Men, Math and Marriage--arguments against marriage

Post Reply New Topic

There does seem to be quite a lot of anger, hostility, resentment and bitterness, on the part of a large section of our female population, towards men in general.

Which wouldn't tend to make for a happy marriage with one of them.

Some women seem to be especially attracted to men who are violent and abusive. To which I say: go ahead and take your lumps. You deserve them. If that is what you want, then you're not getting any sympathy from me.

Nothing has been presented to counter Mr. Elam's thesis that marriage is a disaster and that men should stay well away from the institution all together. You can assert that "it is all men's fault!" all that you want. It simply adds to Mr. Elam's credibility.

There's also a lot of anger, hostility, resentment and bitterness, on the part of a large section of the male population, towards gals in general. So I'm not seeing a tendency for a happy marriage with one of them for gals especially when many guys are violent and abusive.

Egh no one asserted "it is all men's fault" so I'm unsure who this "you" is in regards to.

Maybe he self-identifies as one of the violent abusive guys and is angry that you're saying that being like that doesn't lead to a happy marriage and if everyone just was nicer to abusive men and didn't up and leave them for abusing them marriage would work out? His anger towards feminists concerning marriage must be about that, as he expresses anger that women even can take out a divorce now.

Possible he self-identifies considering his response of feminists are changing men in regards to feminists changing rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment.

Doubtful he's angry I'm saying being abusive and violent doesn't lead to a happy marriage as my post came after his I thought his anger was at feminists and this "you" who is saying it's all men's fault (though I haven't seen anyone stating such). The only mention of faulting guys was saying guys share the same responsibility thought perhaps blaming guys in any amount or holding guys equally responsible is the same as saying it's all guy's fault.

Yes, he probably does, as he thinks violence etc is something specific to men that comes from evolution, which just isn't true, and as he is a man...

No, but others have said that earlier. Or, what they said was that maybe the divorce rates have climbed as it's not a social taboo any more and women can choose to leave because of whatever reasons. Which does place women in the "divorcer" position which is not true either. He's angry because "feminism" have "caused" the failure of "happy marriages" by "allowing" women to leave.
He's angry at a lot of people, as this is his "marriage sucks"-thread, even though it was you he responded to. I don't get it either.

Think I'm over-reacting? It's happened to me and my friends often enough to agree with the stats.

...and I want my dang kids back from their legal kidnapper mother.

When I was getting clean and sober in a Twelve Step program many years ago, there was one phrase from the literature that always resonated with me. We addicts have been, the book said, the “architects of our own adversity.” Yes, I thought the first time I read that. It’s time to stop blaming others for my own pain. It’s time to take responsibility.

That same phrase comes to mind when I think about Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs). I’ve been crossing verbal swords with the MRAs for many years, particularly since 2004 when I began to develop a public presence as a male feminist writer and professor. I learned quickly that not all MRAs were the same; some offered thoughtful criticism while others offered only nasty invective. (Look up “Hugo Schwyzer Mangina” if you need evidence of the latter.)
Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal.

As a professor who teaches courses on Men and Masculinity, as well as a mentor to many young men (and as a man myself, of course), I’m intensely interested in the ways in which men position themselves as victims. I’ve spent years reading the literature and talking points of MRAs and “fathers’ rights” groups. I’ve spent a lot of time in conversation with men who are going through divorce, something I’ve been through more than once. My male students range in age from 17 to 70, from bright high school students taking their first college courses to retired professionals curious about gender studies. I meet with so many of them—jocks, geeks, gamers, drifters, ambitious future politicians and wary-eyed Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.

From so many of these men—online and in real life—I hear the same thing: the narrative of helplessness.

The older, angrier MRAs describe a world in which women (and their male “collaborators”) have usurped traditional male privileges for themselves. Men, they claim, are at a disadvantage in the courts, in the business world, in academia. The MRAs see public space in the Western world as increasingly feminized, and they fancy “real men” (in whose ranks they invariably include themselves) to be under attack from a dark coalition of feminist activists, cowardly politicians cravenly surrendering to the cultural left, and a media that never misses an opportunity to demean and belittle traditional men. It all provides a satisfying sense of being “under attack,” which is why many—not all—men’s rights activists use, absurdly enough, the language of oppression and resistance to describe their movement.

These men feel victimized, they feel exploited, they feel ignored, they feel impotent. And those feelings are powerful. I don’t think these boys and men who turn to the men’s rights movement are lying about their pain. The problem is that they’ve completely misunderstood two things.

The cause of men’s very real unhappiness isn’t a biased family court system, or feminist college professors, or the perceived injustices of Title IX athletic funding. The source of men’s anguish and uncertainty is the straitjacket of traditional American manhood.
Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal.

Whether they got it from their fathers or their older brothers, whether they learned it from peers or pastors, coaches or drill instructors, almost all American boys grow up learning the “guy rules.” As Deborah David and Robert Brannon first showed in their landmark 1976 book on men, The Forty-Nine Percent Majority, the rules are crushingly simple: Big boys don’t cry. No sissy stuff. Be a “sturdy oak.” “Be a big wheel.” “Give ’em hell.”

Being a man, in other words, is defined by divesting oneself of anything remotely associated with femininity (like kindness, sensitivity, intuition, empathy). When heterosexual masculinity is defined by violent obtuseness, these “guy rules” rob boys of their chance to develop emotional skills to thrive in relationships with others. This frantic effort to shut down a whole aspect of one’s potential isn’t caused by testosterone or Y chromosomes. It’s caused by the longing to live by the “man code.”

Most MRAs agree that the “man code” exists and that it does great damage to young men. But they blame women for these cruel and limiting rules. According to many MRAs I’ve spoken to, it is women’s sexual desire for the alpha male that forces boys to compete ruthlessly with one another. “Women say they want one thing but choose another: they always go for a**holes,” so many guys say. If women would broaden their sexual appetites to include “betas” and “omegas,” their reasoning goes, boys would feel less compelled to compete ruthlessly with one another. (The men’s rights activists tend to be wildly off-base about what women actually want, but that’s another topic.)

It’s a typical but tragic mistake: MRAs wildly overestimate women’s power, sexual or otherwise. Men, they insist, are helpless by comparison. But that claim ignores a long and unmistakable history of male domination in human history. And if there’s one undeniable truism about our species, it’s that the rules are made by the dominant group. The “man laws” or “guy rules” were created by and for men. Historically, winning validation from other men has mattered more than getting sex or love from women. (If you don’t believe that, think for a moment about how hard boys will work to please a demanding football coach.) Males are raised to be “homosocial,” which means they’re taught to get their primary affirmation from other men rather than from women. Working too hard for female approval just makes you a “mama’s boy” or “p**sy-whipped,” and the frantic efforts young men make to ensure neither of those labels apply to them tells you all you need to know about who it is they are really trying to impress.

So men are indeed architects of their own adversity. This doesn’t mean that each boy is individually responsible for his own suffering. But it does mean that the pain so many men feel from broken relationships, social isolation, and the gnawing sense of personal powerlessness is not women’s fault. It’s the fault of a rigid code that was set up eons ago, a code that many of us continue to perpetuate. Extricating ourselves from the emotional straitjacket the code forces us to wear requires taking responsibility for our own lives and choices. It requires letting go of blame. And it requires seeing that feminism—with its remarkable claim that biological sex has nothing to with our human potential—is the best avenue for our personal and collective liberation.

No, I'm not angry at anyone. I was just wondering if there were any counter-arguments to Paul Elam's thesis that men should avoid marriage. There don't seem to be any, other than "it is all men's fault!", which isn't a counter-argument at all.

Is there any reason why a man should marry? There seem to be myriad reasons not to marry. Is a man who marries simply void of reason, and just didn't think it through carefully enough?

Well that makes sense I guess. Women's suffering is all men's fault, and men's suffering is all men's fault as well.

Well that makes sense I guess. Women's suffering is all men's fault, and men's suffering is all men's fault as well.

This is ridiculous.

Heads we lose, tails we lose.

I'm glad I decided to start avoiding women in real life for the most part now. I love 'em, but if they can wave their finger and magically you're the bad guy, then there's something wrong.

Where did you get "heads we lose, tails we lose" and what is the heads and what is the tails? I've only seen one scenario mentioned that guys are suffering due to societal expectations.

I don't see what is wrong as this magical waving power seems to be on similar groups as either gender can wave their finder at someone and magically that person is bad:
Gals can wave their finger at a gal and magically she's the bad gal.
Guys can wave their finger at a gal and magically she's the bad gal.
Gals can wave their finger at a guy and magically he's the bad guy.
Guys can wave their finger at a guy and magically he's the bad guy.

The idea of "traditional masculinity", and that men should be violent etc, is an idea uphold by all genders of society. If you can't understand something, then you ASK QUESTIONS.

Again where is this "it is all men's fault" in regards to marriage? I have not seen anyone state that the only male faulting I have seen is saying that it's not all gal's fault and guys share blame as well.

In my opinion there is no reason for a gal or a guy to marry but loads and loads of reasons not to.