# Men not Marrying



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

marked174 said:


> I've been known to share my opinion regarding men's issues, but I think I might diverge from the consensus this time. I, personally, want to get married someday. I want to share my life with my wife, and that means everything that goes with it. I am aware of the risks, and that is why I find it very important to find the right person.


 Nice post. I liked it.

I want to get married too. (Actually, it's more that I want a family than marriage per se.) I'm not afraid of picking up a "gold-digger" type who is going to take me to the cleaners. I can spot this sort of person a mile off. As you say, it's about finding the right person. 

Seems to be that a lot of people don't value very highly the values of integrity or ethics in the opposite sex; so that they are really surprised when the divorce settlement comes.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

carlaviii said:


> The question I have is: if women are so independent, why do they still expect to marry? Yes, there are social programs to help women -- but these are constantly under fire and don't give one a comfortable existence. And until robot nannies are widely available, the fact that it takes a heck of a lot of work to raise children will remain.


What people are, and what they think they are usually reveals a large discrepancy - but that probably goes back to other psychological issues, indoctrination and a plain lack of brainpower or sense of realistic evaluation of things, situations and/or themselves.

This applies to both gender alike, obviously.

The way I see it, everyone should be able to provide for themselves, without exploiting others in any sense or form to obtain that status. This is equality. The equality I place upon men and women alike. (within the framework of the society we find ourselves in). If children come into play you can make compromises, obviously - but that requires the understanding and assessment of a situation. Attitude/Respect would perhaps be an important word here.

You can't be a spoiled princess and expect prince charming to carry your butt around for the rest of your life. In fact, most people having that attitude tend to be the most screwed up ones - whether or it's out of naivety or aggressively looking for exactly that. Then, when prince charming turns out to not be prince charming after all, he'll just be discarded and/or replaced. This is where marriage, as a man, becomes ones biggest mistake. Of course they deserve it (to an extend), for having been so stupid to not have known any better.

Women can't have it all. It's or, not and. You can't do a powerhouse manager position while being a single mom. If you can chances are your kid(s) are being raised by someone else than you. If that's your dream of emancipation, well, off you go. Enjoy it. I'll at best be smirking in disbelief given the unfathomable illusion such a person must be living.

Of course there's plenty of shades of grey inbetween the extreme examples provided. As said however, respect and attitude needs be present when and where it's due. Most people don't know when it is. This again is gender unrelated but perhaps a byproduct of our society and most peoples egocentricity.

If people simply rose above their materialistic / hedonistic needs the world would be far better place overnight. It's not hard to do. Then again it perhaps never been for those that managed it to begin with.

Oh well.


----------



## Nirel (Oct 21, 2012)

Meh, I'm not that impressed. She's making people way too simplistic, that may be true only for people who completely lack self awareness. And frankly, I don't care to much about those.


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

carlaviii said:


> Given that it's not offering them anything of value, I'm not surprised they aren't. There has existed, for some time, this assumption that men will do anything to get in a woman's pants -- compromise, settle for, bargain, because "all men are dogs" and so desperately horny that they can't control themselves.
> 
> This is part and parcel of the school of thought that assumes all women are gold-diggers looking for the best possible mate and accepting no substitutes. I don't buy either Darwinist argument. We are not merely animals, though it's a part of our being.
> 
> ...


As a group, I don't know why men are not marrying. Does anybody?

Personally, I haven't met anyone I would like to marry and don't have the money to help support wedding costs, let alone a wife with a chocolate fixation.

Perhaps women are still marrying out of some sense of tradition.

I think the most reasonable explanation is that people just don't want to grow old and die alone.


----------



## carlaviii (Jul 25, 2012)

Erbse said:


> Of course there's plenty of shades of grey inbetween the extreme examples provided. As said however, respect and attitude needs be present when and where it's due. Most people don't know when it is. This again is gender unrelated but perhaps a byproduct of our society and most peoples egocentricity.
> 
> If people simply rose above their materialistic / hedonistic needs the world would be far better place overnight. It's not hard to do. Then again it perhaps never been for those that managed it to begin with.


I agree, I think it's our society more than our gender. And to tie it in to what @series0 said -- it's this materialist, money-loving society created and encouraged by our capitalist society. It's hyper-individualized us, drowned us in mindless entertainment, and promised us the moon. 

Do I want to toss our capitalist society? ... no. There aren't any perfect societies. I don't believe there was some magical time in the past when everyone was more educated and enlightened than they are now. These have always been the problems people wrestle with: balancing individual desires with society's expectations, hoping for the best when we should be preparing for the worst. 

Like you said: oh well. Just do the best you can.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

I loved the entire video. Especially this:



> Men used to be able to derive a positive male identity from marriage. That is, through the respected and uniquely male role of husband and father. When that identity is increasingly characterized by society as superfluous, obsolete, or in the words of Harriet Harman, unnecessary to social cohesion, it is no longer a way for a man to defer his disposability, is it? Moreover, when that identity can be unilaterally stripped from him on the whim of the increasingly fickle and hard to please female even when he does everything right, marriage ceases to be a positive way for men to define themselves as men. It becomes a way for men to define themselves as chumps and idiots, and who wants to define themselves that way? Moreover, from sitcoms to romcoms to TV commercials, to billboard ads, the role of husband/father is increasingly one of playing the incompetent buffoon to sassy, smart, together wife or even child. In the mass media there is nothing noble or respectable about husbandhood or fatherhood anymore. Further, when the roles within marriage become virtually indistinguishable and interchangeable, a man's role becomes less and less...well, uniquely male. It's just a role. It can be a path to meaning and fulfilment (if he's lucky), and it may be something he desires to do and become, but it's not necessarily a path to defining himself AS A MAN.


I come from a Middle Eastern culture, but I unfortunately witnessed this as well. My cousin recently got married to this guy she's been with for 10 years. A few months ago, she was bragging to us about how she got up at 3AM randomly, woke up her husband and asked him to prepare a sandwich for her (seriously). Never mind that he has work, that's it's 3 in the morning, her needs must be met. And they were. He actually woke up and indulged her, and she still complained that he didn't add olives or something. 

^ While I'm sure this doesn't happen as often as it is portrayed especially in my culture, there is definitely no question that women are getting more and more demanding, and harder to please. I find it absolutely _ridiculous _that being treated like a princess is a must nowadays. And really, how do you expect a man to be satisfied and happy when he's basically *required *(and anything required sucks, you should do it because you want to, not because you *have* to) to do all these ridiculous things just to be patted on the head? 

/rant


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

kaleidoscope said:


> I come from a Middle Eastern culture, but I unfortunately witnessed this as well. My cousin recently got married to this guy she's been with for 10 years. A few months ago, she was bragging to us about how she got up at 3AM randomly, woke up her husband and asked him to prepare a sandwich for her (seriously). Never mind that he has work, that's it's 3 in the morning, her needs must be met. And they were. *He actually woke up and indulged her,* and she still complained that he didn't add olives or something.


 What I am interested in is WHY?


----------



## clairdelunatic (Mar 20, 2013)

Slider said:


> I can't listen to anything for 30 minutes straight without becoming bored or uninterested.
> 
> It needs to be concise.


When possible, of course I agree, but I think she's trying to develop some points that require a longer runway than your average YouTube video commentator. (That being said, I don't think she needed to start with reading the other posts first).

OK. I got a chance to watch the video, and I was really interested. Someone please correct this if I misunderstood because my questions are based on this understanding of what she said.

The points I thought she was making:

PREMISES:
1. Unlike women, men don't have a positive identity from nature, only one that's constructed by their social function.
2. Men need a social space in which they can establish and function in their positive identity.

(If that's a fair assessment of her premise, do men agree these premises? I can't buy the rest of her argument if this isn't true.)

If the premise seems valid to men, I'd like to ask about one of her points:

Point 1 (that I thought she was making)
Observation: Women are now given access to traditionally male spaces.
Observation: Women alter the environment of these spaces to be more accessible to them (less direct and confrontational interactions during work meetings, for instance). 
Conclusion: The spaces where males traditionally work out their identity are not allowing men to define their ID.

I feel no need to address the extremist women who invade men's groups and demand things like, "Install a women's bathroom." However, if we're talking about the workplace, *what's to be done about this? *On the one hand, if her point is correct, then this is a really unfortunate consequence of the women's rights movement for men, and I think it's different from race equality in that we may be asking men to work against evolution in order to espouse higher ideals. (As unproductive as most biological arguments for behavior are, I also can't dismiss them offhand.) On the other hand, you can't ask women not to demand equal opportunities. Is it simply that men need to fight back and give as good as they're getting? That seems ridiculous, too. What's to be done?


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> What I am interested in is WHY?


I don't get it either. If I were him, I'd shove her off the bed and get back to sleep. :tongue:


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

clairdelunatic said:


> When possible, of course I agree, but I think she's trying to develop some points that require a longer runway than your average YouTube video commentator. (That being said, I don't think she needed to start with reading the other posts first).
> 
> OK. I got a chance to watch the video, and I was really interested. Someone please correct this if I misunderstood because my questions are based on this understanding of what she said.
> 
> ...


well, l think looking at it with a flexible approach is what makes the entire issue that much easier. l don't see GWW as extremist at all and you sound quite rational too lol.

The ''warrior'' women attitude that drives this hostile takeover is what l can't connect to. Does that make me weak? Ok. l'd feel more ridiculous if l felt the need to prove that l wasn't with huge displays of aggression (that outdo the male displays of aggression that we're supposed to be so disgusted with most of the time).

l'll still lend some support where l see fit, but the uh, ''fight''? The rage, the struggle, the extremely righteous attitude has seen it's day (for me). l don't...even.

So, l think men are taking a quiet but effective stance, taking a step back and analyzing the best way to approach a system that just doesn't work anymore. l'm comfortable letting them handle it and laying their cards on the table, a rational debate after suggestions are presented afterward is acceptable.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

She actually mentions good points that I agree with.
Ohhh yes, doing rather than being, it's been discussed before.

To me the problem it goes beyond gender, it's about humanity.
Traveling allowed me to see the weak points of many women who just can't adapt and need gazillion space and stuff, I have very few shoes and I'm happy with them, and yes, I can walk and also run with my shoes on. Still, traveling also allowed me to see the previously assumed "female traits" on men, so that's why to me it's not about gender, it's about humanity.

As for the video, at times I lost clue on what was her opinion and what was on the article or other people opinions. Anyway I like her, her way of speech and appearance, she's not painted and using a 5 year old tone of voice. I could have a long conversation with her.

And yes, I think we all are different, some men want something we don't want, so it´s up to trying.


----------



## clairdelunatic (Mar 20, 2013)

OMG WTF BRO said:


> well, l think looking at it with a flexible approach is what makes the entire issue that much easier. l don't see GWW as extremist at all and you sound quite rational too lol.


Thanks. (I have to try really, really hard, though. I don't think it comes naturally.) Hehe.



OMG WTF BRO said:


> The ''warrior'' women attitude that drives this hostile takeover is what l can't connect to. Does that make me weak? Ok. l'd feel more ridiculous if l felt the need to prove that l wasn't with huge displays of aggression (that outdo the male displays of aggression that we're supposed to be so disgusted with most of the time).
> 
> l'll still lend some support where l see fit, but the uh, ''fight''? The rage, the struggle, the extremely righteous attitude has seen it's day (for me). l don't...even.


I agree. But I've also (recently) come to believe that any democratic institution needs people voicing their opinions and working hard for what they want. Maybe "fight" was too extreme a word.  I think the problem with these warrior women (good label!) is mainly their narrow view. OR they've got personal baggage that causes them to perceive every difficulty as a personal affront and can't think, "But it's not like men chose to have us menstruate," or "Just because my boss likes pictures of naked women doesn't mean he's not able to respect me when I'm in my business gear." Either way, it's playing the victim, and even when it's justified, it's not effective. I think that ends up alienating more people than doing one's cause any good.



OMG WTF BRO said:


> So, l think men are taking a quiet but effective stance, taking a step back and analyzing the best way to approach a system that just doesn't work anymore. l'm comfortable letting them handle it and laying their cards on the table, a rational debate after suggestions are presented afterward is acceptable.


So are you saying that perhaps this "Men Not Marrying" is the solution? (I may not be reading your post right.)

Hm... If that's the case, that's too bad. I was hoping for something more "reaching across the aisle," and less "Let's all sign a promise not to vote for _any _measure that raises taxes -- no matter _what_." (But that's another discussion for another day...)


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Diphenhydramine said:


> What I am interested in is WHY?


He's a nice guy.

http://personalitycafe.com/sex-relationships/145375-dont-nice-guy-message-men-hetero-dating.html


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

There's a popular image, that can be seen on T-shirts that looks something like this (there's many variants):










And this is quite a common idea, that it's women who want's marriage and then the men are no longer free and happy.

The interesting thing about this is that in fact the opposite seems to be true. There's been various surveys on how men and women are affected by a divorce and they show that men fare much worse when marriage ends. Women generally become more happy, healthy and positive about life while men tend to become more depressed and prone to drinking and substance abuse. 


So this is the more correct image:


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Eos_Machai said:


> There's a popular image, that can be seen on T-shirts that looks something like this (there's many variants):
> 
> View attachment 71883
> 
> ...


Your logic is a little corrupted. Just because men suffer more after divorce doesn't mean that they don't also suffer more before divorce (during marriage). They usually suffer more on both counts. That's why it's "game over"; because, stereotypically, a man's life get's ruined once a woman tricks him into marriage.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

marked174 said:


> Your logic is a little corrupted. Just because men suffer more after divorce doesn't mean that they don't also suffer more before divorce (during marriage). They usually suffer more on both counts. That's why it's "game over"; because, stereotypically, a man's life get's ruined once a woman tricks him into marriage.


If men suffer more after a divorce it means that they suffer less before a divorce, while in marriage. Besides, twice as many divorced or widowed men (32%) than women in the same position (16%) say they want to get married again. And 78 percent of men say that they would remarry their wives, but only half of the women would remarry their husbands. And women file for 80 percent of all divorces. 


Sure, it could still be argued that men are more happy before they got in a relationship in the first place. You claim that it is so. But do you have any evidence to support this claim?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

@_Skum_ Where you at?


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Eos_Machai said:


> If men suffer more after a divorce it means that they suffer less before a divorce, while in marriage.


 You're forgetting about before the marriage, when they don'y suffer at all (according to the stereotype).



Eos_Machai said:


> Besides, twice as many divorced or widowed men (32%) than women in the same position (16%) say they want to get married again. And 78 percent of men say that they would remarry their wives, but only half of the women would remarry their husbands. And women file for 80 percent of all divorces.
> 
> 
> Sure, it could still be argued that men are more happy before they got in a relationship in the first place. You claim that it is so. But do you have any evidence to support this claim?


I really don't need to. I was merely pointing to a flaw in your logic; one which presumes a conclusion based on excluding possible extended parameters. The claim is made by the stereotype (as evidenced by the t-shirt), but I don't necessarily subscribe to the sentiments which it supposes either.

Just because I detect a flaw in your reasoning does not mean that I support the opposing viewpoint (that's another faulty assumption).


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I appreciate how she tries to see & explain a common "male" point of view, but she comes from a lot of false premises on her arguments. This was posted on another forum awhile back & I found a lot of holes in her arguments. I can't watch the vid again now (on the job), but I have time & remember to, I will point out where her arguments falter. 

Basically, to me, this is an extreme view people take out of bitterness, whether it's man-hating feminazis or misogynistic man-children, neither is particularly a balanced concept of reality that reaches a constructive conclusion. It always puts things in terms of "us vs them" with gender, which is always lose-lose.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Eos_Machai said:


> If men suffer more after a divorce it means that they suffer less before a divorce, while in marriage. Besides, twice as many divorced or widowed men (32%) than women in the same position (16%) say they want to get married again. And 78 percent of men say that they would remarry their wives, but only half of the women would remarry their husbands. And women file for 80 percent of all divorces.
> 
> 
> Sure, it could still be argued that men are more happy before they got in a relationship in the first place. You claim that it is so. But do you have any evidence to support this claim?


Now I'm just wondering whether you watched the video since you're doing nothing but proving its point with that tangent, really.

I am confused.


----------



## Pirate (Jan 2, 2013)

OrangeAppled said:


> .
> Basically, to me, this is an extreme view people take out of bitterness, whether it's man-hating feminazis or misogynistic man-children, neither is particularly a balanced concept of reality that reaches a constructive conclusion. It always puts things in terms of "us vs them" with gender, which is always lose-lose.


I'm going to disagree, though admittedly it's possible I'm biased. 

It may seem so, because she doesn't put as much effort into representing the female perspectives, but she hardly needs to when there are 30 million other people covering every possible angle from a female perspective.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Pirate said:


> I'm going to disagree, though admittedly it's possible I'm biased.
> 
> It may seem so, because she doesn't put as much effort into representing the female perspectives, but she hardly needs to when there are 30 million other people covering every possible angle from a female perspective.


My point is that these male & female perspectives are not based on reality, but common distortions people come to because they don't really put themselves in the others' shoes or they blow "facts" out of proportion to explain their own experience without taking responsibility. People like to turn things into extremes so they don't have to adjust at all.

This is why I appreciate her attempt to put herself in a man's shoes, but their emotional feelings & views cannot be confused with the reality of women or relationships or society either. It is simply another take on "what is going on" and no more a truth than the female perspective. It seems these perspectives feed each other actually, becoming different sides of the same coin. This is why I say both are based on false premises about reality, and when dispelled, neither extreme view really holds water. They kind of _need each other_ to even exist because they both insist the other is evil, which make them seem evil to the other (not empathetic).

The reason I cannot see this as any more (or less) valid as the equivalent extreme female perspective is it also places all blame on the other gender for their own unhappiness & failures. There's something about it that amounts to "I'm going to make us ALL miserable & disintegrate to a lower functioning human just to make a point!". It's very much cutting off the nose to spite the face.


----------



## Pirate (Jan 2, 2013)

One could argue, easily, that perspective is a huge factor in issues like this. Wether or not one feels equal is entirely irrelivant to wether or not they are, thus creating (literally or in the mind of the individual) the problems any given perspective argues against.

There would be less point to her videos were the extremism she acts against not around, but could that not be the point? combatting the extremism to get people to meet in the middle? Especially when the extremism is so pervasive in western culture.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

Love conquers all. Love is a magical force that breaks through all barriers. It knows not class nor heritage. It knows nothing about money or calculation. Love is, in these anti-utopian times, still a place for utopia. 

The precondition for this pure love, that conquers all social prisons, is the self-suffiency of women. Marriage out of love became possible first when women did not have to marry for money. The idea that marriage and love belong together is a quite modern conception, it first arose in certain bourgeoisie circles in the 19th century. In Jane Austens novels this idea took a litterate form and was featured as a number of female heroes brave attempts to assert another social contract than the economical, namely the contract of feelings. Romantic litterature. Utopian litterature.

Feelings however may be a fragile foundation. The price of marriages founded on love is that they might end. Perhaps they _should_ end if the reason for it's existence ends. In _The Commercialization of Intimate Life_ sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild describes the modern western love paradox. She claims that culture today like never before encourages couples to strive for a richly communicating, intimate, playful, sexually satisfying love. But at the same time the social context warns us from putting to much trust in such love. The social context shows that most marriages are disolved. Pure feeling does not keep us together 'til death do us apart. 

In Sweden a couple of liberal feminists put togeter an antology called _Happy Happy_ about their positive experiences of divorce. They write that marriage is a strange thing, a living anachronism like monarchy, old-fashioned and out-dated but still celebrated as if it was a necessary ingredient in life. I agree with this. But the _ways_ in which monarchy and marriage are out-dated are different. The anachronistic element of monarchy is obvious: it's based on blood and not achievement. The anachronistic element of marriage however is that it's built on principles that are contrary to the economic base of society. More than anything else marriage is a dream about long-sightedness.

Long-sightedness, preserving, eternity, adherence, fidelity, permanency - which words could be more misplaced in an economy built on constant growth and consumtion? The economy demands that things are consumed, wasted, spent, worn out and discarded at a faster and faster rate. As consumers we are expected to constantly want novelty, change, modernization. We cannot stick to the old plates we bought in the 80ies. 

And as producers, as sellers of labor power, we are expected to be flexible, adaptable, fresh and cheerful for new challenges. A person who steps in to the unemployment bureau and sais that she wants to have the same job all life because she really wants to _understand_ this single job, really wants to _learn_ this single job - well, she would soon hear that the labor market doesn't look that way, that other qualities are demanded. Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman writes in _Consuming Life_:

"_The ideal employee would be a person with no previous bonds,_
_commitments or emotional attachments, and shunning new ones;_
_a person ready to take on any task that comes by and prepared_
_to instantly readjust and refocus their own inclinations, embracing_
_new priorities and abandoning those previously acquired in short_
_order; a person used to a setting where ‘getting used to’ as such –_
_to a job, or a skill, or a way of doing things – is unwelcome and_
_so imprudent; last but not least, a person who will leave the_
_company when they are no longer needed, without complaint or_
_litigation__._"

The virtues of marriage are the sins of modern capitalism.

When the authors of Happy Happy describes the good things in divorce it is clear that they have not only the ideal properties of modernity but also the ideal words on their side. They write about "change", "development", "freedom". Couples who separate "move forward to unknown heights", and we can assume that those who stay in their marriages stagnates, moves backwards and downwards. And we "chose". The divorced women writes about how they have dared making a choise that leads to change and that they feel happy about knowing that they actually how power over their own lives. Personally I can't really relate. I can't see how I could chose or not choose my SO. She has become my destiny, my history, my time, my life.

This is not freedom. It's not independence. The celebrated words of modernity does not go well in hand with the idea of _commitment_ manifested in the institution of marriage. So how should this old insitution cope with an age that more than anything else promotes novelty and change? Why not encourage novelty and change as something that can and should happen _within_ marriage? In the best selling book _The Total Woman_ author Marabel Morgan suggest to women who regrets that their man is not satisfied with one wife but want novelty and change that they should be many women for him. Every man needs excitement and adventure at home. So don't let him know what to expect when he opens the door, make it a surprice. Be a fairy or a pirate, a cowgirl or a dancer...

This book is from the 50ies but it's a common notion today that it is the responsibility of husbands and even more wives to make monogamy fun and full of surprices. I'm not exchangeable if I become someone else now and then. In such way the demands of consumer society more easily can be united with the demands of marriage. And not only the people within the relationship can and should change - even the place of their relations can and should do this. So we renovate our homes and refurnishes it. We get new stuff. We travel. Change. Change through consumtion. A satisfying solution for our economy in a culture where we still seem to dream about life long marriage built on love...


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

Whenever I see discussions like this I always wonder what kind of people they're talking about, whether its about gold digging hypocritical bitches or the other extreme. I don't meet these people in real life. It just seems like a lot of people are taking their own bad experiences and universalizing it. Most people I know are good people. They're flawed but not to that extreme. People are your fellow human beings before they are members of the opposite sex.


----------



## Dr.Horrible (Jul 12, 2012)

brilliant. women do say "where are all the good men at?" to manipulate and gain leverage over men.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Eos_Machai said:


> Love conquers all. Love is a magical force that breaks through all barriers. It knows not class nor heritage. It knows nothing about money or calculation. Love is, in these anti-utopian times, still a place for utopia.
> 
> The precondition for this pure love, that conquers all social prisons, is the self-suffiency of women. Marriage out of love became possible first when women did not have to marry for money. The idea that marriage and love belong together is a quite modern conception, it first arose in certain bourgeoisie circles in the 19th century. In Jane Austens novels this idea took a litterate form and was featured as a number of female heroes brave attempts to assert another social contract than the economical, namely the contract of feelings. Romantic litterature. Utopian litterature.
> 
> ...


Amazing post and your number of outside references is laudable. Where do you find the time to be so widely read and informed? At any rate, well done.

You sense and declare some similar things to my rather ivory tower condemnations of the effect of capitalism and the greed/competition paradigm on the institution or cultural adaptations of marriage. I do think that capitalism is effectively destroying stability and anything aiming at permanence. Speaking for myself, and if I read you right you seem to share some of this viewpoint, I am not at home with that need for mindless selfless readiness amid chaos. The adapt now or be lessened philosophy. Take up Sauron's ring (money and the system) or fade and go west. I want to systemically bring grace back into the puzzle and in my lifetime witness a paradigm shift away from cancerous growth philosophies more towards sustainable models in culture, relationships, the environment, ... everything. I do not think it's impossible but while I wrote this post 2 guys invented ways to charge me 10 more bucks per month and a third guy probably asked out the girl I am currently dating. So ... I confess to some worry.


----------



## Skum (Jun 27, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> @_Skum_ Where you at?


Have I been summoned to do some critical thinking for this thread?

Alright, here are some pointers: 
- Don't believe in gender essentialism
- Question the science behind assertions - what sort of research was done to gather the data? does your conclusion necessarily follow from the results? What other sociological factors could be at work? 
- Identify where your biases could be shaping your conclusions on the data
- Identify where your biases could be shaping how you interpret the responses of others
- Identify your privileges. You probably have several. Keep these in mind.

I haven't bothered reading through this thread or watching the OP video. Follow these rules and I'm sure you'll all do great.
@strangestdude no really I don't know why you mentioned me.


----------



## Emtropy (Feb 3, 2013)

Dr.Horrible said:


> brilliant. women do say "where are all the good men at?" to manipulate and gain leverage over men.


I've never heard a woman say that in my life...

(and if I did, I'd call her out on it)


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Skum said:


> @_strangestdude_ no really I don't know why you mentioned me.



We need some radical feminist input.


----------



## lifeisanillusion (Feb 21, 2011)

The one thing I have a disagreement with in her video and in a lot of other people's work is the view on employment or career. Where I live in Alberta, we have the oil patch and I think that field is more "masculine" per se in the traditional sense of the word. Here the role of men being breadwinners and providing is very strong. It is not uncommon for people (mostly men) to spend long periods away from their families and work long hours (80+ hours per week). So I think men can hold on to that role more easily than they can in a lot of industries. 

That being said, I don't think this provides fro a healthy environment. Kids don't have a father figure, men are seen mainly as wallets and what they can provide, and we live in an extremely materialistic fast paced society. One where they don't want you to question anything. Industry frowns upon employees using drugs or alcohol but the way they chase profits is no different than how a cocaine addict chases crack. I don't go to bars here, but I've heard from a few girls that a common way of courting is saying your name, your job, your company and how much you make in a year. If a lot of guys are doing this, then many must be having success using this approach. 

I would like to think that men are more than wallets or their careers. I don't think it is healthy to have people, mostly men, working these long hours. It is fine to have a career and place a lot of importance on that, but you are more than your career or any role for that matter. What happens if something happens and you lose your job? Great video, I think she brings up some good points.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

lifeisanillusion said:


> One where they don't want you to question anything. Industry frowns upon employees using drugs or alcohol but the way they chase profits is no different than how a cocaine addict chases crack.


It's based on the monetary system why that kind of corporate culture exits. 

Check out Money as Debt 1 and 2 for intros to the subject.


----------



## Skum (Jun 27, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> We need some radical feminist input.


Ah. I don't consider myself a radical feminist, though. Radical feminists believe gender is a social construct, and I've seen this lead to some really insensitive and shitty treatment towards the trans* community. I advocate feminism but I don't identify with any particular school.

I want to point out something about the video though: This lady says "like so many traditionalists and feminists before her." This strikes me as odd, since traditionalism, especially when it comes to relationships and things such as marriage, tends to support traditional sex roles (who's at the "head" of the family, who's "in charge" etc).

It must suck when you really want to marry your partner, but they don't, or vice versa. But if they don't want to get married for personal reasons that's their prerogative.


----------

