Aaron, I would love your thoughts on this article. I found it fairly disingenuous. He's posing the common manosphere trope of anti-marriage as due to risk of failure. My guess is that most manosphere people posturing this position would say it is far less based on risk of failure as these same people argue to go out and start businesses (that can obviously fail) and far more on the data showing the entire system is somewhat rigged against males with women initiating most divorces and taking the kids and his money as she goes. (sidenote: I am happily married and am by no means a black-pill nor even listen to Tate or Pearl, etc)
It just seems like another stupid "man up" article telling men to do what society wants them to. One argument I particularly dislike is when they claim that marriage has benefits for men and then compare the welfare, happiness etc of married vs unmarried men. The comparisons are invalid because the two pools do not start off the same. Men who are selected by females for marriage typically start with much better prospects than men who are shunned for marriage and women avoid men who show self-destructive behaviours, depression, poor health etc. So looking at them 10 or 20 years down the track and claiming that marriage caused the better results of the married men is absurd. They were always going to perform better. Even worse, many of these studies either exclude outcomes for the divorced men, or even put them in the "unmarried" group so their divorce-caused poverty and unhappiness, which ultimately stems from their decision to get married, is not chalked up against marriage but rather against singleness!
For what it's worth, Brad Wilcox and Lyman Stone (who this author cites) are serious social scientists. It might not be clear in all their tweets and popular articles, but the research they cite is adjusting for a number of factors like income and education. They obviously can't adjust for everything, but from what we can see, marriage DOES, on average, make people happier, and the effect seems to be growing -- probably in large part because all other forms of social affiliation are also declining. Being single is the loneliest it's ever been.
Sorry, I've just read this research round-up by Lyman Stone on the effects of marriage on happiness and it has holes you could drive a truck through. It also includes logical errors by him - like the notion that if divorce makes you unhappy, then that means being married must make you happy (lol - nothing to do with divorce leaving you in a much poorer and more socially-difficult situation than if you had never married). He is not practicing neutral science he is a pro-marriage advocate. I am generally a supporter of marriage because it is the best way to raise children and continue society, but claims that it helps the adults themselves - and advantages men particularly - are weak at best. https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-getting-married-really-make-you-happier
I'm struggling to understand the distinction you're drawing.
"the entire system is somewhat rigged against males with women initiating most divorces and taking the kids and his money as she goes"
-- isn't this the same as the risk of failure? Some combination of "the probability of failure is too high" and "the costs of failure are too high." Those are two essential ingredients of any reasonable definition of "risk".
This downside-focused argument also seems different from what we might call the classic "cad" argument against marriage, which is that the single life (which may include a long series of temporary monogamous relationships) is better than an average marriage, maybe even an above-average one. More time with the boys, more time with your hobbies, more freedom, more sex with more different women who are more into you than a long-time wife would be anyway.
I've never listened to Tate, but I suppose my first guess is that something like the "cad" argument is closer to his core ways of thinking than the "marriage failure" argument. Though the arguments are complementary, there's no reason you can't argue both, even if one is more central to your thinking.
It's so funny how everyone comments on Tate but apparently no-one has ever listened to him! For what it's worth, Tate barely even talks about women. Feminists used his supposed anti-female attitudes to try and rub him out, but at least in terms of what's on the net now, he hardly addresses how men should treat women at all. He basically tells men to get fit, learn how to fight, and make lots of money. If you do that, according to him, women will come or go at your whim, so you can determine the terms of your relationship with them instead of sucking up to them. He also claims now to be a Muslim with traditional pro-family views. I don't like him because I think he promotes rank materialism and self-interest, but his opinions on women and marriage are almost a trivial issue in his worldview, unlike the central place they take for authors like the one in the linked article.
As I said before I do not listen to Tate or these personalities. I have just seen clips on the internet. I personally have been happily married for over a decade and would encourage anyone man anywhere to pursue a wife. It is absolutely a risk worth taking.
My distinction would be somewhere along these lines: If you wanted to open up a small mom and pop restaurant in the summer of 2020 in California I would advise against it not because of the risk of failure but because of the odds being heavily against you because of laws. If you wanted to open a restaurant in Florida in the summer of 2023 I would not advise against it because of "risk" in general. Of course it is risky but that risk would be normal.
My position on the article was that I believed the author was conflating risk in general and bad marriage (or divorce) laws. It seemed he was saying that people are arguing against marriage because they are scared of the risk as opposed to the argument against marriage because of bad laws, which I thought that was disingenuous.
Alright, I suppose I understand the distinction, though I don't really agree with it. Political risk is a type of risk that all businesses navigate. Furthermore, marriage is always heavily governed by some combination of law and custom. Those laws and customs are never perfectly fair to everyone.
It would be perfectly to correct to say:
1. Marriage always carries some risk.
2. The current legal regime makes marriage a riskier proposition than it ought to be.
3. Men who lean on this argument as an excuse to not get married still need to get over themselves. The risk/reward is worth it, particularly if you apply good judgement and principles in selecting a wife.
The author is missing #2 and goes hard on beating men up as cowards without acknowledging their legitimate grievances or addressing how to minimize the risk of marrying poorly. That's what makes it a bad article, even though it cites some good sources.
Thanks for these links I may see what these guys have to offer.
Aaron, I would love your thoughts on this article. I found it fairly disingenuous. He's posing the common manosphere trope of anti-marriage as due to risk of failure. My guess is that most manosphere people posturing this position would say it is far less based on risk of failure as these same people argue to go out and start businesses (that can obviously fail) and far more on the data showing the entire system is somewhat rigged against males with women initiating most divorces and taking the kids and his money as she goes. (sidenote: I am happily married and am by no means a black-pill nor even listen to Tate or Pearl, etc)
https://wng.org/opinions/men-and-marriage-1698180636
It just seems like another stupid "man up" article telling men to do what society wants them to. One argument I particularly dislike is when they claim that marriage has benefits for men and then compare the welfare, happiness etc of married vs unmarried men. The comparisons are invalid because the two pools do not start off the same. Men who are selected by females for marriage typically start with much better prospects than men who are shunned for marriage and women avoid men who show self-destructive behaviours, depression, poor health etc. So looking at them 10 or 20 years down the track and claiming that marriage caused the better results of the married men is absurd. They were always going to perform better. Even worse, many of these studies either exclude outcomes for the divorced men, or even put them in the "unmarried" group so their divorce-caused poverty and unhappiness, which ultimately stems from their decision to get married, is not chalked up against marriage but rather against singleness!
For what it's worth, Brad Wilcox and Lyman Stone (who this author cites) are serious social scientists. It might not be clear in all their tweets and popular articles, but the research they cite is adjusting for a number of factors like income and education. They obviously can't adjust for everything, but from what we can see, marriage DOES, on average, make people happier, and the effect seems to be growing -- probably in large part because all other forms of social affiliation are also declining. Being single is the loneliest it's ever been.
Sorry, I've just read this research round-up by Lyman Stone on the effects of marriage on happiness and it has holes you could drive a truck through. It also includes logical errors by him - like the notion that if divorce makes you unhappy, then that means being married must make you happy (lol - nothing to do with divorce leaving you in a much poorer and more socially-difficult situation than if you had never married). He is not practicing neutral science he is a pro-marriage advocate. I am generally a supporter of marriage because it is the best way to raise children and continue society, but claims that it helps the adults themselves - and advantages men particularly - are weak at best. https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-getting-married-really-make-you-happier
I'm struggling to understand the distinction you're drawing.
"the entire system is somewhat rigged against males with women initiating most divorces and taking the kids and his money as she goes"
-- isn't this the same as the risk of failure? Some combination of "the probability of failure is too high" and "the costs of failure are too high." Those are two essential ingredients of any reasonable definition of "risk".
This downside-focused argument also seems different from what we might call the classic "cad" argument against marriage, which is that the single life (which may include a long series of temporary monogamous relationships) is better than an average marriage, maybe even an above-average one. More time with the boys, more time with your hobbies, more freedom, more sex with more different women who are more into you than a long-time wife would be anyway.
I've never listened to Tate, but I suppose my first guess is that something like the "cad" argument is closer to his core ways of thinking than the "marriage failure" argument. Though the arguments are complementary, there's no reason you can't argue both, even if one is more central to your thinking.
It's so funny how everyone comments on Tate but apparently no-one has ever listened to him! For what it's worth, Tate barely even talks about women. Feminists used his supposed anti-female attitudes to try and rub him out, but at least in terms of what's on the net now, he hardly addresses how men should treat women at all. He basically tells men to get fit, learn how to fight, and make lots of money. If you do that, according to him, women will come or go at your whim, so you can determine the terms of your relationship with them instead of sucking up to them. He also claims now to be a Muslim with traditional pro-family views. I don't like him because I think he promotes rank materialism and self-interest, but his opinions on women and marriage are almost a trivial issue in his worldview, unlike the central place they take for authors like the one in the linked article.
As I said before I do not listen to Tate or these personalities. I have just seen clips on the internet. I personally have been happily married for over a decade and would encourage anyone man anywhere to pursue a wife. It is absolutely a risk worth taking.
My distinction would be somewhere along these lines: If you wanted to open up a small mom and pop restaurant in the summer of 2020 in California I would advise against it not because of the risk of failure but because of the odds being heavily against you because of laws. If you wanted to open a restaurant in Florida in the summer of 2023 I would not advise against it because of "risk" in general. Of course it is risky but that risk would be normal.
My position on the article was that I believed the author was conflating risk in general and bad marriage (or divorce) laws. It seemed he was saying that people are arguing against marriage because they are scared of the risk as opposed to the argument against marriage because of bad laws, which I thought that was disingenuous.
Alright, I suppose I understand the distinction, though I don't really agree with it. Political risk is a type of risk that all businesses navigate. Furthermore, marriage is always heavily governed by some combination of law and custom. Those laws and customs are never perfectly fair to everyone.
It would be perfectly to correct to say:
1. Marriage always carries some risk.
2. The current legal regime makes marriage a riskier proposition than it ought to be.
3. Men who lean on this argument as an excuse to not get married still need to get over themselves. The risk/reward is worth it, particularly if you apply good judgement and principles in selecting a wife.
The author is missing #2 and goes hard on beating men up as cowards without acknowledging their legitimate grievances or addressing how to minimize the risk of marrying poorly. That's what makes it a bad article, even though it cites some good sources.
Yikes - will put this in the digest.
Possibly one reason why (it has some language but it's comedy too) men are driven toward influencers like that:
https://youtube.com/shorts/3tiPPmPwG4E?si=qDZ2sqxEke621wXS
Off-topic: Rob Henderson's recent post, "Understanding the Young Male Syndrome," is outstanding. Would recommend:
https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/understanding-the-young-male-syndrome