're still the bare minority, and that's a tragedy.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (23 November 2011): Could be, as my Dad had said to me at age 13, Men are selfish. Women get life. They get how to love and how to be happy. Men because they are selfish, tend to be lazy and only do things for their immediate needs. Women, by nature, want to help others and do good because it brings them lasting happiness.I believe my Dad because one, he's male and saying what he knows and feels. Two, because he has also said, he has never realized how happy he was until he realized making his wife, my Mom happy was the world to him.Dad has said marriage to him, means he was pushed to grow into an extraordinary man and not just some other selfish, lazy male. They are a dime a dozen. He knows he is HAPPIEST being a Husband, A Dad, a Grand Dad and his efforts of being married and raising a family have a more profound, far reaching effect on his life and others than sitting in a bar, drinking and sleeping around. What memory will he die with- being a lazy selfish drunk that never really put effort into a relationship and used women or being a Great Husband to a Wonderful Woman, and having Amazing children that love and raise KICK ASS Grandkids.So again, I believe there are many men such as Dad and who GET LIFE just as much as he did and just as much as Women, by nature, do.;)
...............................
A
female
reader, Miamine +, writes (23 November 2011):
Chigirl, yep, that's exactly how I see it too.. unfortunately I don't have one single answer for why marriage is seen as only a woman's thing, and men are encouraged not to try.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (23 November 2011): I highly value Marriage as a Man and Woman who want to be together for time, and desire to love and honour one another indefinitely. With living such a deeply committed contract; it brings peace, happiness because ideally, it is just that, a vow before family, friends, Church, Governement that you are upholiding values, and will love one another with all you have. Good times and bad, richer or poorer, sickness and health.You go through the 'ritual' but can also have the heart and mind to LISTEN to the vows, the declaration you say to one another to honour, forsake all others, fidelity, friendship, fairness- all the good things in man and woman, humankind- is what you commit to be and live with one another.That is something powerful and cannot be denied. The importance of saying it to the world and everyone is in itself a testimony of love and ultimate friendship.Why wouldn't a man and woman, in love, want to stand as a unified couple and declare to the world, we are two that has become One in Purpose and We Honour, Love One Another For Time, on this Earth and we will let no one, no event, tear us asunder?How does anyone try to refute such a bold, raw, maginificent declaration of ultimate love?Its unfortunate that people, society have become so lazy that they have lost the true meaning of Marriage. That they stopped listening to the vows and make excuses to not live what they openly spoke to family, friends, one another- the world.Marriage is of great value and is still a power and force that should still be regarded with tenderness, love, awe.So if you do not find a man who is not moved by such a declaration and is not fearful and WANTS to be married and LIVE and HONOUR his VOWS of Faithfulness, Friendship, Love to you- I say tell him he's cute but you need a MAN in the true sense of the word and not some guy, party boy.Seriously. There ARE MANY MEN out there that still believe in Marriage.
...............................
A
female
reader, fi_the_tree +, writes (23 November 2011):
 There are lots of stereotypes in this world, when it comes to marriage, not everyone has this view of the men being trapped forever etc etc.
In my personal opinion, the reason why so many marriages end up in divorce is because people get married for the wrong reasons. Situations like the female gets pregnant (unplanned) so the man feels he needs to do the right thing by the woman and become a family. Ultimately, they are not in love with each other, they don't have a steady relationship, having a newborn creates emotional and financial problems, therefore the marriage fails and ends in divorce.
Now, this is not true in every situation, and lots of people get married for the right reasons, because they want to share their love with friends and family. Every girl has at some point dreamed of her wedding day, walking down the aisle towards the man of her dreams, having the people she loves most with her to celebrate. Personally, if you get married for the right reasons, then it isn't a case of the men being trapped and the women feeling like it's the last attempt before they are branded spinsters forever.
My point is that not everyone fits the stereotype mould, and those who think that this stereotype occurs everyday, the they are bloody naive!! Not all marriages fail, not all single ladies have 'failed' because they aren't married, people have different priorities nowadays, simple as.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (23 November 2011): I have very mixed views on marriage.
I look at my parents who have been together since their teens, they are so happy even today they say they are more inlove with eachother now than back then.
But they also say the marriage of today is not like it was back in their day. And they are so right!!
Back then a marriage was a committment for life, today you can get a divorce online for less than a hundered pound.
The problem is this is such an open debate!! There are so many answers to your question.
I am afraid to say that there are some women out there that have trapped men into marriage and that has given us ladies a bad name.
Men and Women will always be different, some men will want to bring his family up and carrying on his name. While others find they prefer being an indiviual because it scares them to much to be classed as one.
And thats the problem you have sometimes, people say no to marriage because they are scared of losing their identity, while others agree to marriage but refuse to take on their partners name.
Some may have been brought up in a broken marriage so therefore never really fully understand the love it can bring them.
Each person is different, every one on here will no doubt give you a different answer.
Me personally, i grew up in a stable home watching loving parents, but i do not want to get married. But i have trust issues lol maybe one day someone in my life will come along and i will trust them wholehearted and say YES but i cant see that happening.
Marriage should always be a two way thing. Its not about what everyone else thinks, its about those two people meeting minds and wanting the same things in life together. Thats what marriage should always be about. Not the ring, dress, house or car. The dream of two people sharing their lives and committing to eachtoher forever.
And if one does not want to committ forever let them be a synical to marriage because they clearly are not ready for it.
...............................
|
