The Demise of Marriage

[Cleisthenes]

Britain is experiencing record low levels of marriage. In absolute numbers, marriages are now lower than even when Britain's population was but half the present figure.

What do we think of this? Do any of us western males intentionally plan not to be married? Do the male feminists here think that feminism has anything to do with the reluctance of mainly men to tie the knot?

Here is a thread in which a female psychologist blogger discusses the issue with men in this position, and a wikipedia article on the marriage strike phenomenon.

Recall, in this context, the earlier survey that over half of British males report feeling emasculated by modern society. The fruits of feminism, in the end, may be that western women are becoming increasingly toxic on a long-term basis. Shag 'em, but don't marry them or get them pregnant--that appears to be the opinion of many western males.

[Gaidin]

The nuclear family must be going out of fashion.

I'm not sure it matters until their population count starts crashing, if even then.

[Cleisthenes]

Birth rates are, in fact, below replacement levels. It's 1.8 per a woman, as opposed to the 2.1 that it needs to be.

Britain is shrinking. Well, native Britain is, anyway. The immigrants, untouched by feminism, expand quite well.

[LoZz]

Birth rates are, in fact, below replacement levels. It's 1.8 per a woman, as opposed to the 2.1 that it needs to be.

Britain is shrinking. Well, native Britain is, anyway. The immigrants, untouched by feminism, expand quite well.

the birthrate in the uk is at a 25 year high. it hasnt been 1.8 in along time.

so marrige has no effect on birthrates.

people are just chooseing to marry less. and just co-habit. thats all. no biggy. and while marrige is going down civil ceremonies are going up, marrige is a church only thing, people are just doing it less at church.

[Cleisthenes]

the birthrate in the uk is at a 25 year high. it hasnt been 1.8 in along time.

so marrige has no effect on birthrates.

No, birth rates are at all time lows in Britain, bolstered only by migrant births, which are one in five of all births. In 1970, you dudes were averaging 2.4 children or so per a female, which is rather virile but was descending from a high of approximately 2.9 five years earlier. Briefly around 1978, the birth rate dipped sharply to a rock bottom of about 1.7 per woman but rose up within a few years to about 1.9 or so.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/320/7250/1626/a.pdf

Why the drop around 1978? I have a guess. I was born that year, and as news of my stunning awesomeness spread throughout the world, it discouraged British parents from having children that would be forced to compete with me... Well-played, chaps, jolly good show.

people are just chooseing to marry less. and just co-habit. thats all. no biggy. and while marrige is going down civil ceremonies are going up, marrige is a church only thing, people are just doing it less at church

Nope. That is lowest on record for civil and religious combined.

There were 236,980 marriages, the fewest since 228,204 were recorded in 1895. In 1895, there were around 30 million people in England and Wales compared with more than 54 million now.

Religious marriages numbered fewer than 80,000.

Of the 157,490 civil weddings, 95,300 were held in "approved" premises - stately homes, hotels or even football ground hospitality suites which have been permitted to stage weddings since 1995.

So, the article is about as damaging to the reputation and prestige of marriage as it first appeared.

[LoZz]

No, birth rates are at all time lows in Britain, bolstered only by migrant births, which are one in five of all births. In 1970, you dudes were averaging 2.4 children or so per a female, which is rather virile but was descending from a high of approximately 2.9 five years earlier. Briefly around 1978, the birth rate dipped sharply to a rock bottom of about 1.7 per woman but rose up within a few years to about 1.9 or so.
.

uk birthrates are at a 25 year high. 1970 was more then 25 years ago, so well played there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...publicservices

[removeduser_487563287433]

This is clearly the end of the world.

[Shaun]

I can see why people may not want to get married nowadays though. I mean, why should I enter some silly contract to prove my love to a woman? I'll be buying a house with my name on it. If I was to marry, and say we were to divorce, then divorce lawyers would probably end up making me give half of it to her. It simply isn't worth it, for me.

Marriage in a females mind: what's mines is mines, and what's yours is also mines.

Plus, as Lusted shows, unmarried cohabitating couples are perfectly capable of bringing up a perfectly good family. Marriage simply isn't needed.

This is clearly the end of the world.

I don't think anyone is saying it is the end of the world, Ferrets.

[Gaidin]

Yea uhh...Britain will be like southern texas is with the illegal mexican immigrants pretty soon.

[Lusted]

What do we think of this? Do any of us western males intentionally plan not to be married? Do the male feminists here think that feminism has anything to do with the reluctance of mainly men to tie the knot?

I don't plan on getting married, but that does not mean I do not plan on spending most of my life in a relationship with another person. For example my parents have been together for 28 years, have 2 kids(myself and my sister), and provided a stable loving home for us before we both grew up, got jobs and moved. and they have never been married. The simple fact is more couples are choosing to co-habit than to get married.

Don't assume that because marriage rates are lower than it somehow has something to do with feminism, when in fact it has more to do with changing attitudes towards marriage itself.

Birth rates are, in fact, below replacement levels. It's 1.8 per a woman, as opposed to the 2.1 that it needs to be.

Britain is shrinking. Well, native Britain is, anyway. The immigrants, untouched by feminism, expand quite well.

So what, women should just stay home and give birth to more kids or something?

[Gaidin]

So what, women should just stay home and give birth to more kids or something?

YES!

Learn from the best I always say.

[Shaun]

So what, women should just stay home and give birth to more kids or something?

It means that if she has less than two kids, or doesn't plan on have two kids in the future, it's rather hypocritical of her to read the Daily Mail and complain about immigrants out breeding the natives. You'd be surprised at how many Daily Mail readers are hypocrites. Or not.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Yes but you have been whipped into slavery by feminism and outbred by negroes Shaun. What do you know.

[Cleisthenes]

Don't assume that because marriage rates are lower than it somehow has something to do with feminism, when in fact it has more to do with changing attitudes towards marriage itself

That's just what the guys in the article cited as the crux of their concern, so... the dangers of marriage to a male do appear to be on their minds.

The link was broken. Here.

I’m a single, never married guy. Professional, good job, etc. Have been dating a great lady for almost a year. I thought I was ready to ask her to marry me (she has been hinting for months that she wants to marry). Problem is, at least 7 out of 10 guys I talk to tell me that it is one of the worst mistakes that they every made. Some tell me not to marry American women, that they are all feminist at heart. One married guy told me that I could get the same effect by selling my house, giving all my money away and having someone castrate me. This is really starting to un-nerve me and the more I learn about the legal bias against men, I’m beginning to back off of marriage. I love my girlfriend, but all of these guys say their girlfriends changed once they married and begin to dominant and control. I am starting to think marriage in American can not be saved.

[Shaun]

I certainly am nobody's slave, and is it not mainly other whites from Eastern Europe and Asian families which are 'out breeding' the natives? But hey, who needs to actually debate the topic at hand when they can spout irrelevant rhetoric?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Quite!

[johnny5000]

I don't really believe in 'the institution of marriage' being a government and religion sanctioned bond between two people. But it does have a lot of legal benefits that people don't get if they're just living together.

Of course, I think those legal benefits should be available to any long-term cohabitants, not just people who are married.

[Lusted]

That's just what the guys in the article cited as the crux of their concern, so... the dangers of marriage to a male do appear to be on their minds.

Ah but that's more to do with how the legal systems in both the UK and US treat men in divorce cases than anything else. Franly it just seems like people are blaming feminism for things which are not caused by it, or by things which are acreedited to feminism but are infact more akin to the views of feminazis.

[chriscase]

I don't know how true this is in the U.K., but in the U.S., there are significant legal rights that accompany marriage. Many who might otherwise wish to forgo marriage itself reconsider in light of this.

[Cleisthenes]

I don't know how true this is in the U.K., but in the U.S., there are significant legal rights that accompany marriage. Many who might otherwise wish to forgo marriage itself reconsider in light of this.

The rights in the article are rather sparse, once the verbiage is parsed into actual benefits, and mostly economic in nature. A guy doesn't marry for money or stability quite as often as women, therefore he's less likely to be persuaded by such rights.