Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dr. Helen

January 4th, 2014 - 5:00 am

Dalrock:  “The problem we presently face in the West is similar.  While we have a small number of men who have decided to slack off as a form of protest, the far more insidious risk to our economy is the across the board weakening of the incentive that a marriage based social structure creates for men to produce at their full potential.  We’ve moved from a mostly reward based incentive structure to a model the Soviets would have been proud of.”

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (2)
All Comments   (2)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
This is an interesting article that makes a valid argument, or at least an observation. And some of the comments are pertinant. However, it misses the point, because it fails to ask the right question.

What is the incentive for men to marry if the incentive for women is to divorce?

That really is the crux of the problem. You can dress it up any way you want, talk about men going on strike, being underemployed, living in their parents' basement playing video games, blaming men for not manning up, and all that nonsense, but until you provide a reasonable answer to the question at issue, you're just pissing in the wind.

There is no incentive to marry if you're only going to get divorced. Divorce is expensive; it's very expensive. You think a ring and a wedding ceremony are expensive? Wait till you get to divorce court. We're talking about 50% of all income and assets, a house, paternity fraud, the list of nightmare scenarios goes on and on. There is no win here, not for a man. And that's the point.

It's not that men are going on strike. It's that more and more men are coming to the realization that marriage, in its current construction, in this culture, under this legal system, is a loser's proposition. And until that changes, marriage will remain not an option for any thinking man.

I'd rather have the money, to be perfectly honest. I would rather have the money. I don't need the grief. I certainly don't need to be legally forced to pay child support for another man's bastard. And I don't need to pay some woman 50% for a few years of weekly sex. I can get that for practically nothing on any night of the week.

Ultimately, this is a female problem, and the only one who is ever going to do anything about it is her. I'm not holding my breath on that happening any time soon though.

What does she have to offer me? Debt, abandonment, betrayal, bankruptcy. What do I have to offer her? Well, I am educated--BS, BA and MA--and intelligent. I am employed, make good money. My family owns a very successful real estate corporation, and I'm rich. I did have to change careers--I was a teacher for 20 years--when my father was dying of cancer, move back home to help my mother take care of him and then to help her run the company. Yeah, I live at home, but I don't live in a basement and I don't play video games. I have my own condo. It's just that I have to look after my mother. I do the grocery shopping, I cook, I clean, I wash my own clothes, in short I am self-sufficient. But I have responsibilities that only a first-born son can understand. My mother eats very well.

Try explaining that to the moder American girl. You live with your mother? Yeah, I do, actually I live next door to her, but that's just the way life worked out. It's not like I'm some kind of incompetent slacker. I just had to make some decisions and some sacrifices along the way. And for that I have no regrets.

Does anyone out there really believe there is a modern American girl who is willing to move in with me and help me take care of my mother? If your answer to that question is not no, then you do not understand modern American girls.

To me, it's all ridiculous. It didn't matter when I was teaching junior high, barely making $14,000/year. I was then, as I am now, the heir to a real estate fortune. She could have married a nice guy, and her children would have nothing to worry about. But, no, she's too wrapped up in her own bad self for that.

As it is today, I wouldn't give her the time of day. I definitely won't give her 50%. I'm worth millions. She's worth, exactly . . . what?

Why get married if you're just going to get divorced? I'd like an answer to that question. Because until I am given one, I'd rather have the money. As any reasonable man would.

This is a female problem. It is not my problem. And if she, or her psychophants, don't like it, I really don't care.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This is all correct. However, there is much more to this story.

There are other reasons why men may not prefer marriage and family. One possibility is one being motivated to making lots of money, but not getting married and having kids at all. Many (most?) of the silicon valley entrepreneurs have no wife or kids. This is becoming a common characteristic of successful men. Some people actually enjoy being single and having no kids.

Another thing to consider is that some men may be motivated to make enough money, but keep living expenses low (e.g. no wife or kids) such that they can “retire” to the beaches of Latin America or South East Asia and live the good life.

A third possibility is where a man is motivated to work hard and make lots of money because of the prospect of radical life extension and an unlimited open personal future. He wants to save up the money to pay for SENS therapies and stem cell rejuvenation.regeneration, say around 2030-2040, and realizes his chances at biological immortality are reduces with the albatross of having a wife and kids. In short, he may be a transhumanist.

Or it could be a combination of all three of these.

There are many more choices in front of us now that were not there even 50 years ago that have increased the opportunity cost of getting married and having kids. The decline of marriage and family life is not solely because of toxic feminism (although it is a factor). Even if feminism disappeared tomorrow and the family courts all became “pro-men”, I believe the decline of marriage/family life due to other life style options is a permanent one and is as irreversible as the industrial and scientific revolutions. I think we should recognize this fact and stop obsessing over it. The genie is out of the bottle and will never be stuffed back in.

Instead of helping to make things easier, many social conservatives muddy the waters with their incessant whining how everyone is supposed to get married and have kids. Many of us don't want kids, period. For such people, marriage is an option, not a necessity. I do agree with the social conservatives that kids grow up best in stable two parent families. However, this is completely irrelevant for those of us who don't want kids.

Instead of browbeating everyone into having kids, whether they want them or not, the social conservatives should focus on making things easier for the people who do want kids and to help them form better marriages. They need to stop hassling those of us who don't want kids and to leave us alone.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All