Why should husbands do to prevent late divorces?

[mark clemson]

No doubt there ARE some bad marriages where things like this are the case (the woman taking advantage of the man in various ways and not really contributing much to the marriage).

I find it odd though, that your generalizations only go one direction. You think there AREN'T plenty of marriages where it's the man doing the taking advantage of??

You sound kind of like the people who ASSUME it's always the male doing the physical abuse in a marriage. Not so. And not so with it always being the female taking advantage of their partner and contributing less to the marriage either. It can be either.

It's also bizarre to think divorce is some bed of roses for women. For SOME it might be, particularly IF they collect spousal support AND work AND can find a new financially fit partner to share expenses with. But those are decent-sized IF's, and certainly not the case for all.

Incel energy/thought processes TBQH.

Edited May 3 by mark clemson

[Acacia98]

15 hours ago, CollinW said:

No you don't. This is what the women are telling you. 

I'm trying to imagine the amount of arrogance it takes to assume you know more about a person's own experience/testimony than they do.

And I find myself wondering why one would participate in conversation if they only valued one opinion: their own. Why not just go the monologue way?

[basil67]

15 hours ago, CollinW said:

What exactly are they doing to make their marriage work exactly? Are they doing what he wants them to do? If not, they're not "trying their best". 

On reading your further responses, I feel like your wording in this was off and is giving the wrong impression.  Perhaps what you're trying to say is that both parties need to be attuned to the needs of the other and do their best to give support.

What kind of things are you imagining when you say "doing what he wants them to do?"   

Edited May 3 by basil67

[Gebidozo]

4 hours ago, CollinW said:

Ahhh, the truth comes out. "I'm going to try to make the marriage work.....but I don't want to do too much work." if you don't want to serve your family, then it's not surprising men stop wanting to associate with you. 

But you don't want to make him happy, therefore he's not going to want to make you happy. No one cares about a useless woman that happens to be patient or less rigid. Why do you think your satisfaction takes precedence over his?

Are you in these people's marriages? Are you in their bedrooms? In their kitchens, a part of their arguments? Talk to a counselor or family therapist and ask them about the dynamics they encounter. 

Who is this “you” that you’re talking about? Do you realize that I’m a man? 

Are you in other people’s bedrooms? If not, then why do you think your life experiences are somehow more indicative of global tendencies than mine?

[Gebidozo]

4 hours ago, CollinW said:

Women simply want that servitude to be unilateral.

You should really stop making such silly generalizations. The most I can believe is that you were together with such a woman, she made your life miserable, and now you’re lashing out at the entire gender. Do I really need to tell you that it’s wrong?

That said, I don’t really believe that. You’re so bitter, belligerent, and unwilling to hear any other opinion but yours, that I highly doubt your marital problems were caused only by your ex wanting unilateral servitude.

 

4 hours ago, CollinW said:

"Hey husband be chivalrous, ready to do whatever tasks I don't want to, make me feel protected, entertain me with dates, be financially submissive and plan everything and in return when I feel like it and it's validating to me, I may throw you sex and give you a back rub". 

Marriages can't survive with this attitude and it's not shocking that men check out at older ages. Years of this cognitive dissonance must be terrorizing. 

Of course marriages can’t survive with this attitude. Except that I’ve never encountered this attitude either from any of my exes, or from any other woman I know. I’m 48, I lived in five different countries on three different continents, I know a lot of people, talk a lot about those issues, and read a lot about them. Obviously, I’m far from saying that such women as you describe don’t exist, but to assume that they can be viewed as representative of women in general is completely ridiculous.

It’s like saying “Men are abusers who beat their wives, never earn enough money, hate kids, and suck in bed! Marriage can’t survive with this attitude!”. Do you realize this is how you sound when you talk about women?

[CollinW]

6 hours ago, Gebidozo said:

You should really stop making such silly generalizations.

This narrative is so prevalent is virulence is seen through love shack itself. It's even in this thread. Women talking about giving men road maps to make them happy, not giving each other road maps to make the other person actually want to make the other happy. 

6 hours ago, Gebidozo said:

You’re so bitter, belligerent, and unwilling to hear any other opinion but yours,

We're simply having a conversation, and I'm just as dogmatic I'm my assertions as you are. The fact that you're taking offense to it to the point you're calling names literally proves my point about women's solispism. Literally. 

6 hours ago, Gebidozo said:

It’s like saying “Men are abusers who beat their wives, never earn enough money, hate kids, and suck in bed! Marriage can’t survive with this attitude!

The difference is men aren't in their marriages waiting for the woman to fulfill them or playing victim. Imagine a husband telling his wife "I'm not your sugar daddy, this is a partnership" when asked to take her on dates. Then running online a crying that she's not making him happy and wondering why she's checked out. 

[CollinW]

9 hours ago, mark clemson said:

You think there AREN'T plenty of marriages where it's the man doing the taking advantage of??

It happens, and it's happening more often in modern society, but it's not very prevalent simply due to hypergamy. The overwhelming majority of women wouldn't even look at a man unless there is some benefit let alone marry him. All the while women are doing a fraction of what previous generations used to. So what exactly is there to take advantage of? 

[basil67]

2 minutes ago, CollinW said:

This narrative is so prevalent is virulence is seen through love shack itself. It's even in this thread. Women talking about giving men road maps to make them happy, not giving each other road maps to make the other person actually want to make the other happy. 

We're simply having a conversation, and I'm just as dogmatic I'm my assertions as you are. The fact that you're taking offense to it to the point you're calling names literally proves my point about women's solispism. Literally. 

The difference is men aren't in their marriages waiting for the woman to fulfill them or playing victim. Imagine a husband telling his wife "I'm not your sugar daddy, this is a partnership" when asked to take her on dates. Then running online a crying that she's not making him happy and wondering why she's checked out. 

Interesting that you’d rather argue with Gebidozo than respond to my question where rather than assume,  I spoke of both parties working together to have their needs met and I asked what kind of things a man may want which women aren’t giving

[Gebidozo]

5 hours ago, CollinW said:

We're simply having a conversation, and I'm just as dogmatic I'm my assertions as you are. The fact that you're taking offense to it to the point you're calling names literally proves my point about women's solispism. Literally. 

First of all, do you even read my replies to you? For the second time: I am a man. How can you keep making silly generalizations about women based on the statements of a man?😪

Second, I’m not taking offense or calling you names. I just point out to you that your troubles with women might be caused, at least partly, by your condescending, patronizing attitude and your belligerently declared, yet patently false generalizations. 

Third, it’s just wrong to use “solipsism” as a synonym of “selfishness”. Solipsism is a philosophical term for an extreme form of subjective idealism. I doubt any of the women you accuse of solipsism really professes the doctrine that only the self exists.

[Gebidozo]

5 hours ago, CollinW said:

The overwhelming majority of women wouldn't even look at a man unless there is some benefit let alone marry him

Dude, you should really stop cluttering my thread with this kind of moronic slander😡

[mark clemson]

8 hours ago, CollinW said:

The overwhelming majority of women wouldn't even look at a man unless there is some benefit let alone marry him. All the while women are doing a fraction of what previous generations used to.

Again, and apologies to Gebidozo for cluttering his thread, this is over-generalizing as well as only pointing the camera one way.

Men too, won't have too much to do with a woman romantically unless they see "benefit" - e.g. attraction, sex, the possibility of raising a family, if desired, etc, etc.  So men are not so different - just looking for different things. Women who aren't very attractive "know the score" from being passed over just as much as unattractive men, if not more.

Secondly, there are women in all sorts of "modes". Hypergamy is a real phenomena, but it's by no means a blanket practice. There are attractive/charismatic men who are poor, but manage to always have a GF putting them up. Not hypergamy. Women are all over first responders, but you can't call marrying a cop/EMT/fireman/soldier hypergamy. There's LOTS and LOTS of paired up men where there relationship has nothing to do with hypergamy.

Reality is that women respond to a variety of different things and pursue a wide variety of what you might call "reproductive strategies." Men do as well.

Finally it's bizarre to think of holding down a job AND being the primary caretaker of kids (not always, but often enough) as "doing a fraction" of prior practices. The male definitely benefits when the woman brings money into the partnership. YES there are women out there who try to coast on their sexuality, but there are also MILLIONS and MILLIONS of women in the workforce. Your logic seems to being skipping right over that factual reality.

There are many ways for a guy to attract a woman. Will a well-off guy have a statistical edge, all other things being equal? Yes. But the same holds true for a girl with a nice body.

Edited May 4 by mark clemson

[BaileyB]

I have a friend who left her marriage because she wanted not to be a car pool mom with a travelling for work husband anymore… 

I would also say, my uncle divorced his wife after 40 some years of marriage… she was abusive towards him, they had nothing in common, they no longer had the same life goals - their marriage should have ended years before but he finally said, I can’t take this anymore and left. It was the best decision that he could have made. 

[basil67]

15 hours ago, mark clemson said:

Will a well-off guy have a statistical edge, all other things being equal? Yes

How does one define "well-off"?  

As a woman, I'd say that a guy who can demonstrate being sensible with money is going to attract more women, whereas a guy who's living hand to mouth while spending all his money on hobbies will not be so attractive.   And I dare say that if you switch genders, a  guy will also be more attracted to a woman who's in a good financial situation than one who fritters all her money.  

 

Edited May 5 by basil67

[CollinW]

On 5/4/2024 at 10:18 AM, mark clemson said:

Men too, won't have too much to do with a woman romantically unless they see "benefit" - e.g. attraction, sex, the possibility of raising a family, if desired, etc, etc.

What men want in women is inherent. We want women that are attractive and no s***, we expect to have a family one day and that involves sex. Most women are attractive to the overwhelmingly majority of men. The fact that you framed sex as a "benefit" to men reflects the sexist notion that sex is something men does to a woman opposed to a consensual act. I assure you that women want sex and families also. 

Men, primarily after the boomer generation, aren't dating with the intent they're going to get something out of them. This thread proves it. You have women that have been married and in relationship that view making their men happy as servitude. While these same women have expressed the demand of men doing stuff like paying for dates and initiating. 

On 5/4/2024 at 10:18 AM, mark clemson said:

There are attractive/charismatic men who are poor, but manage to always have a GF putting them up.

You don't seem to realize what this does to your own argument. This in itself is hypergamous and dual mating strategy. Essentially you're saying women either expect the top percentile in resources or the top percentile in genetics. 

On 5/4/2024 at 10:18 AM, mark clemson said:

Finally it's bizarre to think of holding down a job AND being the primary caretaker of kids (not always, but often enough) as "doing a fraction" of prior practices.

Women did all of that and more and still never looked at their contributions as indentured servitude. Just like men never looked at working themselves into an early grave and being willing to starve so their family could eat as slavery. 

[mark clemson]

10 hours ago, basil67 said:

How does one define "well-off"? 

a  guy will also be more attracted to a woman who's in a good financial situation than one who fritters all her money. 

I'd say it depends

[mark clemson]

5 hours ago, CollinW said:

What men want in women is inherent.

Most of what you've said is factually incorrect in the sense that it's an overgeneralization/simplification that doesn't take variation into account. For example, foot fetishes and desires for erotic submission are "inherent" for some men, but not for others. CERTAINLY not all men want a family.

Your characterization of what I said about fulfilling sexual needs is also incorrect. It's not sexist to claim many men might see sex as a benefit of a relationship (it doesn't mean that women can't as well), nor did I ANYWHERE suggest sex be non-consensual. Sorry, you don't get to drag me down to your own misogynist level with lies.

Dating poor men is not hypergamy - you need to check your definition. Nor does a guy who's good enough with women to talk them into letting them stay with them have to be in the top 1% of genes. He's probably not unattractive, but In fact if he's in the top 1% of genes it's very likely he'll have no need to do this as he'll find other ways to succeed in life. A guy who does this sort of thing easily might just be "decent looking" and have good social skills/be good at exploiting women's kindness or desire to have a man around, etc.

If women in a long term marriage feel what they're doing is "servitude" that probably has a lot to do with the expectations of their husband, how he treats them, what they are getting out of the marriage vs. being asked to put into it, etc. Which brings us back to the reasonable points most folks were making above. And I don't agree that women of past generations were necessarily thrilled to be stuck in marriages where their needs weren't being met either. The lack of other options is not the same as "being content".

If you were able to take a step back and recognize that your one-sided misogynistic over-generalizations are exactly that - one-sided misogynistic over-generalizations  - you wouldn't have posted them in the first place without some caveats. Then people (including myself) wouldn't have gotten on your case about them, and you wouldn't be continuing to fill up this thread with increasingly feeble attempts at backing them up.

The things you claim ARE very likely true SOME OF THE TIME for some women. That is reasonable and fair. But you need to own up to that instead of trying to paint women with such a broad and misogynistic brush and pass it off as "truth".

Edited May 5 by mark clemson

[basil67]

5 hours ago, CollinW said:

Women did all of that and more and still never looked at their contributions as indentured servitude. Just like men never looked at working themselves into an early grave and being willing to starve so their family could eat as slavery. 

I agree that you are right about some men and women some of the time.

But if everyone was happy, why did they change things?

If men were content to work themselves into an early grave, why was retirement, the age pension/superannuation invented?  And what was Fritz Lang's Metropolis if not not a reflection of men feeling like slaves working day in and out until they died?  

If women were content to keep pumping out babies and the drudgery of housework, why did some women refuse to have sex after having 3 kids? And why did those who could afford it employ servants?  And why did women seek a vote and the right to work?  And I'll think you'll find that if there was not enough money for food, it was the women who starved so that the children could eat and the man had the energy to work

Massive societal change doesn't happen if people are content with what they've got

[basil67]

A quick grab from research into 19th century women, attitudes and reform.  Note, "Real Womanhood" is an early version of feminism

Education was also thought to be essential to the Real Woman because of marriage, which was viewed not as the happy product of the "inescapable passions, conjunctions of stars, and melting oneness" envisioned by True Womanhood but as a potentially "risky" prospect since a woman had little chance of divorce (Cogan 103). Cogan points out that if a woman were not careful, she could easily find herself in a disastrous match with a drunkard, gambler, or rake. Therefore, instead of teaching a young woman "fiirting techniques . . . guaranteed to bring her romance," Real Womanhood offered careful strategies for gaining insight into the moral character of a prospective mate (103-04). Real Womanhood encouraged a woman to marry "a man who was hardworking, compassionate, and moral rather than one who was merely wealthy or physically attractive" (75). Regardless of how hard a wife tried to reform her husband, "one rarely managed to reform an alcoholic, a compulsive gambler, a chronic philanderer, or a wastrel; the behaviors usually continued, despite tears and promises to the contrary" (103). Therefore, though marriage was still considered a desirable possibility for women. Real Womanhood regarded the position of an educated spinster, able to support herself, as more desirable than that of an unhappy or abused wife. A woman's primary interest was in securing a "bearable future," as opposed to "bliss" (103). 

Sounds an awful lot like some women in awful marriages did indeed see their lot as indentured servitude, and this is why education for women became important

[basil67]

Link to source for the above https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=gsw_pub

[Gebidozo]

10 hours ago, CollinW said:

Men, primarily after the boomer generation, aren't dating with the intent they're going to get something out of them

You seem to have a hard time defining what “get something” means. First you say women want to “get something”, then you say “no s***, men want sex and family”. So both genders want something, right? Both genders want to love and to be loved, want warmth, affection, romance, sexual satisfaction, family, security, commitment. Why are you accusing women, but not men, of wanting to “get” those things, if we all want to “get” them, regardless of our gender? Either you agree that we are all “in it for something”, or just drop this whole “get something” thinking.

 

10 hours ago, CollinW said:

While these same women have expressed the demand of men doing stuff like paying for dates and initiating.

Women do initiate and do pay for dates sometimes, but most of the time, we do those things, because that’s the way we like it. You really want women to initiate and pay for you? This is some sort of a weird incel thinking.

If you don’t like women who demand those things, then simply don’t date such women. I don’t take a woman with that kind of a mercantile attitude on a second date, that’s all. But once you know that your woman loves you and doesn’t just want your money, why do you care what some other strange women think?

10 hours ago, CollinW said:

Essentially you're saying women either expect the top percentile in resources or the top percentile in genetics. 

 Please just read the bold part and either insist that men don’t care at all how women look, or marvel at the ridiculousness of your own statement. 

[CollinW]

On 5/5/2024 at 4:22 PM, mark clemson said:

foot fetishes and desires for erotic submission are "inherent" for some men, but not for others. 

A foot fetishes isn't a preference, as all women have feet. I'm sorry but that's a really stupid comparison. 

On 5/5/2024 at 4:22 PM, mark clemson said:

CERTAINLY not all men want a family.

What percentage would you say they do? If it's the overwhelm majority then there is no point fighting the generalization other than to make yourself feel right for once. The men that don't want kids usually aren't getting married. 

On 5/5/2024 at 4:22 PM, mark clemson said:

It's not sexist to claim many men might see sex as a benefit of a relationship

It absolutely is a sexist claim to characterize consensual sexual encounter as something a woman does for a man, or a man to a woman. That includes using it as some entitlement to hold over a man's head in a relationship. Sex is something grown adults do together, not some favor to one of the sexes. You sound like one of those men that think you owe a woman your life for some sex

On 5/5/2024 at 4:22 PM, mark clemson said:

Dating poor men is not hypergamy

Hypergamy is any dating strategy where women aim to date up or the most beneficial opportunity in her environment. It's usually socioeconomic but it absolutely could be genetically. If Oprah somehow pulled Chris Evans, she'd be dating up. 

On 5/5/2024 at 4:22 PM, mark clemson said:

If women in a long term marriage feel what they're doing is "servitude" that probably has a lot to do with the expectations of their husband, how he treats them, what they are getting out of the marriage vs. being asked to put into it, etc.

Think of how absurd this idea is.

So if the woman maintain the household and her husband takes her out once a month and she's not happy about that, it's servitude. But if the husband takes her out once a week and she loves it, her doing the exact same duties suddenly isn't servitude?

You see how stupid that concept is? 

Your roles and responsibilities in a marriage shouldn't be contingent on how you feel in the moment. And only women get away with this idiotic ideology. Since you think sex is a favor to men let's imagine If a man were one day to say "you know what wife, you didn't have sex with me last week. I don't feel like I'm getting enough out of this marriage so I'm not paying the mortgage this month because I feel like a financial slave", you'd think it would be an absurd notion because his responsibilities aren't contingent. And thus we see why marriage is a failing institution in the west. 

On 5/5/2024 at 4:22 PM, mark clemson said:

If you were able to take a step back and recognize that your one-sided misogynistic over-generalizations are exactly that - one-sided misogynistic over-generalizations

If you think saying women are hypergamous and need to focus bilaterally on happiness and conflict resolution, then your definition of misogyny and generalizations are worse than your idea of hypergamy. 

[CollinW]

On 5/4/2024 at 7:52 AM, Gebidozo said:

First of all, do you even read my replies to you? For the second time: I am a man.

Damn, that's scary. 

[NuevoYorko]

On 5/4/2024 at 12:03 AM, CollinW said:

This narrative is so prevalent is virulence is seen through love shack itself. It's even in this thread. Women talking about giving men road maps to make them happy, not giving each other road maps to make the other person actually want to make the other happy. 

Have you read the thread title?  It's "What should HUSBANDS do to prevent late divorce."  And the poster, asking this question, is a man.

Nobody's saying women / wives don't have a lot to do to keep a marriage healthy.  This topic pertains to HUSBANDS.

Not "virulent."  

[Els]

2 hours ago, CollinW said:

Your roles and responsibilities in a marriage blah blah blah

Are you married? Have you even been in a happy long-term relationship that lasted more than 5 years?

Whenever I glance at your posts, I see a lot of "women should" or "marriages should be" or "you should do this and that in your marriage"... but not one post about your own marriage or the woman in your life. Maybe you are just being very privacy-conscious, but more than likely you have zero experience in that which you love to preach about. On the other hand, many of the posters you are arguing with, male AND female, have happy marriages that have lasted for decades.

Honestly, this reminds me of a tech career subreddit that I participated in for a little while. There were a lot of fresh grads complaining about how the market is screwed, managers are terrible, companies are terrible, recruiters are terrible, everything is stacked against them, poor them. Yet when the few of us who actually have significant experience in the field try to offer any advice, we get downvoted into oblivion and the whinefest continues. Basically, a giant echo chamber.

I imagine you are used to participating in redpill echo chambers. Where everyone thinks that women are the cause of every evil that exists in the world, and the poor men are the victims of that. And you know what... it's your life. If this is how you want to spend it, then that's your prerogative. However, it isn't reality. The rest of us are enjoying happy LTRs or marriages, regardless of our genders.

 

[Gebidozo]

3 hours ago, CollinW said:

Damn, that's scary. 

Don’t be scared, I can’t really beat you up over the internet😁

3 hours ago, CollinW said:

So if the woman maintain the household and her husband takes her out once a month and she's not happy about that, it's servitude. But if the husband takes her out once a week and she loves it, her doing the exact same duties suddenly isn't servitude?

You see how stupid that concept is? 

Errr, no, what’s stupid is that you don’t seem to understand this simple concept. I don’t even know how to explain this to you. You appear to be thinking in rigid, pre-defined categories of something like “marital duties”, completely disregarding such vital issues as mutual agreement, consent, respect, compromise, and so on.

Of course it’s servitude when you demand and expect from a woman to maintain a household just because “that’s what women are supposed to do and were always doing before feminists came to power”. And of course it’s not servitude when a woman does that voluntarily and joyfully, probably because she feels appreciated and reciprocated by her husband.