Thursday, May 19, 2016

Wilcox Still Trying to Stop the Bleeding From Prager University Marriage Video

First Prager University squandered some of its great status, and now The Federalist is having a little part of itself die on the same hill.

, perhaps reeling from the response to his Prager U video, wrote about some of the responses. (His appearance on Prager's radio show wasn't enough.)


The title?
"The Divorce Revolution Has Bred An Army of Women Haters"
Let's get something straight right away:

1) One need not hate women to be a marriage striker. One only has to see that legal "marriage" is not for them. They don't even have to see legal "marriage" (LM) as a bad thing to see that marriage isn't for them, or that Wilcox's argument in the Prager University video was severely misleading.

2) It's not just about divorce. It is about the whole process of getting into a relationship and being in LM.

3) One need not hate women to see that most American (or British, or Canadian or...) women are not good wife material.


The subtitle:
The divorce revolution has created a large minority of men who are ambivalent or hostile towards sacrifice, commitment, women, and marriage.

Many marriage strikers are willing to sacrifice. They just aren't willing to make the sacrifices required by today's LM and social marriage for your typical American woman.

Many marriage strikers do make all sorts of commitments. But they are unwilling to make certain bad or harmful commitments. If a realtor was offering you a rapidly deteriorating house that already wasn't meeting your needs, for a seven-figure price requiring a mortgage with a 15% interest rate, and you said "no", would that mean you're "hostile towards commitment"?

Many marriage strikers are not hostile or ambivalent towards women. They just don't see LM as any  benefit to them, even if they're with a great woman.

Yes, marriage strikers are hostile or ambivalent towards LM, because LM is nothing but potential and actual downsides for men.

In the video, I noted, among other things, that married men work harder (about 400 more hours), smarter (they’re less likely to quit without having found another job), and more successfully (they make about $16,000 more per year) than their single peers. I described these as features, not bugs, of married life for men.
Yes, and you were thoroughly countered by many people, including me.
For men, marriage equals slavery: “Marriage, in essence, is a man choosing his slave master.” For men, marriage equals unrequited sacrifice: “So married men work 400 hours more per year than single men; that’s not a good thing. They’re not hanging out with their friends… They’re sacrificing their life for other people. Now, you may think that’s noble, but that’s not a benefit for the man.” For men, marriage equals emasculation: it means “giving a woman power over your life, power over your income.”
Where are we wrong in respect to present legal and social "marriage", as described in the Prager U video?

Lots of men out there harbor a deeply misogynistic view of the opposite sex, an unremittingly negative view of love and commitment, and a complete lack of faith in marriage to deliver on their deepest dreams and desires.
Again, recognizing LM for what it is is not misogynistic, nor is calling women out on their bad behavior. One can believe in love and commitment and still see LM as something to avoid; at this point, I'd say LM undermines love and commitment.
Some of this, it seems, is about a kind of Peter Pan syndrome, where guys don’t want to grow up and settle down. Some of it is about a kind of individualistic hedonism, where guys don’t want to forego the opportunity to set their own work hours, hang out with their friends on their own terms, and score as much with the ladies as they can.
Some, not all. For others, it is actually about being the most responsible and productive person they can be. Why is it considered "settled down" to constantly cater to an irrational, entitled person?
The stories and the invective I’ve heard in response to my video make clear that a lot of the MGTOWers think marriage is a bad bet for men.
And you haven't shown them to be wrong.
It often ends with the man losing primary custody of his kids, a substantial share of his assets, and control of a large fraction of his income.
Yes, it does. And yet you still are trying to convince men to do it.
Social scientists estimate that about 42 percent of first marriages end in divorce and about 66 percent of divorces are initiated by women. This means that a lot of men are divorced unwillingly, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for not-so-good reasons.
And let's not forget... that's just the ones ending in actual, legal divorce, not the ones that are dead or miserable or would have ended in divorce if someone hadn't died (including been murdered by their spouse or committing suicide) first.
It’s this experience of divorce, or the expectation of divorce, that leaves many men reluctant to tie the knot.
Well, that, and the conditions of present-day legal and social marriage itself. Let's forget about divorce for a second. Why would men today sign a contract that assigns certain obligations to them, but guarantees them no benefit? Why would a man want to share a bed and living space and his time for the rest of his life with the average American woman, doing her bidding?
Judging by the emails, comments, and videos my Prager University video engendered, many of these men think the best they can do is score with lots of women rather than settle down with one woman (and then be discarded).
Some of them, yes, but others have long-term exclusive relationships and others avoid women altogether as much as they can.
One tragic consequence of what we might call the Maxim Masculinity view of love and marriage is that fewer men will seek to cultivate the virtues that make them good lovers and husbands, to their detriment and the detriment of the women in their lives.
How is that to the man's detriment? And men can be good lovers without legally being a husband. This is really about women. You haven't explained, honestly, how a man benefits from legally being a husband.
Another tragic consequence is that more men will end up uncared for, unhappy, and unhealthy in later life—that is, if they make it into late life: unmarried men live almost 10 years less than stably married men.
First of all, Dennis Prager (Prager University has his name) teaches that happiness is a moral obligation, so whether a man is married or not, he can be happy, right? So that's irrelevant to this discussion. Secondly, as I've pointed out before, these statistical claims are highly suspect because it is possible women marry men who are healthier over men who are unhealthy, and we really need to only consider men who are intentionally unmarried when comparing to married men.

Plenty of men who married are uncared for. whereas many unmarried men are cared for. If we're talking specifically about illness and dying, a man who doesn't spend his money on a wife (or getting married, or getting divorced) can have plenty of money to pay for excellent care.

Notice the weasel words "stably married"? How many marriages are stable? By golly, a woman marries a healthy man and she's good to him and it is one of the minority of marriages that is happy and stable and look at that! He lives until 82 instead of 72, spending those last ten years dealing with a shriveled woman who has lived off of him and prevented him from doing so many things he wanted to do when he was younger, and who will outlive him and enjoy the money he earned and saved.

So the ONLY possible benefit he's explained for men is that they might live longer if they marry, but we're not really sure that is because he married, but it'll be more years of convalescence, gained by giving up lots things he wanted to do when he was younger. Is that really a benefit?
(Needless to say, findings like these suggest that, for most men, marriage bears little resemblance to slavery.)
What is it called when someone is forced to work for someone else, and forced to do things other people want them to do?
The biggest tragedy of all is that many of these men will end up having sons who end up just as disconnected from women, marriage, and family life as their MGTOW fathers.
Some of these men do/will have sons. Or course those sons should be taught the truth about today's social and legal climates. That won't be tragic for the sons, It might be bad for women who were counting on being parasites on them.

This argument is circular. "Oh, no, men who have correctly assessed the situation might have sons who do correctly assess the situation as well!" Wilcox started this whole thing trying to convince men it was good for them (primarily financially) to marry. He failed at that. So now he's apparently trying to subtly pivot to how awful it is for women that some men have figured things out.
This article is republished, with permission, from the blog of the Institute for Family Studies.
Why, Federalist, why?

Here are some of the comments at the Federalist:



It is not the act of divorce that turns men into women haters, it is the court system and the judges who preside over it. Case in point was my own divorce.

My wife had her quirks until she became pregnant where upon the lost it. She became a hypochondriac to the nth degree where she took off a year from work (she's an engineer) for a mythical illness, but because she was a woman, so the company said nothing. After she resumed work, she became slowly psychotic and violent. She would throw temper tantrums at the slightest provocation and even became abusive towards our son. Eventually, she became so intolerable that divorce was a necessity. During the divorce she claimed that everything was my fault and nothing, not reports from counselors and psychiatrists, not testimony from the counselor my son was seeing, not the police reports, or anything else, would sway the judge. He was of the firm belief that the man was always at fault so she got custody.

What followed was hell for my son who quickly developed a number of extensive and profound psychological illnesses that disappeared when he came to visit me and reappeared when he went back to mom. Meanwhile she kept me tied up in the courts for trivial issues. In one case she accused me of not paying child support and the judge wanted to penalize me severely even after I showed him records from the state proving her claim to be false. This went on for years with my ex canceling my own doctor's appointments, her calling the police on me and even acted as my spouse to gain access to my medical records. The courts and judge refused to take any actions against her for she was just a woman and I obviously had issue that I needed to work out. Eventually, things with my son blew up and the courts were forced to rule that he should live with me and since hen, he has accomplished nothing short of a miraculous recovery. Meanwhile, my ex has been fired from six different employers, is currently unemployed, and still blames me for everything. The only thing that saved me was her moving to another state a thousand miles away.

If you think this was an isolated incidence, then think again. A good friend of mine is a mechanical engineer whose wife (unemployed) started having an affair with a local drug dealer. They divorced and she got the kids. It did not matter that she refused to get a job, that she had moved in with a known drug dealer, or that she was arrested from time to time for simple possession; she kept the kids. One days she was picked up in a neighboring state transporting drugs for her boyfriend so she went to prison. My friend got custody of his kids (who as he stated, were malnourished, badly clothed, in poor health and very much behind in school), but when his ex was released from prison, she petitioned the judge claiming she was a new woman whereupon she got the kids back. I have since lost track of this fellow so I do not know what the final outcome was.

The bottom line is that men are considered to be second class citizens in a divorce. What makes this even more frustrating is the rhetoric about women demanding more wages for less work,demanding more rights, and so forth. So, is it the woman they used to love leaving them and the crushed heart that makes men bitter towards women or is it the system? In my mind there is no question.
Awful.

Believing that our society does not value men, masculinity, or fatherhood does NOT make a man a "woman hater". Believing that divorce and family courts are unfairly skewed against men does NOT make a man a "woman hater".
Like I said.



Since women are no longer socialized to take care of home and hearth or men, and sex in a marriage is most often described as "Sexless" what exactly is the reason for marriage? What are the benefits of marriage for a man? I was taught to cook, clean and care for myself by feminists. So short of regular sex, what function does a woman serve in my life that I can't pay for or do myself without the nagging, judgement, or scolding of a woman?


Thats not true. I was raised to cook and clean, do laundry but only so that way I can take care of myself. Those actions never crossed my mind with regards to men. It was only instructed so I can take care of myself as a single woman. As for the sexless marriage well, women are fickle when it comes to sex. Men may want it a lot but women is a take it or leave it situation. many women decide to leave it.
You see that? Ari, apparently, and according to her lots of other, don't really care about sex. So what happens is that men sign on the dotted line and then the women stop pretending they want sex.


And I agree that we all should take care of ourselves first. But if women are "fickle" in sex (and often other things) then why bother lashing oneself to them? Again there are simply no benefits in the current marital contract for men, especially when a single accusation of abuse real or made up in a fickle fashion can render us wards of the state as rapists.
Good points.


Well look at sex from a different prospective. As a woman our bodies are not always ready willing and able. With men that is not the case. Look at how the female is objectified. We are told to want sex, to please a man and to be like men when it comes to sex. While dating women may act like that but I do not think that is what they really want. When some men look at women, it is not with love, it is with lust. Why on earth would a woman want to have sex with a man if she knows he does not really care about her but rather what he can get from her? Not saying all men are like that but some are. Additionally, even during sex, the most common position is doggy style with the men plowing away while the woman is looking at a pillow. Some women may like the position but it just shows that he is probably not thinking about me up there just his body and his needs. Not to mention that sex may feel good but men are usually the ones to finish.
So again, sex is no fun for these women unless it is a means to some other end.
Yes, I know that women are not always ready to go. But that is more based in the female sexual response timeline, which is slower than a mans, but most women will admit that once they got started they did get into it.

Women are objectified, and so are men. We may differ in the specfics of how the opposite sex objectifies us, but both sexes have the "burden" of objectification. I have seen enough gushing posts on Ryan Reynolds or Ryan Goslings abs to know that some men are objectified just like women.

Women do want sex. And often have just as strong or stronger sex drives, but the caveats for women are usually much more involved than for men. http://www.theatlantic.com/sex...

"While dating women may act like that but I do not think that is what they really want." Which leads to the "Bait and switch" that so many men are/have experienced. While dating women are warm, loving, caring and sexual, once their wedding fantasy has been fulfilled, those nurturing acts dry up. And then five-8 years later, she can say things like "all you want is sex" "all I am to you is an object" "I want a divorce" Which helps produce men like the author is discovering.
You have a very limited view of how men think about sex (and perform sex). We often connect deeply during sex with our (long term) partners. Sex is a language all in and of itself, like dance. Doggie is great to see the curve of the waist to hip ratio (a big turn on for many guys), also allows for deeper penetration (both sexes like this). Any position can be great sex, but it does depend on the partners involved. Why do you think "He is probably not thinking about me...just his body and his needs?" Why can't he be thinking about both? Yes men want to get off during sex, just like women. But many a man will go to great lengths to get a woman off as well.



And I read the article but there was a flaw in the argument. The moment they mentioned the fact that women will use sex to get what they want dismisses the whole notion that women like sex. It does not mean that she likes sex, it just means that she will have more sex with a man in order to get more things from him. With me, I dont like sex. I have seen it, never had it and know I will not want it. Additionally, because I want nothing from a man, i have no real reason to have sex.
The whole ryan gosling thing is crap. I am sorry but the male body is not that attractive unless it is a statue. I think women see men more along the lines of what he can do can me than his physical attributes.


And yes some women give the bait and switch but people always have a tell. With women, it is their taste in the finer things, who her friends are, things like that can tell who a woman is on the inside. but men are too busy enjoying the sex, the supposed affection to pay attention. And the nurturing does not really dry up per say but it is just displayed to the baby if they have one. For those that don't it could go to the dog or her hobbies or her job.
And I know about the conditioning of men and sex. Men connect more during physical intimacy but women do not as much. They connect, that I will not deny it but an emotional connection has more intimacy for women. Well I do think men are not thinking about how much he loves a woman during sex because men tend to have one directional minds. Well maybe it is because women can always have two different things going on. Yes she could be having sex but she is not thinking about him in that moment, chances are, her mind is racing about work, life, other things. Even during solo sex, the mind has other thoughts as well. At least for me, my body is doing thing but the mind is thinking about something. Also I am cynical and it has been shown that men can have sex with no emotional attachment so that does not bring much security in my thinking.
Why aren't you rushing to sign over half of everything you'll ever earn, men??
 

You might not think the male body is attractive, but plenty of women do. I would agree that the closer that body is to the male ideal the more women find it attractive. (Ryan Gosling vs John Candy) But you are confirming what many men believe about women, namely that our objectification of you is sexual but women's objectification of us is about utility. What can you get from us while trading sex as the currency. It seems like prostitution-lite.

You clearly don't understand that men and women both can connect just as deeply during sex. Nor do you have much insight to a man's mind if you believe, "men are not thinking about how much he loves a woman during sex because men tend to have one directional minds."

I read your last reply and realized by this commment "With me, I dont like sex. I have seen it, never had it and know I will not want it." That you are a virgin and have no visceral experience with the topic we are discussing. So I doubt there is anything more to discuss between us. You have helped show that this culture is producing women that just want men for their utility ("Additionally, because I want nothing from a man, i have no real reason to have sex.") And offered the near perfect foil as to why men are dropping women other than sex.
Indeed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I have to approve your comment before it appears. I won't reject your comment for disagreement - I actually welcome disagreement. But I will not allow libelous comments (which is my main reason for requiring approval) and please try to avoid profanities. Thanks!