I’m a not-yet-married single man, but a few observations on this for what (little) they’re worth.
I’d agree with several commenters that it’s absolutely critical to find the right woman, and that this is extremely difficult now; but I’d also add it’s if anything even more important to be the right man, which is also much more difficult now, for interrelated reasons.
The rise of feminism and the sexual revolution has had many good consequences for career-centric, sexually non-committal men and (a much smaller number of) women, but it’s taken a heavy toll on those who desire families or a stable marriage relationship, which people are necessarily the biological (And hence, actual) future.
Men have been encouraged/coerced (depending on the context) to be or at least appear to be more feminine and submissive, women likewise to be more masculine and dominant.
Unfortunately, this is what neither gender wants either to be nor to find in a spouse, respectively. (Show me a Feminist women who claims to want a submissive, matriarchal, or even merely androgynous male, and 8 out of 10 times you’ll show me a woman who’s lying to her own self so as to be true to her in-/con-fused ideology; 1 out of 10, you’ll be showing me an alpha lesbian or bisexual. Narcissistic, anti- or pseudo-marriage alpha males are grateful to feminists that a committed marriage is considered a form of oppression–so now they’re no longer exploiting women, but instead liberating them from dependence upon men! “I’m not here to exploit your body–I’m here to free your mind!” Say it with a straight face and how-can-you-think-I-don’t-care?! pain in your eyes, and a PC coed may go for it.)
This conflict between nature and the “progressively” coercive social and intellectual constructs benefits those who reject marriage and family (e.g., militantly feminist or careerist women and playboy-wannabe men), and similar penalizes marriage-oriented women and those who in the past would be called honorable gentlemen. (Witness the media/feminist response to Promise Keepers, as just one example–scholars agree: faithful, selfless, masculine men who lead and provide are the REAL threat to women!)
“Unfortunately” for America and the Progressive world, the future is built upon strong, faithful, loving, stable families with children–very much the contrary of what the intellectually regnant ideologies (are designed to) promote (unless one simply redefines “family”, of course–as they are more than happy to. On the “correct” progressive definition of family, who could possibly be more pro-family than Hefner and Flynt, except perhaps Greer and Mackinnon? Enemies, yet with some common goals re marriage).
I’m not sure how to combat this except at the individual level–the Progressive Left in its somewhat rival forms is more dominant and coercive in university and media culture than ever before; fortunately, there are also more alternative outlets for thought and culture than ever before, too, though their influence is _comparatively_ minor and available only to those who are proactive. (One has to search for conservative thought and culture; Progressive Leftism, OTOH, is pretty much mandatory for anyone with a college education or [in watered-down form] who consumes standard news or entertainment media.)
More concretely and personally, maybe this is coincidence, but UNINTENTIONALLY every one of the last several wonderful women I’ve dated has been foreign born–highly intelligent, highly accomplished (PhD, MD, etc.), WHILE ALSO not only unafraid of my traditional, morally conservative masculinity, but highly desirous of it. It’s not easy to find highly educated and intelligent American women who share these traits in their minds (which are, hence, often in conflict with their hearts).
American women nowadays, especially more highly educated ones, do _statistically_ seem to have more of an adversarial nature to them, yet this is not by nature but by education (putting a bit of the “grrrr” back in grrrrl) and so habit, mandated by the academy and reinforced by political training at every step along the corporate ladder. (This is also via experience with the male sexually-revolutionary players, of course–the kind of men who were once disgraceful cads are now heroes of the cultural left, especially if they’re glibly PC.)
This new adversarial nature isn’t, despite Feminist claims, scary or intimidating to men (a clever rhetorical trick on their part: ideologically condemn masculinity and male strength, and then condemn men who reject said ideology as unmasculine and weak) unless it’s in a corporate or university context (the thought policeperson is NOT your friend, and DOES carry a gun re your futur). But this adversarial nature is ABSOLUTELY NOT what men want in a wife (though it can be very fun, exciting, and disposable in any number of mere flings–not exactly good things for the future of families, but then, that may be the point–or, if you’re clever just redefine “family” so that it’s _great_ for families!).
I think and fear that until the academic and (derivatively) media culture change in a substantially more morally conservative direction, this problem will persist and even worsen (though maybe we’ve already bottomed out, for now–hard to say). But just the opposite is happening: as America has become more conservative, the academy has responded with more Progressive intellectual doctrine, coercion, and hence thought-inbreeding–the cognitive rear guard of American intellectual life–suggesting that this problem will not diminish in the near- to medium-term. (Nearly every conservative high schooler I know has returned from college a lefty–and not because of indoctrination, not by any means, no! But simply because, as all their professors, books, and assignments made clear, Progressivism (moral, social, political) is the only rational option! I mean, what’s the alternative–theocracy? Blood for oil? Women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, unable to vote, raped at will, even/especially in marriage, by conservative, patriarchal Christian men following the unstated orders of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and James Dobson? [Silliness, of course, but you get the too-often true point.] )
Which means that successful=marriage-seeking men and women are going to have to be even more careful and determined–much more careful and determined–than their predecessors in the 40s and 50s when seeking a spouse, AND in BEING a spouse. (The culture today doesn’t just screw-up others–it screws up us, too.)
Or we can do what many leading feminists and playboys would prefer–just give up on marriage and leave the culture to them. Polyandry, polygyny, free love, and condoms (those are what make it _responsible_ hedonism!)–a better future for all, from a certain narcissistic sexually revolutionary point of view.
It may seem the glide path to oblivion, but I’m sure that with increased social responsibility to make up for the no-longer-required personal responsibility, government will make sure it all works fine in the end, so long as the government is sufficiently comprehensively Progressive. Look at Europe for a shining example of the future! Yes.
…. or, we can fight back, one relationship at a time. Alas, this is much easier said than done. But is that any different from any other critically important quest?
(Apologies for the length here, and for the lack of concise editing. :[ )
