NightSG

Worth a read

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I sometimes wish lds people had a matchmaker as some Jewish communities do.  But we are the free agency crowd.

yes, we are, and we have to live with the consequences of our own and other's choices, good and evil.

However, we need to use the power of "peer pressure" to enforce our mores. Divorce should be seen as evil in all but a tiny fraction of cases. Not being married should be castigated except in a tiny fraction of cases, especially among sisters who have potential mates, but find none of them "good enough". Our sisters are daughters of God, fer shure, but they are not princesses. Brothers who live with their parents until they're 35 should be kicked to the curb (long before then).

We have the goal of being married and raising righteous families, but our children are not following through: we're adopting the self-defeating, self-serving values of the world. We tolerate rebellion in this (and other) doctrines of the kingdom. We ought not do so. When the Returned Missionary next door asked a sister called to serve her mission if he could write her, she told him, "No" because she didn't want to be tied to anyone, because she didn't want to get married when she got home, she wanted to go to school. (They're not mutually exclusive.) I'm finding that the guilty parties in nearly all cases (divorces, not getting married at all, not having children when they are married, etc.) are the sisters. Too much Babylon, not enough Zion.

Yes, there are exceptions, but they are, by definition, exceptions.

And I wish I felt secure enough to express my true feelings on the matter. (No emoticon — I mean it exactly as written.)

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

 I'm finding that the guilty parties in nearly all cases (divorces, not getting married at all, not having children when they are married, etc.) are the sisters. Too much Babylon, not enough Zion.

What the what???

It's not fantasy that made the "Fear of commitment" a male stereotype for years.  It hasn't changed in the millennial era.

In any case, the rise of singles statistics has not much to do with gender but more on the shift in culture to secularism where marriage does not provide benefits anymore.  You want "love" - you don't have to get married to get it.  You want "children", you don't have to get married to have them.  You need a guy to lift the heavy things, you don't need to marry to have one at your beck and call.  You need a girl to keep you company, you don't need a wife, you just need phone numbers.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

because she didn't want to get married when she got home, she wanted to go to school. (They're not mutually exclusive.)

I see this one a lot; mid-late 30s, never married, never even in a real relationship, still waiting to finish a PhD, get established in a new career, or whatever before even serious dating.  I'd say it's second only to "I just need more time since my divorce" when it's been 3-5 years.

OTOH, I have one friend who's waiting for her fourth divorce to be finalized.  She does the "not ready to date again" thing for a year or two, then dates maybe 3 guys in two months and ends up married to one within four months of starting to date again.  I think her record so far is one four year marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, NightSG said:

I see this one a lot; mid-late 30s, never married, never even in a real relationship, still waiting to finish a PhD, get established in a new career, or whatever before even serious dating.  I'd say it's second only to "I just need more time since my divorce" when it's been 3-5 years.

OTOH, I have one friend who's waiting for her fourth divorce to be finalized.  She does the "not ready to date again" thing for a year or two, then dates maybe 3 guys in two months and ends up married to one within four months of starting to date again.  I think her record so far is one four year marriage.

I can name guys doing this exact same thing too... matter of fact, several are my cousins and nephews.  One of them is 42 years old, engineer with a master's degree, works at an important high-paying job.... 6 figures even... lives in a high-rise condo downtown that can be the front-cover of HGTV magazine.  Single, never been married, no steady girlfriend in sight.

But yeah, I don't know anyone who has been divorced 4 times.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I can name guys doing this exact same thing too... matter of fact, several are my cousins and nephews.  One of them is 42 years old, engineer with a master's degree, works at an important high-paying job.... 6 figures even... lives in a high-rise condo downtown that can be the front-cover of HGTV magazine.  Single, never been married, no steady girlfriend in sight.

Does he date at all?  Sounds like he could be having trouble weeding out the gold diggers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Does he date at all?  Sounds like he could be having trouble weeding out the gold diggers.

A lot of Filipinos don't date.  They have friends.  And mothers who insert their favorites into their children's circle of friends.  No trouble with gold diggers.  He just doesn't want to get tied up at the moment.  Like I told you... it's not only the women who are wanting to do stuff before getting married.  At least, with the women, there's a biological clock that is ticking.  The men don't have the same "deadline".

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

At least, with the women, there's a biological clock that is ticking.  The men don't have the same "deadline".

I'm at the point where a lot of the women my age who haven't already had kids have figured out there's no snooze button on the biological clock, and they're already into the high-risk years, so they've pretty much given up on a family.  I'd like to have at least one more, but that would mean I'd almost have to find a woman a few years younger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@anatess2

 Somehow the quote feature is not working.

Why do men fear to commit?

The answer is that it is dangerous, extremely dangerous, to commit, especially via marriage to a woman who can, at her whim, take half of what he has earned and all of their children. Men see this, and they know they risk everything by asking "Will you marry me?"

The laws make marriage a bad, logical, choice for men. We live in a matriarchy where women control men through law and men's natural reluctance to challenge women in the matters that really matter: family life. Divorces are instigated in 70% of all cases, by the wife, and, in "higher social status" cases, it approaches 90% — even higher in some regions.

While the Church is justly proud of the fact that our divorce rate is less than half that of the rest of the world, it's not really anything to be proud of: we still divorce, even Temple-Sealed marriages, at about 20%. Not all that eternally, as far as I can tell. And, it's the sisters who divorce, not the brethren.

We claim to marry for time and eternity, but we can't even do "time".

Women who want an education "just in case" are saying that they do not trust their husband-to-be to protect them. They are building a divorce into their plans. Men who say they want a "working wife" are protecting themselves against the divorce decree that they, too, are planning for. They both feel insecure in marriage because they see it all around, and the men, but not the women, must defend. Women will always be protected by the power of the state.

Their divorces, too, are not for substantial reasons: most are because they're "not happy". Marriage is not "happiness insurance", although we can be happy, very happy being married. But it is the person, not the spouse, who controls that.

Yes, if the guy beats her (or the woman, him, which happens at least as frequently), she (or he) has reasonable grounds for divorce. But not being "fulfilled" is neither reasonable nor legitimate.

What's the answer? I do not know: government controls marriage, we do not. Government has carefully trained women to vote for those who will make divorce pay off for them in alimony, child support and custody, and, even more so in welfare. Government does this to keep those in power who wield it.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

In any case, the rise of singles statistics has not much to do with gender but more on the shift in culture to secularism where marriage does not provide benefits anymore.  You want "love" - you don't have to get married to get it.  You want "children", you don't have to get married to have them.  You need a guy to lift the heavy things, you don't need to marry to have one at your beck and call.  You need a girl to keep you company, you don't need a wife, you just need phone numbers.

You say it ain't the sisters. You are wrong. There is more than enough blame to go around, certainly, but it is women (mostly, but not exclusively gentile women) who've given us the matriarchy that makes men unwilling to commit because of the high cost of marriage.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

You say it ain't the sisters. You are wrong. There is more than enough blame to go around, certainly, but it is women (mostly, but not exclusively gentile women) who've given us the matriarchy that makes men unwilling to commit because of the high cost of marriage.

Lehi

I have no words.  This is plain and simple sexist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, zomarah said:

One of the biggest issues affecting marriage is that we've relegated it to the realm of the state. Meaning that people think two people aren't married unless they have a piece of paper from the State saying they are. People need to recognize that marriage is from God, not the government. Just reading the scriptures we see that contracting a God approved marriage may consist of nothing more than "going in unto." In the proper perspective we realize that those engaging in sexual intimacy have become one flesh and the sin lies in their breaking of that commitment. So no, you can't have children without marriage because the sexual intimacy that created the children was the marriage. Then when you leave that person behind and continue on with a string of other "partners," you are committing fornication, probably adultery, and whoredoms.

 

I get what you're saying but I kinda disagree with this a slight bit.  It is not the issue that marriage is relegated to the realm of the state.  Rather, it is the issue that people don't believe there is value in religion.  You say it's fornication, they say it's the natural order of things... because not only do they not believe in the paper the state issues, they don't believe in the power the church issues as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

@anatess2

 Somehow the quote feature is not working.

Why do men fear to commit?

The answer is that it is dangerous, extremely dangerous, to commit, especially via marriage to a woman who can, at her whim, take half of what he has earned and all of their children. Men see this, and they know they risk everything by asking "Will you marry me?"

The laws make marriage a bad, logical, choice for men. We live in a matriarchy where women control men through law and men's natural reluctance to challenge women in the matters that really matter: family life. Divorces are instigated in 70% of all cases, by the wife, and, in "higher social status" cases, it approaches 90% — even higher in some regions.

While the Church is justly proud of the fact that our divorce rate is less than half that of the rest of the world, it's not really anything to be proud of: we still divorce, even Temple-Sealed marriages, at about 20%. Not all that eternally, as far as I can tell. And, it's the sisters who divorce, not the brethren.

We claim to marry for time and eternity, but we can't even do "time".

Women who want an education "just in case" are saying that they do not trust their husband-to-be to protect them. They are building a divorce into their plans. Men who say they want a "working wife" are protecting themselves against the divorce decree that they, too, are planning for. They both feel insecure in marriage because they see it all around, and the men, but not the women, must defend. Women will always be protected by the power of the state.

Their divorces, too, are not for substantial reasons: most are because they're "not happy". Marriage is not "happiness insurance", although we can be happy, very happy being married. But it is the person, not the spouse, who controls that.

Yes, if the guy beats her (or the woman, him, which happens at least as frequently), she (or he) has reasonable grounds for divorce. But not being "fulfilled" is neither reasonable nor legitimate.

What's the answer? I do not know: government controls marriage, we do not. Government has carefully trained women to vote for those who will make divorce pay off for them in alimony, child support and custody, and, even more so in welfare. Government does this to keep those in power who wield it.

Lehi

This is, of course, a guy's perspective.

In the Philippines where divorce is illegal, the male stereotype of fear of commitment is just as prevalent.

In any case, even in America, people generally don't contemplate marriage thinking they're going to get divorced. 

And women getting married don't see getting half of the assets as a benefit.  Women getting married end up having to pause their lives when the kids arrive... a lot of them losing out on valuable marketable skills in the workplace and as they get saddled with the children, their ability to find employment to support themselves becomes drastically limited.  If there's anybody who should be wary of marriage because of divorce, it would be the woman.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I have no words.  This is plain and simple sexist.

Yes, it is, and I stand by every word.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Women getting married end up having to pause their lives when the kids arrive... a lot of them losing out on valuable marketable skills in the workplace and as they get saddled with the children, their ability to find employment to support themselves becomes drastically limited.  If there's anybody who should be wary of marriage because of divorce, it would be the woman.

So what's the excuse for the ones who can't have kids or can't have more kids?  They account for plenty of the mid single women and all the beyond-mid ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Women getting married end up having to pause their lives when the kids arrive... a lot of them losing out on valuable marketable skills in the workplace and as they get saddled with the children, their ability to find employment to support themselves becomes drastically limited.  If there's anybody who should be wary of marriage because of divorce, it would be the woman.

So what's the excuse for the ones who can't have kids or can't have more kids?  They account for plenty of the mid single women and all the beyond-mid ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, NightSG said:

So what's the excuse for the ones who can't have kids or can't have more kids?  They account for plenty of the mid single women and all the beyond-mid ones.

The gist of the conversation was Lehi's claim that men don't marry because of the matriarchy of divorce.  That statement you quoted is a rebuttal to that claim that if there's anyone who wouldn't marry because of divorce it would be the woman.  It wasn't meant to excuse women who remain single.

The statistics of a rising unmarried population is not gender specific.  It is culture specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

What the what???

It's not fantasy that made the "Fear of commitment" a male stereotype for years.  It hasn't changed in the millennial era.

Indeed it has changed. Women of the rising generation have embraced that fear wholeheartedly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I have no words.  This is plain and simple sexist.

No more than what you wrote. I don't understand how "sexism" really enters into the discussion. It seems axiomatic (to me, at least) that women are half the problem in divorce. It is beyond dispute that the divorce laws have very steeply favored women throughout my lifetime. I'm all for putting the blame at the feet of those who own it, women just as much as men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

No more than what you wrote. I don't understand how "sexism" really enters into the discussion. It seems axiomatic (to me, at least) that women are half the problem in divorce. It is beyond dispute that the divorce laws have very steeply favored women throughout my lifetime. I'm all for putting the blame at the feet of those who own it, women just as much as men.

I have not put in any sweeping claim that WOMEN are the reason Men are Single nor that MEN are the reason that Women are Single.  If you think that anything I said approaches even within 10 miles of that sexist statement then I have failed in my communication.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Women who want an education "just in case" are saying that they do not trust their husband-to-be to protect them. They are building a divorce into their plans. Men who say they want a "working wife" are protecting themselves against the divorce decree that they, too, are planning for. They both feel insecure in marriage because they see it all around, and the men, but not the women, must defend. Women will always be protected by the power of the state.

I see this all the time, at least in the interweb world.

We advise, as a world, even as a church, for women to become educated. Great. An education is all the more help in becoming an interesting person, a boon to the world, etc., and yes, even a help in supporting oneself or a family if needed. I don't think many are knocking education for women.

But when I ever get bored and venture into the sahm vs working mom debates, a huge thing is "get an education and be working just in case you ever get a divorce!"

:huh:

The state of an educated wife and possibly mother is all about divorce insurance? Good grief! Not about exploring one's talents, not about growing in intelligence, not about the simple joy of learning and practicing skills, but in case you get a divorce? That's reason numero uno?

Depressing, truly depressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The divorce rate is no where as bad as people think. In Canada it is forty percent but differs greatly by group. If you are female. Have a university degree, have a full time job, marry for the first time once you have finished the degree and work full time, the divorce rate is 26%. Not bad! Also the more schooling you have, the less likely you are to divorce. It is the poor and uneducated who increase the divorce stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'm not reading a link with rough language, but if it's what I'm picking up here, I just have this question: How does diminishing women help win any kind of war on men?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now