• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The War On Men

DiscussingTheTopic said:
The number of men [18+A] years old and older is smaller than the number of women 18 years old and older for A greater than zero.
Translation for other readers: If the men marry women younger than them on average, and there is a growing population, there are more women available to marry than men.

Completely agree. This point is explained nicely in "The History and Philosophy of Marriage". http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/links

The greater supply of women is not caused by the birth rate, but by the difference in marriage ages. When this exists, the birth rate and relative difference in marriage age together determine the ratio of marriageable women to men - the higher the age gap, and the higher the birth rate, the greater the number of women per man.
 
FollowingHim said:
DiscussingTheTopic said:
The number of men [18+A] years old and older is smaller than the number of women 18 years old and older for A greater than zero.
Translation for other readers: If the men marry women younger than them on average, and there is a growing population, there are more women available to marry than men.

Completely agree. This point is explained nicely in "The History and Philosophy of Marriage". http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/links

The greater supply of women is not caused by the birth rate, but by the difference in marriage ages. When this exists, the birth rate and relative difference in marriage age together determine the ratio of marriageable women to men - the higher the age gap, and the higher the birth rate, the greater the number of women per man.

Thank you for sharing that online copy of a book.

FollowingHim said:
the higher the age gap, and the higher the birth rate, the greater the number of women per man.

FollowingHim said:
The greater supply of women is not caused by the birth rate
It might be better worded, "The greater supply of women is not caused by the birth rate alone"
 
The Exodus of Men

An interesting survey by the Pew research was released this week. Titled "More Women Bread Winners", my inital reaction was "hooray!" Of course, reading the entire article revealed that more women are now bread winners by default. They aren't educated, married, full-time working mothers. They're single moms living in poverty or just above that.

Where do all these "men" go? It's like they just make a mess and then fall into a vacuum.
 
Re: The Exodus of Men

P. Jagger said:
Where do all these "men" go? It's like they just make a mess and then fall into a vacuum.
Oh, the men are still contributing child support. They're just told they are not needed in the home, now that the kids are born. Only their wallets.

And many of those breadwinning moms are just above the poverty level in their own earnings, but doing fairly well when that child support is figured in. While the men they have discarded are struggling to meet their 'obligations' and still survive.

Of course, that isn't universally true. But there is lots and lots of other research saying that, what with all the programs in place to help women and children, men are getting the very short end of the stick.
 
Of course, it is all the evil women's fault, it has nothing to do with men not wanting to be responsible for the children they help create?

:roll:
 
Didn't say that, Bels. But research I've read says that well over 50% of divorces aree initiated by women over the objections of the men involved.

Many men, not all, feel that with responsibility comes authority and privilege. And vice versa. If a woman takes their children away from them, then the women should shoulder the responsibility. Otherwise, wither leave the children with their father (who will do so gladly), or remain in the marriage. But forcing him effectively out of the kids' lives, yet holding him financially responsible is, in their opinion, unjust.

One proposed solution has been that if a woman sues a man for child support, he could, at his option and barring a compelling proof that he is an unfit parent, choose to take custody of the children instead and automatically force her to pay the amount she sued him for. Or vice versa.

Many consider that a more equitable solution than the current default of the woman nearly always gets the kids, and the man is on the hook for whatever amount she gets the courts to decide, based on his best past earnings, whether he's earning anywhere near that now or not.
 
CecilW said:
Didn't say that, Bels. But research I've read says that well over 50% of divorces aree initiated by women over the objections of the men involved.

Please note P. Jagger said
P. Jagger said:
. They're single moms living in poverty or just above that.

Where do all these "men" go? It's like they just make a mess and then fall into a vacuum.

No mention of being divorced, remember a great many of those single mothers wouldn't have been married in the first place but abandoned by men who then go on to impregnate another woman and the cycle continues, that problem is far more endemic than the unwilling male divorcees with minor children.

I care little for the balled of the resentful divorced dad because there is far worst happening out there with regards to lack of male responsibility that clinging onto this one issue is frankly preposterous. Women, whether they want child support or not don't want to keep their children for the money, they want to keep them because it would rip their hearts out not to! And until men carry and birth babies I don't really care about them screaming about how unfair it is, please note grown men, life is not always "fair".... I thought this was a lesson we were all taught in childhood?

B
 
Isabella said:
No mention of being divorced, remember a great many of those single mothers wouldn't have been married in the first place but abandoned by men who then go on to impregnate another woman and the cycle continues, that problem is far more endemic than the unwilling male divorcees with minor children.

I stand corrected.

I care little for the balled of the resentful divorced dad

That's clear, Bels dear. But don't you think it might possibly be more than resentment? Does it occur to anyone that losing their wife & kids tears the heart out of men just as much as women -- they are merely told from childhood to man up and hide their grief?

Not all men, true. And I certainly agree that some men have never fully engaged with their kids in the first place.

Finally, I shouldn't have taken this discussion this direction, but should have prolly answered P Jagger by saying, "They're out playing the next desperate lonely young lady," or somesuch. That fits the accepted profile / stereotype of the irresponsible male. Certainly the movies reinforce that picture.

But sometimes I wonder... And talk to the men ...

PS: Fairness aside, emotions aside, how about just? Is it just? Would the suggested alternative be more so?
 
CecilW said:
That's clear, Bels dear. But don't you think it might possibly be more than resentment? Does it occur to anyone that losing their wife & kids tears the heart out of men just as much as women -- they are merely told from childhood to man up and hide their grief?

I feel sorry for anyone in pain, though I have yet to meet a resentful man whose actions did not proved why he was divorced in the first place, some who have been abusive, neglectful and irresponsible fathers. I have also known divorced men who are well involved with their children, have a great relationship with their ex wives and happily pay above and beyond what they are required to pay for their children because they are responsible men who love their kids more than they hate their ex wives! Now that is a man who will attract other women to him, not someone whining over every dollar and cent.
Not all men, true. And I certainly agree that some men have never fully engaged with their kids in the first place.

I know a man going through a divorce at the moment and his wife is begging him to come see his son, he doesn't want to bother, he only wants her, if he can't have her, he doesn't care to see his son. Needless to say,he doesn't want to pay for him either.
PS: Fairness aside, emotions aside, how about just? Is it just? Would the suggested alternative be more so?

I think many of these men are shining examples of why their wives ended it in the first place, saying they should 'stay in the marriage' just because some men resent having to pay child support...you think that is more 'just'?
B
 
Isabella said:
I think many of these men are shining examples of why their wives ended it in the first place, saying they should 'stay in the marriage' just because some men resent having to pay child support...you think that is more 'just'?
For interest's sake, let's cut off both ends of the curve.
** On one end are men who don't mind being divorced, are happily engaged with their kids, and pay child support+ with no resentment.
** At the other end are those men who are total skanks and their women are well shut of them. Yes, they'll resent paying child support, but SHOULD be made to.

I'm not concerned in this discussion with either extreme, but with a large percentage in the middle. Men who've done nothing wrong except work too hard to support their families, and be guys instead of sensitive women's BFFs.

He is more interested in football and Nascar than in crochet patters and recipes, he doesn't always share his feelings, sometimes has to work on date night, and doesn't always have enough money to provide the latest electronic gadgets or take the family on expensive vacations. Sometimes he's even too tired on a weekend to go BBQ in the park.

So the wife decides she doesn't need him anymore, or want him, and darn well will NOT follow his leadership and off she goes taking the kids.

Yeah, I think that the above proposal would be more just.
 
Whoa, whoa, whoa... Ok, mom. Dad. This isn't divorce court, let's not re-create my childhood, please.

I don't know how we got so far off the bunny trail. Look, bastards (sorry for the offensive term but that's what they are) and the women who raise them have always been at a disadvantage and they still are. Meanwhile the men who father them carry on with their lives as if nothing has changed. There's no stigma placed on them. This problem is sadly on the rise.

Divorce is an ugly and expensive thing. If a woman can afford it, she's almost certainly not in poverty. I'd say she's lower middle class at worse. If she can afford the legal fees, she can probably afford to sue the father for child support should she need it. (Because for every one father who gladly pays there are a dozen who don't.) Low income women are really helpless. They need a stable male-figure and can't get one.

The problem here is that women and children are easily discarded. Women are the heads of the home in many families, sometimes spanning generations. Men who are enslaved to their desires come and go as they please. Its easy to see how resentment builds and boils over. Who's to blame here? The mothers? Fathers? Ultimately, the absentee father is responsible for his own actions, just like everyone else. But ultimately, he will suffer the least.

I don't have any solutions to this problem. Polygamy would help, but suggesting it on a grand scale is unrealistic. Also, I feel like fathers have just as much right and responsibility to their children as mothers,so polygamy is helpful here but not ideal.
 
Hmmmm a lot of stuff being tossed around here.

I can relate an observed situation with a couple we were long time friends with. Neither of them were 100% faithful. She was the type who wanted a godly husband, and became unsatisfied with the man she had. He was a hard working man, and a father who seemed to care very deeply for his children and be interested, and engaged in their raising. Admittedly, he may have been hard to live with as a husband. She left him, took all four kids, and because they did not have a legal marriage he was unable to find any recourse. The Four Square Church she found would not even recognize the marriage that they had, and called her a "single mother".....the pastor advised the husband NOT to even attend services there with his wife and children, and the woman's "ministry" she found that assisted her in fleeing her marriage is called Safety In Numbers. Just abbreviate that for me if you will. :roll:
I have found that people generally want support in doing what they want, not what they should, and in this case, she wanted support in leaving him, not working things out.
He has only seen his children twice in the ten years since she left. When I took our kids and went to the church she was attending she acted freaked out, and her friend babbled in tongues when she prayed...no interpreter either. How about another dose of irony, the pastor preached on faithfulness that day. I gave her a calling card and my number so she could call me...but she never did. In two years his oldest son will be 18 and he can look him up and try to establish an adult father son relationship.
One of the times she left him (happened several times) she took the kids to her mother in another state and left them while she ran off with a man who was attending seminary. The dad went up there, and informed the police of the situation, and went and picked up his kids. Ironically, when SHE was the one, who found out suddenly that HER kids were gone, she didn't like it a bit and came back to him.....for a couple more years.
I personally liked the suggestion of letting the father, provided he is responsible, have custody, and letting him sue the ex wife for child support. It would put the shoe on the other foot so to speak
For myself I cannot get past the golden rule on stuff like this, and I think it's sad that people have children...and still act like children themselves.

The world is definitely (in my opinion of course) on the side of the women, and most churches are too. It is backward, but we now have women's Bible studies, and accountability groups for the men. Women want godly men, but are unwilling to be their partner and support while they learn and grow into being the man that they need....and the next generation suffers, being raised in a home without a father.

I think a Biblical definition and understanding of love would go a long way. Love.....seeks not it's own. Selfishness is the opposite of love.

Just what thoughts I had time to write.
 
Reading the last post it got me to thinking....

Why aren't there any women's accountability groups? I have never heard of a single one, have you?

I guess women don't need those. They have outgrown them. Only children need accountability.

With tongue firmly planted in cheek,

Doc
 
CecilW said:
He is more interested in football and Nascar than in crochet patters and recipes, he doesn't always share his feelings, sometimes has to work on date night, and doesn't always have enough money to provide the latest electronic gadgets or take the family on expensive vacations. Sometimes he's even too tired on a weekend to go BBQ in the park.

So the wife decides she doesn't need him anymore, or want him, and darn well will NOT follow his leadership and off she goes taking the kids.

Yeah, I think that the above proposal would be more just.

I have never, ever come across this scenario. None of the divorced men I met or know (and I worked in a mostly male environment) fit this template. I think it is far too easy to label women who divorce men as doing it for superficial reasons but if you talk to them women Cecil, instead of just the men, you may find out that there are indeed real reasons and very often a long, long period of actively trying to save the marriage by the woman. Sometimes the men don't even take the woman seriously until she is walking out the door and it is just too late by then.

B
 
Joleneakamama said:
The world is definitely (in my opinion of course) on the side of the women, and most churches are too.
Just part of the truth. The world is only on the side of the first woman.
- First Wife = wonderful person who needs to be supported by church and state and allowed to keep her children in virtually any situation.
- Husband = person to be suspicious of when things go wrong in the marriage, blamed for problems, very rarely given custody of children
- Husband's second woman (whether an unconsummated love interest or 2nd wife) = dirty skanky whore who is unwelcome in any church.

The world and church are not on the side of any woman. Just the one that happened to get the man first. First in first served. Rather unfair.

If a man has an interest in a second woman, whether he's slept with her or not, the church will see her as a filthy skank but his first wife as a lovely mistreated lady deserving pity. They'll see the man somewhere in between - a naughty fellow who is capable of being redeemed if he behaves properly. They will universally tell him to abandon the second woman and go back to the first. The church sees the two women completely differently.

But GOD sees both women the same. He sees their hearts, created both of them, and loves both of them equally. It doesn't matter which got there first. He knows that both need a husband, and He provides for both in His laws, which are ignored by the church. The world/church instead sticks firmly to the side of the first woman, tries to change the man, and doesn't really care what happens to the second woman provided they never see her again.
 
FollowingHim said:
The world and church are not on the side of any woman. Just the one that happened to get the man first. First in first served. Rather unfair.

So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
Mathew 20:16 KJV
 
Isabella said:
CecilW said:
He is more interested in football and Nascar than in crochet patters and recipes, he doesn't always share his feelings, sometimes has to work on date night, and doesn't always have enough money to provide the latest electronic gadgets or take the family on expensive vacations. Sometimes he's even too tired on a weekend to go BBQ in the park.

So the wife decides she doesn't need him anymore, or want him, and darn well will NOT follow his leadership and off she goes taking the kids.

Yeah, I think that the above proposal would be more just.

I have never, ever come across this scenario. None of the divorced men I met or know (and I worked in a mostly male environment) fit this template. I think it is far too easy to label women who divorce men as doing it for superficial reasons but if you talk to them women Cecil, instead of just the men, you may find out that there are indeed real reasons and very often a long, long period of actively trying to save the marriage by the woman. Sometimes the men don't even take the woman seriously until she is walking out the door and it is just too late by then.

B


Bels,

You made a LARGE assumption that Cecil doesn't talk to women. Maybe you should apologize.

Jonathan
 
I cannot stand these people standing from on up high, judging modern women as if the problems between male and female interpersonal relationships are all the fault of women's liberation. ---- Bels.


I have got to say on this one I agree. Even when you look back to the beginning of our faith. Man in HIS role (ordained by God) failed. We chose to follow into sin as opposed to stand up for what was right and try to protect our bride. This example has been repeated throughout history. Us men, in an effort to ??? (be lazy, get away with sin, follow when we should lead etc etc)

And I have no problem with laying the blame back on the people who were commanded to lead (of which I am one) because then we can do something about it.
 
CecilW said:
The War On Men

Author: Suzanne Venkner (presumably NOT a Testosterone Poisoned Male Chauvinist Pig Patriarchal MAN! :lol: )
Source: Opinion Piece on Fox News, 11/24/2012 (Dunno how long these stay up, so I decided to preserve the text by posting it here as a quote.)

The battle of the sexes is alive and well. According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.

Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don’t.

The so-called dearth of good men (read: marriageable men) has been a hot subject in the media as of late. Much of the coverage has been in response to the fact that for the first time in history, women have become the majority of the U.S. workforce. They’re also getting most of the college degrees. The problem? This new phenomenon has changed the dance between men and women.

As the author of three books on the American family and its intersection with pop culture, I’ve spent thirteen years examining social agendas as they pertain to sex, parenting, and gender roles. During this time, I’ve spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women. And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.

Women aren’t women anymore.

To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically.

In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.

Now the men have nowhere to go.

It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s.

But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault?

You’ll never hear that in the media. All the articles and books (and television programs, for that matter) put women front and center, while men and children sit in the back seat. But after decades of browbeating the American male, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.

Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.

It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.

It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.

So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.

Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.

Couldn't agree more with this article. That's why I didn't want to get married for years. Real men long for real women.And real women long for real men.
 
Back
Top