NY Times Happy Talk About Divorce

The NY Times has a new article complaining that people still think divorce is a problem (H/T Rollo Tomassi):  The Divorce Surge Is Over, but the Myth Lives On

But here is the thing: It is no longer true that the divorce rate is rising, or that half of all marriages end in divorce. It has not been for some time. Even though social scientists have tried to debunk those myths, somehow the conventional wisdom has held.

Despite hand-wringing about the institution of marriage, marriages in this country are stronger today than they have been in a long time. The divorce rate peaked in the 1970s and early 1980s and has been declining for the three decades since.

If only this were true.  Even the links provided ostensibly debunking the “myth” of a 50% divorce rate don’t back up the claim.  The first one argues that pinning down a single divorce rate stat is difficult, and then explains that for the subset of the US which graduated college divorce rates are much lower than the overall average.  I explained the same thing in my post  two years ago when Susan Walsh made the same basic claim about high divorce rates being a myth.  Ironically, the second link in the quote above is to one of the sources I quoted in my graveyard post:

Dr. Larry Bumpass, an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin’s Center for Demography and Ecology, has long held that divorce rates will eventually reach or exceed 50 percent. In an interview, he said that it was “probably right” that the official divorce statistics might fall below 50 percent, but that the rate would still be close.

“About half is still a very sensible statement,” he said.

Likewise the claim that divorce rates have been declining since the early 1980s goes against the best data we have.  As I explained back in 2012, for a long time the US divorce rate appeared to be declining, but the trend occurred as more and more states were no longer part of the data set:

Missing data from California.

 

Eventually there was a new source of data from the American Community Survey which measured divorce across the entire country, and the National Center for Family & Marriage Research (NCFMR) at Bowling Green State University used this data to conclude that divorce rates had remained constant in the US for the last 20 years:

The overall U.S. divorce rate has remained essentially unchanged over the past 20 years. In 1990, 19 people divorced for every 1,000 marrieds versus 18 per 1,000 in 2010.

When the NCFMR released this conclusion I reached out to the Director of the National Marriage Project, W. Bradford Wilcox for his comment on the ACS data set.  Dr. Wilcox replied:

Thanks for your note. Because the ACS data provides a more geographically comprehensive portrait of current divorce trends than does the data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the National Marriage Project is considering switching to ACS data in the 2012 edition of the State of Our Unions.

The Marriage Project followed through and switched to the ACS data for their 2012 State of Our Unions report.

Of the two claims the NY Times article leads with regarding divorce, both are easily provable as false.  The first claim (50% divorce rate “myth”) is refuted by the very sources the article links to, one of which is another NY Times article.  The second claim is itself the dated “myth”, which is disproved by US Census American Community Survey, a data set which has been accepted by both the NCFMR and the National Marriage Project.

This leaves the remaining claim of the article, that divorce isn’t really a problem because college educated women aren’t divorcing at the same high rates as other women.  This is the NY Times doing it’s well worn Marie Antoinette imitation;  our new family structure seems to be working ok for the UMC, so why are the lower classes unhappy?  The obvious problem is that a family system which works only for the UMC is a colossal failure by the standards of all but the most snobbish observer.  But there is a problem with even the bright ray in the data the NY Times has globbed onto.  UMC women are marrying later, and since divorce rates decline dramatically as women age the divorce rate is actually rising on an age adjusted basis.

With the refuting evidence so easy to locate, this leaves me wondering why the NY Times would bother trying to convince the public that divorce is no longer really a problem.  My best guess is that our secular elites are beginning to become nervous about the difficulty our ever increasing population of never married women are just starting to experience finding grooms.  As a result, the secular elites at the NY Times seem to find themselves compelled to peddle the same nonsense modern Christians are selling.  If this is the case, the interesting thing is that we have only just begun seeing any kind of a measurable trend here.  If the elites are nervous now, I can only imagine how they will respond if we start to see significant numbers of White women unable to marry.

There is also the problem that this is a risky strategy if the goal is to coax more men into modern marriage.  The upside is limited because much of the problem comes from the growing shortage of men with good earnings.   The only way to truly fix this would be to go back in time and have the now panicked 30 something husband hunters spend their youth looking for a provider instead of cads.  But while the upside is very limited, the risk is that by opening the conversation they draw attention to the very problem they are attempting to deny.  This is already happening, with The Week writing a rebuttal:  Sorry, New York Times: The state of marriage in America is not good

Even the Times article itself lets the cat out of the bag by admitting that the divorce revolution is being driven by women not honoring their wedding vows:

“Two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women,” said William Doherty, a marriage therapist and professor of family social science at University of Minnesota, “so when you’re talking about changes in divorce rates, in many ways you’re talking about changes in women’s expectations.”

Whether this was an honest attempt to set the record straight on divorce rate statistics or an attempt to assuage men’s well founded apprehensions about marriage, either way the NY Times piece is an abysmal failure.  Our new family model is fundamentally broken, and no amount of happy talk or attempts to fudge the numbers will make this go away.

This entry was posted in Data, Denial, Divorce, New York Times, W. Bradford Wilcox. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to NY Times Happy Talk About Divorce

  1. Pingback: NY Times Happy Talk About Divorce | Manosphere.com

  2. mdavid says:

    Fabulous post. I have nothing to add. Except thank you.

  3. BradA says:

    I hereby decree that Marriage 1.0 is just not possible in a society where full Democracy is several decades in, and where basic material needs can be met with far less than full-time work for most people.

    That may be the current state, but it does not mean we will remain in this state forever. This is not sustainable even in the medium term, let alone the long term. Things will collapse back toward the norm, the question is just when.

  4. We need to crush feminism, then we can save marriage.

  5. easttexasfatboy says:

    Sorry, don’t buy the argument that prosperity is here to stay. Take our food production for example…..just suppose our crops failed for 2 years. Most folks have no idea of what a famine is. Suppose our crops were deliberately poisoned? What prosperity then? You see, we have a lot of available food, but it wouldn’t be very hard to seriously disrupt production. Some livestock diseases are so virulent that our meat supply would be destroyed. I happen to garden. Enjoy it a lot. Be quite a bit different if I had to hide my plants from the hungry. Quite biblical isn’t it? Marriages today aren’t based on God’s design. ANY woman can destroy her family. Quite a few churchy women do. Most older folks know that something bad is headed our way. But this time we aren’t the good guys. Think about the collective blood guilt over abortion. In God’s eyes, not feminised churchy preachers.

  6. THAT is the Dalrock I know and love.

    Marriage sells, but who’s buying?

  7. adam says:

    Claire Cain Miller is a staunch feminist and her articles all cite research that has 2 chracteristics
    a.research agrees with her feminist ideology
    b. Research done by someone well known

    Read the comments and you will see that a person by the name of Steven Ruggles finally called her out on her assertions.

    In response, CCM asked Justin Wolfers, whose work she cites, to white knight for her. He does, writing an article that supports CCM’s original article.
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/upshot/how-we-know-the-divorce-rate-is-falling.html?referrer=

    However, Steven Ruggles points out his major concern with Wolfers’ article in a comment he left on the Wolfers article.

    Stay tuned…

  8. Mark Minter says:

    I commented on this before. I went through the data on a state by state basis. In almost every state the marriage rate was falling; as was the divorce rate (given on a per 1000 person number). But the slope of the decline in rates of marriage was steeper than the slope of decline rates of divorce. So fewer marriages lead to fewer divorces, but over time the ratio of DivorceRate/MarriageRate lead to a higher percentile, the mode that the overall divorce rate is calculated.

    The states where the drop in the marriage rates were slower were states like Texas, Arkansas, North Dakota, all states having a robust Fracking-Oil and Gas Industry, meaning jobs for men. North Dakota had the highest marriage rates in the country. Texas and Arkansas had above average marriage rates but also higher than average divorce rates.

    I also had this thought about women and violence. The key to making women safer from every crime that is charted by FBI data is to improve male job prospects. No building of more prisons, no increase in the number of cops on the street, no harsher sentencing guidelines even come close.

    In every income category, every age category, every ethnic group, married women were victims of crime significantly less than their single counterparts, especially those classified as single women with children.

    And as North Dakota shows, male jobs=marriage. And nothing protects women from all forms of violence better than marriage, be it property crime, murder, assault, especially Rape, and most especially …

    Domestic Violence. The safest woman is the woman that is home with her husband.

  9. doclove says:

    TFH
    I will give you the benefit of the doubt and think you may have made a typo as you are one of the most brilliant commenters I’ve come across. I believe democracy is not the problem but full adult suffrage or letting most if not all women is the problem when it comes to Marriage 1.0 and having nearly all men and nearly all women have a 1 to 1 monogamous marriages, low divorce rates and low adultery rates. You could have universal adult male suffrage as long as the men never get stupid enough to let women have voting rights again if you want Marriage 1.0, low divorce rates and low adulltry rates well at least low adult female adultery rates because men would be more likely to END PROSTITUTION PROHIBITION. If you think men would be stupid enough to allow women the vote then I’m afraid you are right. However consider that when prosperity came to the late Roman Republic, PATER POTENTAS FAMILIAS, the head male of each family’s power was restricted by the Roman government and divorce and adultery rose then they got the tyrannical Roman Empire which in the early period was just as morally bankrupt as the late Roman Republic before collapsing in the late Roman Empire then the reset. I’m sure it will happen in a similar fashion in the USA as we Americans seem to be more like the Romans than any other civilization in between now and then. I’m not so sure that men if they woke up and were educated to never give the women the right to vote again would allow women to vote or not again. I think you are made the correct general statement, but I know you could make more correct precise statements. So could I and no insult is intended.

  10. doclove says:

    Dalrock
    You are right again. You haven’t even mentioned that not included in the divorce statistic are the people who shack up and break up. In yesteryears, these people would be married then divorced, but they are never included in the marriage and divorce statistics. The other thing I wonder is IF PROSTITUTION PROHIBITION WERE ENDED, how many men would ever bother to get married? I’m sure it would be fewer, but by how much? We haven’t even considered how much internet porn has reduced men’s desire to marry, rape or even seduce or GAME women, have we? I’m sure this lessens these things too, but by how much? I even wonder how many men would even bother to learn GAME if PROSTITUTION PROHIBITION ENDED. I’m afraid we will never know exactly or maybe even vaguely for sure, but surely we know it lessens men’s pursuit of women to some extent. One of the worst things men can do to women is ignore them.

  11. greyghost says:

    A male birth control pill will fix this real fast and in a hurry. Throw in a home ec class for boys. Red pill course that only discusses law and how it is applied. from the draft to divorce. harassment and DV, and how female teachers vs male teachers having sex with students etc.

  12. Boxer says:

    I don’t have datasets, but anecdotes and my own cynicism leads me to suspect that California’s omission is not coincidental. The L.A. area is probably ground zero for the world in terms of divorces — in fact, Nevada’s ratings are likely skewed by all the Angelenos who go there for a quickie breakup (Nevada has very loose residency requirements and a short waiting period).

    As for the NYT, I’m sorta surprised it is still in business. Whenever I read it, the propaganda value seems off the charts.

  13. Tom C says:

    Well done, thank you. This from the NY Times and people wonder why newspaper subscriptions continue to decline.

  14. Outstanding post Dalrock. Keep up the great work. We do appreciate it.

  15. MarcusD says:

    When’s a good time to start dating?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926003

    Why are Traditional leaning guys so weird (insecure?) around women!
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926116

    Think Before You Breed
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926105

  16. tacomaster2 says:

    I read the original article on Real Clear Politics and was going to post the URL here but see you’ve already written about it. I too noticed the 2/3 of women initiate divorce statistic. I’m glad they left that in there. Enjoy your Christmas Dalrock.

  17. patrickg says:

    I have read some about Bolshevik and Soviet times in Russia. One thing that happened when the Bolsheviks took over, was that they were very anti-marriage and viewed it as a bourgeois practice to be eliminated. So, for a period of perhaps 10 years, divorces were very easy to get, women were riding the carousel, unwed mothers received no public condemnation, etc. At some point Stalin realized marriage needed to be strengthened, so over a course of years, divorce was made tougher to get, taxes were higher for those not married, or married and without children, abortion was banned, etc. I do think some kind of economic or political crisis will be needed in order to shock people into making a change from the current order.

  18. greenlander says:

    +1 Dalrock. Keep up the good work.

  19. BradA says:

    TFH,

    Remember that before civilization, people lived in hunter-gather societies, where sexual distribution was closer to what it is for primates.

    Nope. God made Adam and Eve in the beginning and they were the first family. Some may have degraded to the hunter-gatherer situation you presented, but the norm is one man and one woman for life. Jesus confirmed that.

    You are free to not believe either, but that is why I know we will revert to something close to the initial design at some point. Not perfect, since all are fallen, but much different than now and not a mass monkey farm. Lord of the Flies situations don’t last long.

  20. BradA says:

    doclove,

    The other thing I wonder is IF PROSTITUTION PROHIBITION WERE ENDED, how many men would ever bother to get married?

    We are there at some point now. Many already do not marry. I seriously doubt most men would frequent prostitutes even if it were legal tomorrow. It is in Nevada (in a form), but I think they still get married there.

  21. greyghost says:

    OT somewhat. Socialism is catching up to the US. And I see no end in sight. We are now the No. 2 economy in the world as written by Yahoo news http://finance.yahoo.com/news/official-america-now-no-2-150936444.html?bcmt=comments-postbox
    With MGTOW and the counter productive make work women ‘s jobs are becoming this is going to become a big enough deal that serious attempts will be made to move away from the dollar as the international trade unit. (look at the UPS case with the knocked up chick) It is going to be really interesting to see how things turn out over the next few years. I just don’t see any reason for our economy to grow. Our productive population is at a negative fertility rate and there is no reason for it to grow.

  22. doclove says:

    Brad A
    It’s also very expensive where one can get it legally in Nevada because it is more regulated, remote and perhaps more taxed than say places like Holland or Germany where marriage rates are lower than the USA and I think divorce rates are lower as well. Legal Prostitution is not the only reason may not get married, but it doesn’t hurt and it may make it easier for men to avoid marriage or even relationships with women because it reduces THIRST so to speak.

  23. earl says:

    ‘ One thing that happened when the Bolsheviks took over, was that they were very anti-marriage and viewed it as a bourgeois practice to be eliminated.’

    For the state to take over and grow large it has to break down the family…never realizing that breaking down the family would ultimately break down the state too.

  24. unsigma says:

    Agree with Rollo – that is the Dalrock I am used to.

  25. earl says:

    As long as we have no-fault divorce which ‘rewards’ women, access to contraceptives, and relative comfort…the divorce rate will continue to hum along at a higher rate.

  26. earl says:

    ‘If the elites are nervous now, I can only imagine how they will respond if we start to see significant numbers of White women unable to marry.’

    It was the same elites that created this mess thinking so shortsightedly that two people working would increase tax revenue and they would get control of the children in the schools. Now they have less people working into the system and less children to control.

  27. Scott says:

    I regularly use your posts as a spring for important discussions with my 18 year old son. This one is great.

    Scott

  28. new anon says:

    @TFH,

    Monogamous marriage (lifetime pair bonding) may or may not be natural for humans, but it is the only model that provides stability to cultures.

    I don’t think it’s a just a coincidence that virtually every culture (from far eastern ones like Japan to western) THOUSANDS of years ago settled on the 1-man, 1-woman monogamous model of marriage. I would argue that you can’t have an advanced culture with out it, and by advanced I mean going past the nomadic, tribal state.

  29. These articles are put out for their headlines, not their content. Often the content is easily proven false but you will now find millions upon millions of post wall women using it as confirmation bias as they coerce and badger men into marrying them.

    Don’t fall for it!

  30. earl says:

    Monogamous marriage is not natural because we are humans and have urges. But without it civilization always collapses.

    So it’s either sacrifice your urges for the sake of civilization…or engage in all your urges and lead to the destruction of civilization.

  31. Exfernal says:

    ^ Or walk the tightrope between these extremes of asceticism and hedonism.

  32. Exfernal says:

    That Time article would improve with little proofreading. Wierdos and discreet?

  33. lucabrasi1920 says:

    I totally agree with TFH’s opening comment. Marriage, at least as we know it, is gradually ending. Not a perceived good deal for either sex any longer due to our cultures comparative wealth and “easy” lifestyle. Men are no longer needed by women in a marriage type lifestyle. Women will just seek out sex from the top 5% of men and “live for themselves”.

    Excellent blog Dalrock.

  34. Thomas says:

    >> ‘ One thing that happened when the Bolsheviks took over, was that they were very anti-marriage and viewed it as a bourgeois practice to be eliminated.’<<

    Maybe pre-Revolutionary Bolsheviks. In practice, the Bolsheviks were highly puritanical. Orwell's Junior Anti-Sex League was inspired by Bolshevism as practiced.

  35. TheRhoubbhe says:

    It is no surprise the NY Times would champion the happy argument of that state of marriage; they do get some advertisement dollars from the “wedding industry” like “Tiffany and Co.”.

    The NY Times championed in its editorial pages many of the policies that now endangers marriage, such as cheerleading “Free Trade” economic policies (with Asian Oligarchs, European Bolsheviks, and Narcotic Puppet States) that eliminated male breadwinner jobs at the same time turning a blind eye to institutionalized social policies to chase fathers/husbands out of the house.

    Marriage is largely doomed outside the well-off readership of the NY Times because increasing generations of men will be less educated and largely raised by single mothers. Due to hypergamy and decline of male earnings/education; fewer young ladies will get to “Say Yes to the Dress”.

    The future of men is videogame playing, drug consumption, crime, riots and looting (the NY times call them “protests”) while society continues down the path towards utter “Tingly Nihilism”.

  36. Chris says:

    “Sorry, don’t buy the argument that prosperity is here to stay.”

    Nor should you. The widespread drought in California, the sudden vanishing of bees whose pollenization is required for certain kinds of food – they’re adding up.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Sorry, off-topic… but there’s a new problem with our returning veterans: they’re male– testosterone poisoning from their experience! Kid you not. Article by (clearly) Femisnist author:
    https://www.yahoo.com/health/the-mental-health-problem-plaguing-male-soldiers-104331806032.html

  38. QA_NJ says:

    You may find this article at Breitbart.com, titled The Sexodus Part 1: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society, interesting

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/04/The-Sexodus-Part-1-The-Men-Giving-Up-On-Women-And-Checking-Out-Of-Society

    You may also want to take a look at the #GamerGate issue that the same author has written quite a bit about.

  39. new anon says:

    @BradA,

    Some loose form of polygamy was the norm in Genesis, even for the patriarchs. It wasn’t until Israel settled in the land, and switched from a nomadic, tribal culture to a settled farming culture that polygamy waned and the 1-man, 1-woman marriage model became standard.

    Even Abraham had multiple wives and multiple concubines.

    Genesis 25 mentions another wife (Keturah) and the sons of Abraham’s concubines. Note that both sons and concubines is PLURAL. Genesis 24 is an account of the grown Issac obtaining Rebekah as his wife, so the events in Genesis 25 took place at least a decade after Ishmael’s birth to Sara’s handmaiden Hagar. In other words, besides Sara and Hagar, Abraham had at least one more wife (whether this was before or after Sara’s death is unclear) and AT LEAST two more concubines with which he had male children (the text is mute about whether Abraham had other concubines with which he had zero children or only female children).

    BTW, I’m not an advocate of polygamy. I believe God’s ORIGINAL plan was 1-man and 1-woman permanently bonded.

  40. Looking Glass says:

    @new anon:

    Anything past hunter-gathering requires the vast majority of the culture is 1-man/1-woman. Kings & Nobles can be the exception, but if it becomes more than exception, you get Men like Muhammad, who could raise a massive army by limiting it to 4 wives. (Tells you how bad the situation had gotten)

    But the really important part: basic infrastructure systems are expensive & time consuming to keep operating. A society that sees no reason to invest in itself will not worry about their upkeep. Modern societies can collapse in a matter of a month, if the entire energy gird is taken out. We always live on a knife’s edge; Lord willing, we won’t fall off.

  41. earl says:

    In other news…your latest propaganda telling you to marry the tyrant…and saying the ‘simple girl’ is easy.

    http://elitedaily.com/dating/marry-complicated-girl/858579/

    And your money quote on how far removed women understand women.

    ‘A simple girl has a simple mind. Things won’t be so hard when you are with this girl; it will be calm seas and smooth sailing. This is the type of girl you probably imagine yourself marrying, not the one who is opinionated and smart, who doesn’t always agree.’

    There is no such thing as calm seas and smooth sailing when you are with a woman. Even a simple minded woman will challenge a man but he will love her. The noisy, opinionated woman will challenge a man and drive him away with nagging.

  42. Ras al Ghul says:

    “In other news…your latest propaganda telling you to marry the tyrant…and saying the ‘simple girl’ is easy. ”

    Borderlines are always selling themselves as the better catch.

    You might as well pick your own personal demon in Hell, because that’s what you get with these women.

    Any girl that describes herself as “a little bit crazy” is crazy.

    Marriage is dying, it won’t be restored until it is destroyed and women clamor for a return to something like 1.0.

    There have been technological and civilization collapses in the past, and there will be again.

  43. ” I am quite certain that the GOP will think along the lines of coercive measures to force men into marriage.”

    I can easily see the Democrats favoring that, too. They’re the ones that told colleges to make it easier to get rid of male students who are accused of rape, and spearheaded VAWA. Obama thinks he has the right to assassinate an American for no particular reason, why shouldn’t he think he can foerce them to marry too?

  44. “Any girl that describes herself as “a little bit crazy” is crazy”

    That’s kind of like being a little bit pregnant.

  45. Well, America has brought Democracy to the world through bombs, death, sanctions and military pressure, I don’t see them having any problems bringing marriage to men with the same type of fervor!

  46. BradA says:

    Some loose form of polygamy was the norm in Genesis, even for the patriarchs.

    No it was not. The exceptions are just that, exceptions.

    Even Abraham had multiple wives and multiple concubines.

    Only after Sarah died. We know very little about them, so it is dangerous to build a doctrine on that.

    They also caused his offspring through Isaac plenty of troubles as “far away” was not as far as he probably thought when he sent them there.

    Polygamy is generally equated with contention as well.

    Go back to the beginning for the best pattern: One man and one woman for life.

  47. lucabrasi1920 says:

    QA_NJ,

    Excellent article. Thank you!

  48. TheRhoubbhe says:

    @The Real Peterman

    Those coercive measures will completely fail too, because the GOP and Democrats won’t change their neo-liberal economic policies (both have embraced) that outsources or eliminates male dominated occupations while protecting female dominated occupations. Any coercive measures they enact will do nothing to impugn the “Feminine Imperative”; so they won’t stop female hypergamy or halt declining supply of marriageable men.

    Look at what 40 years of these policies has done to our cities, to rust belts, to rural areas. Society will crumble right along with quality men. The great oratory that recently ignited the masses was not the thoughtful quality of “I had a dream” but instead the angry “Burn this motherf—er down!” and “Burn this b@$ch down!”

    Ras al Ghul has it right, we live in a declining civilization.

  49. new anon says:

    @BradA,

    How would you classify Abraham’s concubines?

    Were they wives or extra-marital relations?

    Where the sons Abraham had with those concubines bastards or legitimate heirs to Abraham?

  50. Boxer says:

    Dear new anon:

    How would you classify Abraham’s concubines? Were they wives or extra-marital relations? Where the sons Abraham had with those concubines bastards or legitimate heirs to Abraham?

    This has already been addressed many times, as Lyn87 and others have pointed out. All the heaviest hitters (both Catholic and Protestant) agree on the matter.

    To reiterate, for the umpteenth time: Freud wrote about this in Moses and Monotheism. Abraham was the product of a very matriarchal, stone age culture, and he was taking one step out of that miserable darkness toward civilization. For him, and where he came from, his behavior was a step in the right direction. God approved, not because Abraham was perfect, but because he was better than his grandfathers.

    For us, going back to where Abraham was, way back then, would be a great leap backward, toward matriarchy. I’m a Mormon, and I know what polygamy looks like. It’s a hard matriarchal system where women overpower men constantly (if you have five wives, colluding and conspiring and commiserating, that’s what happens).

    More to the point… No one has a stake in your personal life. If you want to go and fuck a bunch of strange women, none of us will care. We only object when you start yammering about how the text permits you to do this. It doesn’t. The text tells you to marry one woman and fuck her (and only her) for the rest of your life. If you can’t do that, you’re not to marry anyone. This is spelled out in so many different places it’s silly that I have to mention it.

    Regards, Boxer

  51. Scott says:

    QA_NJ–

    That Breitbart article should be read in the public square! Fantastic.

    Scott

  52. Scott says:

    TFH-

    I just shared it on FB and pretty much all the 20 something guys I know either liked or reposted within minutes. I am strangely encouraged by that, even though it means those men are hurting pretty bad.

  53. earl says:

    ‘Some loose form of polygamy was the norm in Genesis, even for the patriarchs.’

    I get you weren’t advocating it…but polygamy brought down the wisest man on Earth at the time, Solomon.

  54. Dave says:

    So what if the divorce rate is now, say, 25% versus 50% before? It’s not because women are less prone to divorce; it’s because men are less prone to marry unless they’re really, really sure the girl won’t ditch him. This means that the average marriage today is of higher quality than before, but for a great many women, a low-quality marriage would be better than no marriage at all.

  55. Dave says:

    From all historical examples of polygamy, I induce that it was allowed if, and only if, the alternative was unmarried women dying of starvation. This is usually the case in nomadic societies, where there are no convents, poorhouses, or welfare offices. After the Mormons settled down in Utah, they no longer needed polygamy, so they abolished it.

    Women don’t like monogamy because it forces the bottom 80% of women to pair up with the bottom 80% of men, but it greatly increases male investment in society.

  56. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ December 4, 2014 at 10:43 pm:
    “I don’t have datasets, but anecdotes and my own cynicism leads me to suspect that California’s omission is not coincidental.”

    Some MRAs got the raw data with a Freedom of Information Act request, did the crunching and came up with roughly a 75% divorce rate for California. I don’t remember who they were, though, and maybe 15% of the state population is illegal immigrants or their anchor-baby children, just to mess the numbers up more.

    I fantasize about living in a sane state but the other 49 keep following our road to Hell. No point in moving just to buy a couple last years of safety.

  57. QA_NJ says:

    @TFH

    I know that Breitbart article contains a lot of old news for Dalrock and the readers here, but I thought it was important because it’s on a fairly mainstream conservative site, it’s coming out of a fairly large backlash against feminism (#GamerGate) by a fairly large community, and it’s written by a younger buy giving specific examples of what young men are thinking and doing (and promises to be a series). It also seems like those young men are coming to a lot of those conclusions independently, which is interesting. Those examples of young men may be more relevant to other young men than the excellent statistics and detailed arguments presented on sites like this.

  58. greyghost says:

    So it’s either sacrifice your urges for the sake of civilization…or engage in all your urges and lead to the destruction of civilization.

    A healthy civilized society has laws,and culture that ensures that to engage in your urges leads to your destruction. They called it the patriarchy A society as a whole that encourages and rewards feral behavior is doomed as it should be.

  59. Scott says:

    TFH–

    I’m tracking. I was just about to walk out from work and head home when you wrote those. I think it’s great that someone actually has a plan, as opposed to just complaining on the internet all the time.

    NOT THAT the complaining is bad–I understand the risks of being out in the open. I am an active army office, and my real name is available through my two websites, and it is dangerous for me.

    I have chosen that path, and may regret it at some point. I totally understand the anonymous griping.

  60. greyghost says:

    QA_NJ
    Rush Limbaugh read from the article you posted up on his show.

  61. TheRhoubbhe says:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124093142.htm

    ‘In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage.”

    Young men in this country burn cars, loot stores, and riot when their sports team wins, or anytime a protest happens. Legalizing polygamy in a nation with easy access to firearms and high male unemployment would be absolute suicide.

  62. greyghost says:

    One more thing to remember if they were having problems back then imagine the worthless skanks a guy has to build a harem with now. A man with 5 wives will most likely have 5 wives screwing every body but him. The cell phone bill alone would be more than a car payment.

  63. “If the elites are nervous now, I can only imagine how they will respond if we start to see significant numbers of White women unable to marry.”
    “and no amount of happy talk or attempts to fudge the numbers will make this go away.”
    Great post. Love your marriage analysis. However, I dispute that the elites are nervous about destroying rival culture by destroying its transmission from patriarch father to patriarch son. They don’t want this to go away, or it would. The humanoids who are neverous our believer leftards and post-wall women who no longer are wanted on the carousel and want to believe that they are more valuable than ever by getting married. Let’s give more credit to the unknown elite and less to their useful idiots.

  64. Erasmus says:

    “UMC women are marrying later, and since divorce rates decline dramatically as women age the divorce rate is actually rising on an age adjusted basis.”

    Except that it is only possible to analyse covariates in this way when they are unrelated. “When controlling for age, the divorce rate is rising” is as meaningful a statement as “when controlling for proximity to the equator, Canada is as warm as Texas”.

  65. SGT Caz says:

    I don’t understand how the article can be so high on “love marriage” when the left that supports this crap constantly bitch about divorce being the fault of a soft economy, aka “potential husbands are too poor to marry, so we need stimulus” argument. I have read articles treating men like walking wallets so often that this sort of dreck is suddenly offensive to my intelligence. And I’m an American; it should be impossible to insult my intelligence by now.

  66. Pingback: Fathers [sometimes] matter! | Dalrock

  67. American says:

    How do you think gaining complete and uber-cheap control to easily prevent reproduction will have on us males? Hint: We’ll have as much use for the feminist “family” model that replaced the traditional paternal family model as a chicken has for lips. The future looks bright for men. Enjoy the decline🙂.

  68. greyghost says:

    GANDARUSA on sale now in Indonesia and EBay

  69. greyghost says:

    enjoy the decline I will the best I can

  70. Pingback: A Remedy For Ressentiment - Social Matter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s