Why Do So Many Christian Marriages Struggle?

[tall73]

Just last week I read about a not small group of men who have banded together to rail against “forced abstinence” in dating and how it has damaged them psychologically. They feel the women that they date unfairly deny them sex for being too “unattractive, unsuccessful, or unintelligent” and are taking steps to fight back. Is this group of well-organized idiots representative of all men and their feelings? No, of course not. Every movement has its fringe. The fringe doesn’t define the movement.

Agreed!

Most men are not on board with the MIGTOW, or more radical wings of the Men's Rights movement. Just as most women are not on board with the more radical feminists, as I acknowledged in my first post. Both are reactions to pain experienced, and at times real problems faced.

However, I would say that the reach of the radical feminists is much higher than that of the radical men's rights through channels such as educational facilities etc.

And the question becomes how to acknowledge any valid points brought up by either group, but still push back on some of the venom?

So there’s a group of people who feel so marginalized by the patriarchy that they rail against it. They are not representative of all, or even a majority, of women. They don’t represent feminism, never have, never will. The only people who embrace it as a slice of feminism are the people who follow it and the people who want to hold it up and say “see? Feminism is terrrrrrrible!!!!”

I already indicated they are not representative of most feminists. However, to say they don't represent feminism is a different claim. If they are represented in educational institutions they are the feminists the young people are hearing from.

Feminism is feminism. There is no “push the evil men out” wave of feminism no matter how much those who want to pretend they’re against feminism wants to believe there is. The fact that one of the cores of feminism is sexual freedom and empowerment, if doesn’t even make sense to say that any part of feminism is about getting rid of men.

Yes, we know the #killallmen hashtag was just witty fun.

We all know that "toxic masculinity" is just a clinical way to describe things.

But there are actually feminists out there who do discourage women from marrying, etc. And so they are not for all choices.

The last part I’m not even dealing with because it’s one step above “having periods is a biological reality of being a woman which explains why women can’t work as much... It’s not patriarchy, it’s science.”

Well, you don't have to choose to deal with it. But such things as leave for pregnancy are one of the reasons for the "wage gap", as well as innate biological differences that generally result in women self-selecting jobs that emphasize work with people and empathy, as opposed to STEM fields.

And yet, we are bombarded with media constantly talking about the wage gap being due to patriarchy and toxic masculinity. It is that difference in exposure that accounts for a lot of the backlash. And it is the unwillingness to listen on both sides that accounts for a lot of the discussion becoming "fringe" as both sides polarize.

 

[DZoolander]

lol - well if I suddenly found myself single again - the last thing I would want is another spouse. I would not remarry.

 

[tall73]

seen that reported by women in 40's, on another forum
so difficult to find a man that meets their "checklist"

also, because of being hard workers, successful at their career, homeowners, and often still beautiful, they do not want to settle for anyone less than what they are themselves

does seem the older one gets, th more difficult to find a spouse

Yes, and those pesky biological differences still play a role. Men tend to want women who are young and fit certain physical parameters because they are often more fertile.

However, desirability of a male is often more influenced by success.

For many men delaying marriage means they have more success, and therefore more ability to find a mate.

While for women fertility and beauty decrease with age, so they tend to have less ability to find the type of mate they are looking for.

It is a difficult dynamic.

 

[DZoolander]

Yes, and those pesky biological differences still play a role. Men tend to want women who are young and fit certain physical parameters because they are often more fertile.

However, desirability of a male is often more influenced by success.

For many men delaying marriage means they have more success, and therefore more ability to find a mate.

While for women fertility and beauty decrease with age, so they tend to have less ability to find the type of mate they are looking for.

It is a difficult dynamic.

Yeah, I've got a buddy that got divorced a few years back. Was never successful dating when he was younger - except for the girl he eventually married. He divorced her when he found out she cheated on him.

Now that he's got his ducks in a row in life - he's pretty successful in the dating realm. He's noticed that a lot of the women close to our age are ALL about looking for spouses.

Not really sure why, to be honest. He and I have had a few talks about it - and there really (at least from our perspective) is no draw to the idea of getting remarried.

 

[tall73]

Yeah, I've got a buddy that got divorced a few years back. Was never successful dating when he was younger - except for the girl he eventually married. He divorced her when he found out she cheated on him.

Now that he's got his ducks in a row in life - he's pretty successful in the dating realm. He's noticed that a lot of the women close to our age are ALL about looking for spouses.

Not really sure why, to be honest. He and I have had a few talks about it - and there really (at least from our perspective) is no draw to the idea of getting remarried.

Well she mentioned the example of the women who have it all--except a man. If they have always wanted that and it has eluded them I can understand how they would be focused on the types of relationships that are serious and headed toward marriage.

Depending on their age they may still want to try for a family and they are running out of time. Or they may want someone to support them as they grow old.

In any case, the men their age who are successful are likely looking at younger women. So the ones who are willing to go with them are in higher demand. And in his case if he was the one cheated on there are less red flags.

I don't know what I would do if my wife died. I like marriage, but that is in the context of marriage to her. I don't know how that would work otherwise. Hopefully wouldn't find out.

 

[tall73]

Now that he's got his ducks in a row in life - he's pretty successful in the dating realm. He's noticed that a lot of the women close to our age are ALL about looking for spouses.

Some of the more cynical of the MRA's use that to their advantage. They string along various women who are wanting marriage in order to get sex, then dump them.

It is a terrible dynamic, which is why we need to look at the fringe of each side and challenge such notions.

 

[DZoolander]

My reason is far more pragmatic and really has no romanticism to it.

My obligation is to my kids - and I've seen far too many situations (in fact pretty much all) where the kids get the short end of the stick due to the next-spouse. Whether it be by diluting down the inheritance that I can pass on to them due to the new spouse and her being entitled to half of any increase in the value of the estate, trusting her to properly administer the estate after my death, trusting that she wouldn't favor her own kids over mine, blah blah...it's just not worth it.

And for what? So I can have someone to write me honey-do lists? Have someone to wake up next to in the morning? I don't need those things. Without the potential for future kids - and I'm not having any future kids - I just don't see the draw.

I'd date - have fun - be chivalrous - and send them back home at the end of the evening - and be perfectly happy with that.

 

[DZoolander]

Now, I do want to qualify that statement.

I'm talking about marriages that begin in middle age - like 45+ - where you're not really getting married in the hopes of starting a family together. Rather, just getting married because you want companionship.

 

[tall73]

Now, I do want to qualify that statement.

I'm talking about marriages that begin in middle age - like 45+ - where you're not really getting married in the hopes of starting a family together. Rather, just getting married because you want companionship.

I understand that. On the other hand, with your child still being young, that should be your priority. So I can see how you would take that view.

After your child moves out, you may start again to desire that companionship, and someone to grow old with. Then you don't have to worry about how they discipline your child, etc.

I suppose there is the inheritance issue, but that depends on if the new spouse has children.

 

[tall73]

You can have companionship through dating as you described. However, at the point you start breaking down physically, etc. you may want a companion who is there for the long haul, apart from just the fun. Because most dating options dry up at that point, where there is no fun, and no advantage to the other party.

The advantage to marriage is building the relationship early on so that later in life you have learned to depend on each other, support each other, etc.

Now of course, some still do not do that. But there is the hope.

 

[DZoolander]

Yeah - I see those points - but then practical experience has taught me different lessons in life...lol

I mean - my dad was married prior to my mom and he had a daughter with the previous wife. After my folks died and I was in charge of making sense of the estate...I found all sorts of things like old insurance documents... After my brother and I were born - my sister was taken off as a beneficiary of his life insurance policy and it all went exclusively to us.

Then I think about other later-in-life marriages I'm aware of. Like I know someone whose grandmother got remarried in her 50's after her husband died...because she just thought that was the right thing to do. About 10 years later she got sick and died. What'd the guy do? He sold all the property, and disappeared. If it hadn't been for one of the kids going into the hospital and on her deathbed MAKING her sign one of the pieces of property over to them...that would've been gone, too.

He was around for 10 years out of 60, and got everything except for some little piece of property...ostensibly all going to his kids. The family that actually earned all of that got pretty much none of it.

I see tons and tons of those types of examples in later life marriages - and ya know - not worth it. I'd look into long term insurance/care to cover my care - to have someone make me tea or breakfast when I'm no longer able to. It's simply too fraught with risks that I could avoid to be worth it IMHO.

 

[mama2one]

I don't know what I would do if my wife died. I like marriage, but that is in the context of marriage to her. .

agree
because got married in my 20's and did all the firsts with husband, would not want to marry again nor date

but have told husband if I go first and our child is still young, would want him to marry again
(if he wants)

 

[DZoolander]

(since I'm killing the last 10 minutes before I go home from work...)

Then I think about how my own folk's estate could have played out.

My mom envisioned it to be split like this:

"Her half" - goes to my brother and me (her kids)
"My dad's half" - goes in thirds to my sister, my brother and me.

...because ya know...it's "half and half"

That means that had my mom gotten her way (and my dad was all game for it at the start) - instead of getting 1/3rd each...my sister would have ended up with about 17(ish) percent of the estate - and my brother and I walking away with 42ish percent each.

I had to argue with my dad (advocating for my sister) to convince him otherwise and to disregard my mom's wishes out of a basic sense of fairness for quite some time before he acquiesced and went with my plan of making it an equal division.

That's just how I see things going. That's just how people are.

Do I put a focus on material things? Yeah, I do, because how the person in control of those things behaves is the real testament. I don't want my kids to have to figure out a way to deal with getting shafted - and make them the "bigger person" when the whole mess could have been avoided in the first place. lol

 

[ValleyGal]

Dzoo, there are prenups, wills, and trustees that all help with distribution of assets in the event of death or divorce - even subsequent marriages and/or children.

 

[DZoolander]

Dzoo, there are prenups, wills, and trustees that all help with distribution of assets in the event of death or divorce - even subsequent marriages and/or children.

I recognize that - and to me it's all an incredible hassle. Then you get into the awkward conversation of telling her (or him) that you're taking every legal precaution to ensure that they control as little as possible - because even though you're married - you don't REALLY trust them...lol

 

[DZoolander]

I'm just not wired that way. Don't get me wrong. I like companionship, but I equally like being by myself. I think I'm good company.

Throw a bunch of potential nonsense into the mix and I'll sway happily toward the "be by myself".

 

[Paidiske]

So if someone's life's plan doesn't involve a specific field of study that is offered at a college, would they then go there to gain those other benefits, and take on the debt, etc.? And while they take on debt they are less able to dedicate time to work or to a family, so it delays that element.

Someone who is concerned to get the benefits of education for their family, apart from career, can find many sources of education that do not cost tens of thousands of dollars.

The American college system and how it's paid for are so different to what I'm used to that I think that might be part of the gap in the conversation here. Paying for a university education here is not onerous. So here, yes, I actually probably would encourage someone who is bright and academic enough to get that education, because it opens doors and is incredibly valuable life experience.

In America, where I understand college debt can be crippling, maybe not so much. But my response to that is that you guys really need to look at reforming your higher education system, because education is a public good and should be as widely available as possible.

But you do acknowledge then that if she did not spend all of her time on housework, and did spend it on the children, that she had both quality and quantity?

In my specific case, no, because our household was incredibly abusive and the best thing she ever did was go back to work. Which also probably colours how I think about these things, come to think of it...

Don't know if I'd want to marry again if something happened to the other half. I think I'd be pretty content single. But one thing I know; anyone who only wanted me for beauty and fertility wouldn't be worth having in my life.

 

[tall73]

The American college system and how it's paid for are so different to what I'm used to that I think that might be part of the gap in the conversation here.

I wondered if that had something to do with it. I tried looking up some information but didn't find much.

In my specific case, no, because our household was incredibly abusive and the best thing she ever did was go back to work. Which also probably colours how I think about these things, come to think of it...

In that particular case I was referring the christine40's post, but I can understand how that would be an issue in an abusive house.

Don't know if I'd want to marry again if something happened to the other half. I think I'd be pretty content single. But one thing I know; anyone who only wanted me for beauty and fertility wouldn't be worth having in my life.

I would agree, that would not be desirable.

 

[Paidiske]

I wondered if that had something to do with it. I tried looking up some information but didn't find much.

Generally speaking, here, the government provides some money to universities, and students meet some of the cost of their courses. This can be paid in two ways, up front, or through what is, in effect, a government loan scheme. These loans can still be very large, but the big difference, I think, is that you only make repayments on them when you earn over a certain amount.

So, if you earn less than $54,000 a year, you don't have to make repayments. If you did earn that much but take time off work to have a child, while you're not working, you don't have to make repayments. If you never again earn enough taxable income to make repayments, the debt dies with you. The government does lose some money this way, but we've voted for governments that thought that education was a national good worth spending on.

When you're making repayments, it comes out of your pay with your income tax, and so you never have to budget for it or anything, it's handled for you. You don't really notice until you've paid it off and suddenly you start getting a bit more in your bank account each pay.

It's a very good system, on the whole. Now decades ago the government met the whole cost and students paid nothing, and many Australians think that was better, but what we have now still sounds a whole lot better than your system.

 

[tall73]

Generally speaking, here, the government provides some money to universities, and students meet some of the cost of their courses. This can be paid in two ways, up front, or through what is, in effect, a government loan scheme. These loans can still be very large, but the big difference, I think, is that you only make repayments on them when you earn over a certain amount.

So, if you earn less than $54,000 a year, you don't have to make repayments. If you did earn that much but take time off work to have a child, while you're not working, you don't have to make repayments. If you never again earn enough taxable income to make repayments, the debt dies with you. The government does lose some money this way, but we've voted for governments that thought that education was a national good worth spending on.

When you're making repayments, it comes out of your pay with your income tax, and so you never have to budget for it or anything, it's handled for you. You don't really notice until you've paid it off and suddenly you start getting a bit more in your bank account each pay.

It's a very good system, on the whole. Now decades ago the government met the whole cost and students paid nothing, and many Australians think that was better, but what we have now still sounds a whole lot better than your system.

That does certainly sound better. Part of the issue in the States is that, unlike other debt, you cannot even get out of paying student debt if you declare bankruptcy. There is essentially no way out. And if you never get a job in your field, or whether you make next to nothing, you still have to pay it. There are a few deferrals, but usually are pretty restrictive.