Marriage: What's in it for men?

[SmokeAndMirrors]

No, I doubt under appreciated is the appropriate description. It's more likely that people were annoyed by the arrogance expressed by those who have decided not to have kids, as if they are somehow superior to those who chose differently. Some people even attempted to argue that those who remain childless have higher IQs. Of course such an argument is completely ridiculous.

No, it's factual, and it's correlated with a very long course of education. IQ is not fixed. And if you'd stop taking it personally long enough to read some of the sources presented to you, you'd have seen that desire for children is not much lower for the voluntarily childless than it is for most other women. And, the explicitly childfree are a sufficiently small minority that we don't have much effect on the statistics.

Most women who remain childless do so because they've decided something else is more important, not because they don't want kids. I've even had women tell me they grieved this decision - even though it was the right one for them.

Women like me who actively don't want kids are a minority within a minority.

 

[Alyssa]

No, it's factual, and it's correlated with a very long course of education. IQ is not fixed. And if you'd stop taking it personally long enough to read some of the sources presented to you, you'd have seen that desire for children is not much lower for the voluntarily childless than it is for most other women. And, the explicitly childfree are a sufficiently small minority that we don't have much effect on the statistics.

Most women who remain childless do so because they've decided something else is more important, not because they don't want kids. I've even had women tell me they grieved this decision - even though it was the right one for them.

Women like me who actively don't want kids are a minority within a minority.

Your sources were not convincing. The correlation between IQ and having children is simply not strong enough for any real conclusion.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Your sources were not convincing. The correlation between IQ and having children is simply not strong enough for any real conclusion.

It is strong and consistent in just about every study ever done on the matter. You have been provided with dozens of sources from several posters.

Like I said, IQ is not fixed. Most childless women decided their educational/career goals were incompatible with having children, not that they didn't want children. They display the expected results of that decision. There's nothing even the least bit odd or surprising about it.

I don't know why you take this so seriously and personally.

 

[Alyssa]

It is strong and consistent in just about every study ever done on the matter. You have been provided with dozens of sources from several posters.

Like I said, IQ is not fixed. Most childless women decided their educational/career goals were incompatible with having children, not that they didn't want children. They display the expected results of that decision. There's nothing even the least bit odd or surprising about it.

I don't know why you take this so seriously and personally.

Disagreeing with you isn't taking it personally. I have already agreed that people who have few or no children are more educated. But not more intelligent. There is a difference.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Disagreeing with you isn't taking it personally. I have already agreed that people who have few or no children are more educated. But not more intelligent. There is a difference.

Since IQ can be augmented, and the average IQ associated with increasing levels of degree levels increases, there is a pretty clear and easily explained trend. Whether IQ is a truly meaningful expression of intelligence is a different matter entirely and subject to much debate, and I personally think it's flawed. But the correlation between education/IQ and childlessness is extremely clear.

 

[Ockham]

It is strong and consistent in just about every study ever done on the matter. You have been provided with dozens of sources from several posters.

Like I said, IQ is not fixed. Most childless women decided their educational/career goals were incompatible with having children, not that they didn't want children. They display the expected results of that decision. There's nothing even the least bit odd or surprising about it.

I don't know why you take this so seriously and personally.

Me and the sarge feel that bringing a child into this world at this time isn't the right thing to do. Neither of us necessarily feel that the continuation of our genes is paramount or feels it provides us some sort of immortality. My mothers side of the family is very well represented with kids, my fathers side not so much and that's not such a bad thing. My father excluded, his side of the family are best forgotten for the most part - they were not nice people and continue not to be. She's an only child but is totally cool with not having children and that was important to me in finding someone to share my life with. Even though we don't plan on getting married until maybe it's just a formality (if we're both alive at 65, we'll hop a plane and get married in Vegas over a weekend or something like that if it happens at all), otherwise there's no need.

It really is different since her and my parents were more traditional, straight laced, committed etc. Times certainly changed us.

 

[nonpareil]

edited and linked.

The links do not prove your claims. That it is "exceedingly difficult without it to raise healthy, well-adjusted, successful children" without marriage, or that men and women need each other in a one to one ratio.

Nor are the fact that men comes out better than non-married men proves that this type of marriage is the best for men, polygamy has been practiced in a majority of the world: Asia, Middle East, Africa, American Indians - only in Western Europe, with the emergence of Rome and Catholicism was marriage made to be a one-man-one-woman thing.

it was about social stability, and property was in there too - however, fundamentally you are incorrect, the primary purpose has been and remains today provision of and for the next generation. that whole, darwinian, seeking-the-best-model-to-pass-on-ones-genes-thing.

Well, you have to provide the history to prove your claim that its "primary purpose has been and remains today provision of and for the next generation". In some cultures, such as Chinese, and even the English, children are a mean to continue family prestige, not an end in and of themselves. That's why the English aristocrats wanted "an heir and a spare", the older son can die, so long as there's another one to take on the family title. That's why in China, parents would kill their own daughters in hope for a son who can then pass on the family name.

You are taking a very rosy, short-term view of marriage and parenthood.

actually only Hillary Clinton says this. She claimed it was an "old African saying" for her book.... but said saying has yet to actually surface from Africa.

in reality, it takes parents. emphasis on the plural. children with single parents are more likely to drop out of school (and become single parents), get addicted to drugs, commit suicide, and become violent criminals

Actually it's science. Just because Clinton said it doesn't mean none other has said it or that I heard it from her. And just because two-parents household is better than single-parent household, doesn't mean nuclear family is the best type of family for raising children. Children benefits from a larger and varied social groups. In place of extended family, we now have playgroups and kindergarten to give children the environment for social interaction to aid their development. In cultures where extended family is still the norm, such as Asia, you don't see the children lacking behind in their academics, and in fact, Asians tend to have less crimes than other groups.

And it doesn't take parents, plural or otherwise, it just takes adults that the child can be attached to and feel secure around, who fully interact with the child. Grandparents and older siblings can raise children successfully, adoptive parents were strange adults before they became "parents". The problem with single-parent household is that the single parent often doesn't have time and resources to look after the children properly, it doesn't mean not having two "parents" is detrimental by itself, even if the single-parent can provide adequate time and resources as well as the social environment where the child can interact with a variety of people. That's a logical jump you made that has no prove.

 

[Alyssa]

These days, it seems that almost anything lowers people's IQs. Lead water, breeding, and being spanked as a child. :roll:

Spanking Debate: Do Spanked Kids Have Lower IQs? - TIME

If someone has children instead of obtaining an education, they will do poorly on standardized testing. But imo, having kids, taking care of them, maintaining bills, and a home all while also obtaining an education makes one not only smarter but also having more fortitude and time management skills. It turns out that being the New Age, vegan college student isn't so impressive.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

These days, it seems that almost anything lowers people's IQs. Lead water, breeding, and being spanked as a child. :roll:

Spanking Debate: Do Spanked Kids Have Lower IQs? - TIME

If someone has children instead of obtaining an education, they will do poorly on standardized testing. But imo, having kids, taking care of them, maintaining bills, and a home all while also obtaining an education makes one's not only smarter but also having more fortitude and time management skills. It turns out that being the New Age, vegan college student isn't so impressive.

Yeah. Isn't that just what I said? IQ can be augmented by education? Like 3 times?

That correlation exists because women who have kids are less likely to continue their education after they've had them. What the stats are like for women who do, I don't know.

 

[nonpareil]

That's lovely, but it makes a whole lot of assumptions, starting with the notion that modern marriage implies sexual exclusivity. That's not always the case. And again, if sexual exclusivity is what you're after as an individual or a couple, I still don't see how a marriage license will protect you from a straying spouse. The reasons people cheat are varied, but more often than not, it's because something is not right with the relationship at its very core. No license in the world is going to fix something that was broken or fatally cracked from the very start.

Modern marriage for most people is about sexual commitment, unless they both agree that they have an open relationship, the default position for most people is that they be monogamous to each other.

And marriage doesn't protect anyone from anything. To think that it does is silly. It's a reminder to yourself and others what commitments you make to each other so that you are more likely to do the right thing. Does it stop everyone from doing the wrong thing? No. It's like homicide laws - it doesn't stop people from killing, but we have it anyway.

And the idea that a relationship is "broken or fatally cracked" and what not is just romantic nonsense. As long as two people are nice responsive human beings, they can find a way to live together and love and care for each other if they really want to - thus the higher success with arranged marriage. My grandparents and parents' generation mostly had arranged marriages - they don't view marriage as something you do only when you are "in love", it's a commitment and an investment. They are commitment to making their marriage to last, and they think of each other as support for daily life - making a living, raising children, responsibilities to family - and eventually in their old age. Sure there are divorces when a partner is abusive or cheat, but they overlook the small stuff, they learn to form attachments to each other over time and my grandparents were married 40-50 years until they passed, and so will my parents.

 

[Alyssa]

Yeah. Isn't that just what I said? IQ can be augmented by education? Like 3 times?

That correlation exists because women who have kids are less likely to continue their education after they've had them. What the stats are like for women who do, I don't know.

No. In the past, you have consistently argued that having children is directly correlated to having lower intelligence. I'm glad that you no longer believe such nonsense.

 

[misterman]

These days, it seems that almost anything lowers people's IQs. Lead water, breeding, and being spanked as a child. :roll:

Spanking Debate: Do Spanked Kids Have Lower IQs? - TIME

Perhaps parents who spank are dumber and pass on their genes to their kids.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

No. In the past, you have consistently argued that having children is directly correlated to having lower intelligence. I'm glad that you no longer believe such nonsense.

I have argued it's correlated with lower IQ and educational attainment. Which it is.

However, that does not address the reasons for that correlation. You never asked. You just insisted on getting upset about the correlation.

 

[nonpareil]

It's funny how different people are. See, I would be heartbroken if anyone pulled this stunt on me. "If you really loved me, you would....". That to me would mean that he doesn't have any faith whatsoever in my feelings and commitment for him.

If you see marriage as an ultimatum then you don't think you have to make a commitment to the person in actual fact, so that's that. But the fact is, verbalizing and making the commitment known to the community is an assurance and a reminder of one's promises. And I never referred to "love", I said commitment, they are different things. One can think one loves somebody, but never fully commit to them by leaving the door open, just in case...

 

[nonpareil]

Interesting concept of "commitment" you have. So does this mean if I have friends that I'm close to and that I love and that I rely on it, I am not emotionally committed to my partner?

Not fully no. Most people don't truely commit to loving their partner fully and unconditionally.

Wouldn't you say emotional commitment is as, or possibly more, important than a sexual commitment?

No. It's impossible to devote one's emotions to just one person, nor is it healthy. Most people can't control their emotions all the time, to say that they commit their emotions (or particularly just "love") to one person alone and all the time would be a lie. Even parents don't feel positively about their children all the time. What's more important is your actions. Someone who loves you obsessively would be a nightmare to live with.

It's possible to devote one's sexual activities to one person, and it avoids the possibility of STDs and other emotional baggage.

Sex is the one thing where we expect total exclusivity in our modern relationships. Nowhere else. And why, exactly? How is someone being in a polyamorous relationship indicative of a lack of commitment? I don't think it's a coincidence that sex also happens to be our biggest area of culture confusion and shame.

It's an indication of a lack of sexual commitment because that's what it is by definition, if you have sex with more than one person, you are not committed to one person sexually. And it's up to people to determine what is important to their relationship, whether sexual commitment is something you want, but the fact is that culturally it's a default position to expect monogamy - whether due to historical or biological reasons - for men at least, by ensuring a woman is monogamous, he is ensuring that the children are his own - but that's no longer as relevant. BTW, some societies that still practice polygamy (eg. Latter Day Saint, certain Muslims regions) are even more conservative regarding sex.

Every person is different, and therefore every relationship is different. Acknowledging and working with these differences is how we mature.

No one said otherwise.

I can't say I'd ever try to pull off polyamory, simply because I don't feel I'm able to spend the time required to pull that off. But that's the limiting factor: time (or more specifically, time left over after the amount of time I feel I need for myself). Nothing else. I'm not 7 years old any more and I don't need someone to say to me "Do you promise we're the bestest best friends ever and I'll always be your bestest best friend and you'll never have a bester friend?"

I'm ok with facing the reality that I am not the only person on earth, and that, indeed, I am not the only person worth loving on earth.

Leave the jealousy and insecurity to the gods...

You claimed that everyone is different and "working with these differences is how we mature" and then you act like your personal hunch about poly-amours relationship is indicative of that kind of relationship and saying "leave jealousy and insecurity to the gods" doesn't make it come true - jealousy and insecurity are very much human emotions. Maybe you think people who demand that their partner be monogamous to them are "7 years old", but the fact is that human experiences negative emotions, belittling them or dismissing it to "the gods" is not accepting differences or mature.

 

[cpwill]

I'm not so sure about that. Honestly, I haven't noticed any difference in the cheating habits of people whether they're married or just living together.

Cohabiting men are four times as likely as husbands to be unfaithful, and cohabiting women are eight times more likely to cheat as married women.


also worth noting is that cohabitating women are three times as likely to be abused, and three times as likely to be depressed as married women.

 

[SheWolf]

That depends. Was she willing to give him any amount of custody?

If not, I can understand that. I don't know whether it's right or not, but it does smack of hypocrisy to say "I don't want you to have anything to do with our kids, but I want you to pay for them."

I've seen a lot of women do that. I don't know whether or not this one did. Maybe she didn't - maybe he was the vindictive psycho in this case. That is certainly a possibility.

It was her choice not to give herself any means of professional ability. It doesn't stop being her choice just because she's married, or when she gets divorced. If you want to take that risk, it's on you.

However, there may be a place for an entirely new kind of system that helps such women gain skills to support themselves. But making the man pay for her living after a divorce is not the ethical, logical, or reasonable answer.

I am not sure what her attitude was, but it was obvious to everybody that her children were emotionally affected, and negatively affected by the divorce and the decline in living standards. I also believe that the oldest son is going to have long term affects by going to the school he did and associating with the kids in that school. He is no longer the same child and got involved with some bad kids.

When fathers fork out money to ride himself of responsibility for the children he created, then it's not an admirable thing to do. Should it be a right, no. Parenting should be an equal responsibility after the divorce and parents should pay their fair share to the child's support. It's sad that we have a dysfunctional court system because average people don't seem to comprehend that supporting a child you decided to create isn't about being punished for your gender, it's about being responsible to your children.

 

[SheWolf]

I gave you my point of view. I listed a number of things that explain why marriage makes no sense for someone like me. I honestly don't see what's so arrogant about asking you if you can think of any reason why I should get married. Sorry if you got offended, but it was the last thing I intended to do.

I wasn't offended and I didn't intend to offend you. If I thought I could convince you to marry, that would be arrogant of me. I am not disrespecting your feelings or your view. I respect your opinion as much as anybody else's, which is why I won't attempt to convince you to change your lifestyle so it suits me. Your lifestyle isn't offensive to me.

 

[nonpareil]

Sure it does. I'm just saying the man getting a better turn than he deserves is a lot less common.

Really, how many men do you know (sane, fit men) who have equal custody of their children (assuming the woman is also sane and fit), and/or who didn't basically lose everything in the divorce?

I don't know any. Not one.

Apparently you do. I'm sure they exist. And with so many people in this country, I'm sure they exist in great numbers. But they are definitely a minority. Which do you know more of? Men who came away with a fair ruling, or better than they deserved, or women?

Maybe it's changing in some places. That's also a possibility. But it's not everywhere.

Also... despite the fact that she was a housewife, why is she entitled to continued financial support after the divorce? Maybe she can't maintain her current standard of living on her skills, but here's the thing: she's not part of a partnership anymore. She is not entitled to another dime of his money once the papers are signed. She can find a job. If it means she has to give up stuff she can no longer afford, well... that's the price of going it alone. I'm sure I could have a much better standard of living with someone else either making more than me or pooling their money with mine too, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to it.

Because of community property law, maybe she supported him before, maybe she gave up a career when they married - there are many reasons why one partner should get alimony even when there aren't children involved. Nor it is always men who pay it: When ex-husbands get alimony - MSN Money

 

[SheWolf]

No, that's not it at all. I'm very committed to my BF and it sure looks like I'm going to love this man for a very long time. We have the coolest thing going. I just don't need to be married to him for this relationship to mean the world to me. :shrug:

You said in an earlier post, "I don't ever want to live with a man again. I can't promise nor do I expect sexual exclusivity."

It just sounded like you don't believe a man is capable of keeping his pants on and you won't commit to any type of relationship. I guess, it just came out sounding different that you intended.

 

[SheWolf]

Cohabiting men are four times as likely as husbands to be unfaithful, and cohabiting women are eight times more likely to cheat as married women.


also worth noting is that cohabitating women are three times as likely to be abused, and three times as likely to be depressed as married women.

I read that married Mormon women have some of the highest depression rates... just sharing

 

[cpwill]

The links do not prove your claims. That it is "exceedingly difficult without it to raise healthy, well-adjusted, successful children" without marriage, or that men and women need each other in a one to one ratio.

have you talked with single parents? there is a reason Goshin "liked" that post.

Nor are the fact that men comes out better than non-married men proves that this type of marriage is the best for men, polygamy has been practiced in a majority of the world: Asia, Middle East, Africa, American Indians - only in Western Europe, with the emergence of Rome and Catholicism was marriage made to be a one-man-one-woman thing.

yes, and there is a reason that those societies remained more tribal and fractured while Western Europe was able to form more stable societies and conquer them all. polygamous societies include large numbers of young men for whom there are no women - a recipe for violence and instability.

Well, you have to provide the history to prove your claim that its "primary purpose has been and remains today provision of and for the next generation".

that is indeed why we have families. it's not like we are the only species with socio/sexual structures designed to maximize the successful propagation of the species.

In some cultures, such as Chinese, and even the English, children are a mean to continue family prestige, not an end in and of themselves.

and in many other cultures children have traditionally been sought as a labor force, and as a means of ensuring oneself against poverty in ones' old age. Europe, for example, seems to have forgotten that if you wish to live well in your elder years, you have to generally provide children who will do all the work during them; which is why this current crises that they are in is not going to be solved (though it may be temporarily staved off) by the ECB loaning out money.

That's why the English aristocrats wanted "an heir and a spare", the older son can die, so long as there's another one to take on the family title. That's why in China, parents would kill their own daughters in hope for a son who can then pass on the family name.

Parents in China today kill daughters because of an insanely cruel and barbaric national one-child policy (those of us who are pro life, and those of us who are pro choice should at least be able to come together in condemnation of government vans swooping up pregnant women, tying them down, and forcibly aborting their children). In the past they have done so for the same reason that Indians do today - because of the cultural demand for a dowry, and the desire to have a male labor force to support the parents. Which, again, were and remain sub-optimal structures.

You are taking a very rosy, short-term view of marriage and parenthood.

not at all, certainly I am not pretending that the two-parent child-raising model is perfect, or will always succeed. Research, for example indicates as well that children often do best when raised by two parents and with an actively involved grandparent. I simply point out that it is the best structure discovered thus far not the "anything goes" model of single parents, cohabitation, etc.

Actually it's science. Just because Clinton said it doesn't mean none other has said it or that I heard it from her. And just because two-parents household is better than single-parent household, doesn't mean nuclear family is the best type of family for raising children. Children benefits from a larger and varied social groups. In place of extended family, we now have playgroups and kindergarten to give children the environment for social interaction to aid their development. In cultures where extended family is still the norm, such as Asia, you don't see the children lacking behind in their academics, and in fact, Asians tend to have less crimes than other groups.

And it doesn't take parents, plural or otherwise, it just takes adults that the child can be attached to and feel secure around, who fully interact with the child. Grandparents and older siblings can raise children successfully, adoptive parents were strange adults before they became "parents". The problem with single-parent household is that the single parent often doesn't have time and resources to look after the children properly, it doesn't mean not having two "parents" is detrimental by itself, even if the single-parent can provide adequate time and resources as well as the social environment where the child can interact with a variety of people. That's a logical jump you made that has no prove.

work calls, and I shall have to get back to this.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Because of community property law, maybe she supported him before, maybe she gave up a career when they married - there are many reasons why one partner should get alimony even when there aren't children involved. Nor it is always men who pay it: When ex-husbands get alimony - MSN Money

What makes you think I only feel that way about wives?

Come up with a system that doesn't involve one person completely supporting another that they clearly don't want to be involved with and have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from.

 

[Ockham]

Cohabiting men are four times as likely as husbands to be unfaithful, and cohabiting women are eight times more likely to cheat as married women.


also worth noting is that cohabitating women are three times as likely to be abused, and three times as likely to be depressed as married women.

I'm surprise the "Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education" didn't kick those numbers up a notch more, or maybe that was over reaching. Comon... really? Is anyone supposed to take those numbers to heart? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for marriage as long as it's not me getting married.

 

[SheWolf]

I'm not so sure about that. Honestly, I haven't noticed any difference in the cheating habits of people whether they're married or just living together.

I think people living together probably cheat more. A lot of childless people I know move in and out with people frequently. Every time a lease is up or there is a huge argument, they find a new roommate and love interest.