Despite commonly held beliefs that men are quick to abandon the marriage, I pointed out that statistically in America the wife is two times more likely to file for divorce than the husband is (roughly 67% of divorces are initiated by women). And that is exactly what happened to me. I'm not going to go into too much on that either, since my ex is not a public figure and this post isn't about her, so I will only say that she divorced me due to two reasons: 1) I'm a Calvinist and, she said, "Calvinists are going to hell." And 2) "God told me to divorce you." Consequently, two different churches (the church I am a member of, and the one she was a member of) have both told me they consider it an unbiblical divorce that I am not responsible for and thus am free to remarry should I ever go insane and think it's a good idea. (I may have added that bit about insanity...)
Anyway, given those numbers, I can easily imagine a scenario where Harris's wife left him for unjust reasons, and as a result of that Harris turned his back on God, just as I can imagine that he destroyed his marriage himself before turning his back on God. I know from personal experience how hard it is not to rage at God when an evil you don't ask to endure and which goes against every fiber in your being is perpetuated against you anyway. In my case, by the grace of God I cannot even conceive of the possibility of a universe without a deity holding the main attributes of classical theism, and my studies have shown me that Christianity is so far beyond all other religions that it is the only religion that could possibly be correct. So, I could not reject God without rejecting reason.
And in the midst of pain it becomes quite easy to want to jettison reason. Sin isn't reasonable, after all.
With that serving as background for this post, of the statistic I mentioned (2/3 of divorces being initiated by women), AMC asked:
What do you think accounts for these statistics? Would your speculation be that it is grounded in some typically feminine quality? Maybe that men are typically 'less fussy' than women? Or that women typically take a broader approach to communication and, because of that, assume that men (who tend to focus on what is communicated in words) ought to be mind readers (in other words should be able to pick up on broader forms of communication) and it is a problem when they fail at that?So let me answer this here. To be clear, I'm speaking generally so don't take any of the following as indicative of my own situation. Some of it applies; some of it doesn't. And I'm not going to tell you which applies to me and which I've seen applying to others either.
To begin, I wouldn't say that this is something that is grounded in a "typically feminine quality" although there could be aspects of it that are. Rather, there seems to be quite a cultural shift going on. Now, it's possible the culture shifted because we're moving toward some underlying aspect of femininity that was hidden by cultural norms before, so I wouldn't rule it out completely. However, I actually think it's a fundamental human problem that currently disproportionally affects females.
Divorce became easy when "no fault" divorces became the standard. There was no longer any need to justify the destruction of a marriage covenant; you could do it whenever you felt like it. Additionally, our legal system is designed to benefit women in divorce proceedings and judgments. Women nearly always get custody of children, for example. Men nearly always have to pay. The inequality in divorce outcome is so extreme that comedian Bill Burr's comments are true: "You marry a girl, you fall in love, you buy her a house. You go to work every day, paying off the house. You come home one day, she’s [with] the next-door neighbor, hands you divorce papers. You gotta move out, sleep on a futon, and still pay for that house that she’s gonna stay in."
Society as a whole treats women as Disney princesses and men as Harvey Weinstein. When divorces happen, people tend to see women as victims of it and men as the cause. And this extends even through the church when it comes to the level of services provided. Virtually every church I've attended has a ministry to divorced moms so they have support with kids and such. I've never seen a ministry to divorced men who no longer get to see their kids except a handful of days per year (partly, I'm sure, because it's harder for men to ask for such support and churches have limited resources, so they're going to go where they're requested first).
All of these factors combine to make divorce a lot easier for women than for men. Men almost universally get financially ruined by divorce. Many women end up leaving the marriage making more money from their ex than they made before they got married--often marrying right after college (which requires their husband to pay off their school loans through his income) and never having worked a day in their life. What this means is that there is a huge disincentive for men to divorce and an even larger incentive for women to divorce the instant they decide they no longer want to take the effort to be with their man. Add in the fact that other women all around will encourage them to dump their guy and go after someone who will appreciate them like they deserve. This all adds up to women becoming twice as likely to trigger divorce than men are. (This is also why I say it’s not due to something inherent in feminine nature, since if men had that overwhelming advantage they would divorce at the higher rate too.)
If you really want to see just how bad things have gotten in relationships just find someone and ask: what do men provide women in a relationship? The answers you'll get are typically going to be along the lines of finances, shelter, security, safety. Then ask: what do women provide men in a relationship? Listen to the crickets. Or, if you're talking to a liberal, the screeches of how sexist you are for even asking the question and daring to presume women should provide anything to men in a relationship.
What this is also doing is creating the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) movement, in that more and more men are realizing that it is simply not worth getting married in the first place. When you know that a woman can take 50% of your income, the house, car, kids, and all that solely because you committed the grievous sin of believing her when she swore before God, "Until death do we part", then who would rationally agree to this arrangement?
Put it another way. Being alone is less ideal than being with a loving spouse--there is no question about it. But being divorced is far, far worse than being alone. For myself, I think I’m about 90% ideal when I’m alone, and the divorce crashed me down to below 50%--probably around 40%, I'd say, and it's taken years for me to get back up to where I now feel around 90% again. I don’t think the numbers I assign are abnormal either. If being alone keeps you at about 90% of "ideal", and being divorced crashes you to about 40%, is it worth risking a 50 point drop for the best case scenario of gaining a measly 10%? And again, that’s the best case scenario! Days when she’s cranky and upset at you, you might even be below the 90% you’d have alone.
As a result of all of this, what we are seeing is that women are far more likely to pull the trigger on divorce, and men are for more likely to never marry in the first place. Neither bode well for the continuation of the family structure. Which is probably Satan's plan all along.
Even with that said, I have to admit that yes, I am basically MGTOW myself, in that I cannot recommend any man get married in today's culture. I'm all for a Biblical marriage, but an American one? No. Save yourself from that travesty.
Thanks for this post, Peter. A lot of hard, but often necessary truths to hear.
ReplyDeleteAs a divorce lawyer, I can say that the wife nearly always initiates the divorce.
ReplyDeleteThe old saying is true. For a woman it's not good enough to stay. For the man it's not bad enough to leave.
What do you mean a biblical vs American marriage? Is a biblical marriage a hypothetical that you don't believe does exist in American culture? As in using biblical as an adjective essentially synonymous with "godly"? Or are you distinguishing between marriage within the eyes of the church /community vs an American legal union?
ReplyDeleteBy "American marriage" I mean all the civil laws that surround marriage in America. It can almost certainly be extended to most/all of the West, but I limited it to America given that I don't have as much exposure to other Western laws regarding marriage. The American legal system treats marriage as a joke and rewards one party for destroying the entire thing. Biblical marriage treats it as a sacred covenant that ought not be entered into without careful consideration, and which cannot be exited from apart from death (and the exceptions granted due to the sinfulness of mankind, where one party engages in sinful behavior to the point of undermining the covenant).
DeleteGiven that Biblical marriage is not enforceable so therefore has no "teeth" to back it, we have de facto American marriage in the US, no matter what either party thinks going into the marriage. The only Biblical marriages in America happen despite civil law, not because of it, as there is literally no downside for women to abandon the marriage--in fact, a woman unjustly abandoning her marriage will not even be told she is in need of repentance by her church, but will instead be celebrated as being brave and will garner all kinds of support through various church programs, etc. And even if her local church happens to know what she did and condemns it, she can merely go to another church that will never tell her she sinned and needs to repent for what she did. The same is not true of men, who even when they are divorced against their will, are treated as if they must have cheated on their wife and who, at the very least, have shown they are incompetent to run their own household and therefore Something Is Wrong With Them.
Falling in love with someone can be a wonderful thing....but it's a bad idea for a man today to get a official marriage license from the state in today's USA. It is the official marriage license that is a significant cause for the woman to have so much leverage.
ReplyDeleteIf a man and a woman truly love each other, why do they need to have that recognized by the state? Shouldn't vows before God be enough?
Ideally, vows before God should be enough. But legally, the state will destroy whom they wish to destroy. And if you try to keep the state out of it, they will declare a common law marriage and then run divorce proceedings on you anyway should your spouse decide to leave you.
DeleteNone of that changes who is accountable to God. But that does nothing to address the immediate concern when the state legally takes away half of your paycheck and you are forced to subsidize the evil being committed against you.
There is no righteous women? No not one?
ReplyDeleteDid the author of the original post say that?
DeleteI am curious as to what his implications meant.
DeleteFunny as I didn't IMPLY anything but outright said what I meant: "(This is also why I say it’s not due to something inherent in feminine nature, since if men had that overwhelming advantage they would divorce at the higher rate too.)"
DeleteI strongly recommend Dalrock for men who wish to learn just how deep the rot has spread even within the Christian church. Even Doug Wilson, a man most would assume is a raging patriarch, has views on marriage and authority and submission that could destroy any marriage. He has even gone soft on divorce- not on men who initiate divorce, mind you, but women. Just like our feminist society.
ReplyDeletehttps://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/07/27/pastor-wilson-discovers-the-secret-meaning-of-1-cor-7/
Also:
Deletehttps://www.aaronrenn.com/masculinist
https://itsgoodtobeaman.com
It's Good To Be A Man says some good things, but I say read them cautiously, like a wise serpent. They came out on the scene taking shots at Dalrock as they were establishing their own brand of biblical masculinity. When confronted, they act like they did nothing wrong. Kinda like Doug Wilson does whenever anyone catches him spewing feminist nonsense.
DeleteTo be fair, I don't always agree with Dalrock either. :)
DeleteNeither do I. Similarly, I often agree with Bnonn & Foster. The problem with them is they demonized Dalrock, then acted like they didn't do that. They're dishonest, and they went after an honest man to distinguish their brand.
DeleteI don’t know if that’s true or false apart from your say-so; there’s often two sides to a story.
DeleteFair enough. Here's my side.
Deletehttps://fullmetalpatriarchy.wordpress.com/2019/07/09/why-im-suspicious-of-the-its-good-to-be-a-man-project/
Prince Asbel
DeleteI spoke with both Michael Foster and Bnonn Tennant at It's Good to Be a Man. Both said they tried to reason with you more than once. Apparently Michael Foster also spoke with you over the phone. It sounds like no consensus was reached despite fair attempts to do so.
A couple comments.
ReplyDeleteYou get rid of no-fault divorce and I think the dynamic straightens itself off.
Some women treat life like a buffet (to steal a line from Bill Burr). They take what they like and don't care about what they don't like. How much concern is there that there isn't equal representation in deep sea oil rig workers between men and women?
"You get rid of no-fault divorce and I think the dynamic straightens itself off."
DeleteI'm not sure it will fix everything, but it will vastly improve it.
And I agree with your use of Burr :-D
I'm not going to get involved in a big back-and-forth here, but it is only accurate to point out that percent of divorces "initiated" refers only to court proceedings initiated, not to who left whom. That is to say, it is possible for A to cheat on B or state that A wants a divorce, to abandon B, etc., and for B to end up being put down in court records as the one who "initiated" the divorce. This has to be borne in mind, because it means that statistics about whether men or women "initiate" divorce more often are much less informative than one might assume. It certainly does not follow that 67% are frivolous divorces. I can think of cases within my own knowledge where I don't know who "initiated" proceedings in court, but I know who "initiated" the breakup of the marriage (and I'm speaking of both men and women here), and if the innocent party had initiated proceedings in court that would not mean that he (or she) initiated the breakup of the marriage. Just something to bear in mind when one tries to interpret that oft-cited (in certain circles) statistic.
ReplyDeleteLydia,
DeleteYou are correct that who initiates divorce does not prove who had the greater fault in the marriage failure, but I think you are being overly generous to the women involved by supposing the men to have the greater fault.
"Consequently, two different churches (the church I am a member of, and the one she was a member of) have both told me they consider it an unbiblical divorce that I am not responsible for and thus am free to remarry should I ever go insane and think it's a good idea. (I may have added that bit about insanity...)"
ReplyDeleteThat last part was hilarious! At least frm my perspective (the husband whose wife blindsided me with a divorce). However, I am surprised that the church "she was a member of" was willing to state they thought it was an unbiblical divorce. That's almost like finding a unicorn.
Peter, would you be open to coming on the Chi Files podcast and discussing what you've written here, MGTOW, and the difference between Biblical marriage and American marriage with me? I think this is a consideration that needs to be on more people's radar.
ReplyDeleteDrop me a note at askeladd4 [at] protonmail [dot] com if it's of interest to you.