Post Millennial Marriage Strike

What I see?

Men want what they want.

Women want what they want.

Neither one sees marriage as a partnership where each has to give and take in order to make the other happy and find fulfillment themselves. They see it as binding themselves to an alien other who will make them stop getting what they want.

In short, people are too narcissistic to commit. They're in love with themselves.

a reply to: hotel1

I think men are making the personal choice to wait later in life to get married

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, people are so caught up in their own world that the idea of committing to anyone else with even slightly differing opinions sounds like hell.

We are very much a line in the sand society

a reply to: hotel1

I'm sure some of those types exist, yes. Hopefully not in such high percentage
Also in existence are some abusive men, both physically and mentally, men that say women are equal to them because they let us be (wtf), men that will gladly let women support them while they drink all day.
And more

I don't think that either gender can be stereotyped though.

I've had bad experiences with men like the above, I didn't find my husband until I was in my 40s, and we waited for 10 years of living together to get married. Marriage offers an element of protection in the law if protecting assets after one spouse dies could ever become an issue with the other one's family

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, people are so caught up in their own world that the idea of committing to anyone else with even slightly differing opinions sounds like hell.

We are very much a line in the sand society

So would it be fair to say you consider this trend to be for the worse.

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: hotel1

I'm sure some of those types exist, yes. Hopefully not in such high percentage
Also in existence are some abusive men, both physically and mentally, men that say women are equal to them because they let us be (wtf), men that will gladly let women support them while they drink all day.
And more

I don't think that either gender can be stereotyped though.

I've had bad experiences with men like the above, I didn't find my husband until I was in my 40s, and we waited for 10 years of living together to get married. Marriage offers an element of protection in the law if protecting assets after one spouse dies could ever become an issue with the other one's family

Thank you. It wasn't my intention in posting the thread to highlight the faults of the sexes and certainly not women in particular. I intended for the discussion to attempt to establish if the viewpoints actually existed, and if so should we be worried for society as a whole because of them.

Kind regards and best wishes to you and your husband.

originally posted by: acackohfcc
I've lost half my 'stuff' twice

I'm old and have little, but I'd like to keep what I do have.

Sorry to hear that. I am unable to discern if you are male or female.

a reply to: hotel1

Maybe with some luck, the worst of both genders will mate, and their children will rebel at the atrocities that their parents are, and will themselves become better people

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: hotel1

Maybe with some luck, the worst of both genders will mate, and their children will rebel at the atrocities that their parents are, and will themselves become better people

Well that's an idea that I hadn't considered, here's hoping.

a reply to: hotel1

I'm not sure, I can only speak from personal opinion. Having a stable home is important and marriage has lot of benefits for everyone involved as long as it works. Marriage is a lot of work and is not for the selfish and we are becoming more and more selfish society

a reply to: TrueBrit

Chivalry is dead.

Along with most of the principles it stood for.

a reply to: johnwick

Nah...

It's not dead, it's just had to pull an Obi Wan Kenobi, circa a new hope, and bugger off somewhere quiet to avoid going stark raving bonkers as a result of sociological alterations which have negatively effected its ability to seem relevant to society as a whole!

Every single thing you've accused women of, in your post, are reasons I've had to break up with men. It's not just women holding these traits.

Men are just as shallow, full of bullpile, callous, duplicitous, and generally full of #headedness as women.

Source: 42 year; old never married, no # trophies, don't live on credit. -Don't want yours, or your baggage (figurative 'you').

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: hotel1

Maybe with some luck, the worst of both genders will mate, and their children will rebel at the atrocities that their parents are, and will themselves become better people

Given the little ones tend to learn how men and women are supposed to act by watching mommy and daddy behave and how they treat each other ...

This is self-perpetuating cycle in many cases.

If kids rebelled so well against certain cycles, there would be no second, third and fourth generation welfare. Kids would see that it's an unhappy life and rebel to better themselves. So that leads to one of two conclusions: either they can't help it because they learned that life from their parents and are brought up to it or welfare must not be all that bad.

But back to the point: If little kids grow up with narcissistic parents who have regard only for themselves and their own needs, that's like what kind of adults they will become. Not universally, but it will be the trend they follow.

The trend is undeniable so that cannot be argued against. The opinions expressed for this trend in the so called "Manosphere " do exist to a greater or lesser degree. Other opinions on the reasons for the move away from marriage exist. The trend is there for all to see yet the evidence for it so far is anecdotal and far from conclusive. Thanks to all for the participation so far.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: hotel1

From my perspective this seems like a no brainer.

Why would somebody voluntarily engage in a contract that involves a woman, money, lawyers and government?

Temporary insanity .. no longer young and stupid do far better without the baggage of a useless wife..

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: johnwick

Nah...

It's not dead, it's just had to pull an Obi Wan Kenobi, circa a new hope, and bugger off somewhere quiet to avoid going stark raving bonkers as a result of sociological alterations which have negatively effected its ability to seem relevant to society as a whole!

I have to agree with this, I am chivalrous myself.

It isn't that it is dead, it is simply unappreciated and under attack as a custom.

Again, it isn't the ceremonial agreement of marriage but the abuse of the institution as a legal contract that has caused it to fall from public favor.

Deleted

Double post

Both young men and young women see our cultures current trajectory, VERY CLEARLY.

Are they more self absorbed than previous generations and a little naive about their ability to influenced political change? Yes. But make no mistake, they know exactly where our country is headed and both marriage and children have no place in it.

I've said all of what I am about to say before and I've gotten a LOT of flak in the process, but YOUNG people know all of it to be true and are opting-out of the system by any means they can imagine, despite having little real-world experience. Millennials and young X'ers have essentially chosen a solution to their problems that requires no changes in current law and no support from the politicians running the current system and most folks over 40 hate that solution.

Newborn babies, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants destroy the wage negotiating power of the 99% and the 1% know this. Children born today, WILL be both jobless and skill-less labor in the near future. People should be discouraged from making more people. When there are no more legal or illegal immigrants and no more “newborn biological DNA babies”, Americans would see both increased wages and a reduction in prices for vital goods & services, due to decreased demand (assuming the supply and demand principle is actually true within the USA economy). Regular people have run out of options, we must now actively choose to stop feeding the “industrial complex” with more bodies, ready to labor for less and less. To believe any different is simply naive. Millennials despite having no real-world experience, instinctively know this is the answer. What we have in 2015, is an overabundance of labor on the market. The 1% use this fact to artificially drive down the wages of the 99%.

The “owners of capital” have already decided, FOR US REGULAR PEOPLE, that there are going to be LESS jobs available in the NEAR future, due to increased automation and modern, corporate, labor cost-cutting measures. These measures will affect and include ALL contract work, ALL self-employment opportunities and ALL small businesses, NOT JUST payroll laborers.

So, I ask again, where do newborn children fit into that plan, circa 2015?

The answer is NONE.

From the Millenial view, as a typical “wage-slaves”, the answer is, newborn babies, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, destroy the wage negotiating power of the 99%. Children born today, WILL be both jobless and skill-less labor in the near future. Basically we have TOO many people being born and not enough desire on the behalf of the “owners of capital” to employ them all for the sake of having a stable and safe civilization to live in day to day. The Owners of Capital want more people born, not simply for “growing the future tax base”, but for the true purpose of DECREASING overall wages for everyone. More people MEANS less jobs and pay per person, affecting even the educated and highly skilled. Its actually quite simple for the peons/peasants of the world to start having more say in how the world is run. Simply don’t have children, nor support those having children. The result will be soaring wages and diverse employment options expanding for all. Taxing those without kids more is a subconscious way to influence the birth of more kids, by punishing those whom are abstaining from having kids in their own best FINANCIAL interests, while also not giving into the desires for increased populations coveted by both government and large corporations.

Its easier to “pay less” or “nothing at all” to contracted or indentured “labor” when there is another willing laborer/slave waiting in the wings to do the work for less or nothing at all. Its actually quite simple, if those not in the 1% refused to get married or have babies, from here on out & blocked any future immigration, the 1% would very quickly need to raise wages. Otherwise nothing the 1% want to get “worked on” would ever get done. When low-wage/low-skilled labor becomes scarce in the larger market, wages go up.

In the past when there wasn’t enough money to go around to pay both wages & PROFITS, the “owners of capital” simply brought in more indentured servant immigrants (Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc) or used flat out slave labor (Blacks, Native Americans, domestic prisoners, POW’s, etc). The only difference between now and then is that “owners of capital” can’t LEGALLY have slaves or indentured servants, BUT they have the same pressures as before, to keep their high wages flowing and laborers working, even when there isn’t enough “PIE” to go around to pay those laborers for services rendered. The mechanisms today that replaces slaves and indentured servants are the following: longer than needed formal education for basic employment, off-shoring of labor, forced retirement, prisoners and welfare.

The largest “recorded” wage increase to happen in history, for non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency, was after the black death pandemic, in the 14th century, especially in post-pandemic England.

How is that possible?

Because “the owners of capital”, post-black-death-pandemic still needed wage-laborers, but there was a HUGE shortage of able bodied people. So, in order for ANY work to get done, they had to pay the peasants and other undesirables more money, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. This principle is still at work today, when you take the time to recognize that sizable portions of the population are actively discouraged from participating in the full-time labor market. This is easily done, by throwing people in prison, forcing them to attend formal school longer and allowing more people to claim themselves as disabled or collect long/short term welfare. The next obvious step for government to further reduce the number of people participating in the full-time labor market is to allow them easier access to welfare, or as some have been recommending lately, a guaranteed minimum wage/allowance that everyone gets, without having to provide labor to an employer first. This above noted cohort of non-participants collecting a base amount of guaranteed welfare/allowance, will likely keep wages stable for those whom are still working full-time. If all people capable of working full-time, entered the job market simultaneously, wages would crash and to a certain extent have, as of 2015.

Contrary to popular, academic and authoritative opinions, history has already proved my above inference to be VERY effective against the quest of the 1% to drive down wages. Hence, if people NOT in the 1%, refused to get married and/or have babies from here on out & aggressively blocked any future immigration, both legal and illegal, the 1% would very quickly need to raise wages for non-land owing/peasants/undesirables/wage-laborers, etc. Otherwise nothing the 1% want to get “worked on” would ever get done. When low-wage/low-skilled labor becomes scarce in the larger market, wages go up, FOR EVERYBODY. For us the peasants, “self induced labor shortages” is one of the few ways to get the “owners of capital” to pay attention and start offering higher wages for services rendered. The formation of Unions also has a similar effect, but Americans have already voted against their interests in that respect. All they have left now, to negotiate with, is making less babies and stopping both legal & illegal immigration.