Summary: The Left has worked for two generations to destroy marriage as an institution by making it a bad bet for men. See these examples showing how they no longer even hide their intent. What happens if young men see this?

Marriage has collapsed as an institution; we live amidst its wreckage. The driver is the rise of Girls’ Game: romance, party-of-her-life, marriage, kids, divorce, money, and independence. Now Girl’s Game has become respectable. See this extreme example: “I’m A Woman Who Cheated On Her Deployed Husband, This Is Why I Did It“. She collects his pay and plans to leave him eventually, using feminism to justify her actions. Dalrock’s website has a vast collection of women’s conversations from Christian conservative websites with similar views.

Those in the divorce industry proudly demolish what remains of marriage, as seen in this advertisement. We can no longer recall the public outrage it would have provoked in the past.

This sign appeals to women, but provides an important lesson for men about marriage in modern America: it is often transitory, and casually ended by the wife for her gain. Dalrock states the harsh truth, pointing to yet another advertisement rubbing it in men’s faces.

“One of the ways we deny the obvious truth of the billboard is by declaring any man whose wife succumbs to the temptation to betray her marriage vows a ‘deadbeat’. Deadbeat has become a euphemism for a man who has been kicked out of his family, and we tell ourselves that such men deserve the cruelty our family courts visit upon them. That a man is in so wretched a state after the family courts get through with him is all the proof we need that he is a loser who deserved what was coming to him.”

These advertisements introduce a big question for our society: will a substantial number of men in Generation Z decide marriage is a bad bet – and refuse to marry? Social scientists are quite open about their intent to change marriage so it screws men even more. If the men of Gen Z listen, America will irrevocably change.

By Dalrock at his website. 13 November 2018.

Reposted with his generous permission.

While the claim is that our family courts are primarily driven by the best interest of children, in reality they tend to focus instead on transferring power and wealth from men to women. When considering the family courts, it is critical to understand that they don’t just impact the unfortunate families they destroy. The goal is to undermine all married fathers, who see that the family courts stand ready to take their children away from them and send them a bill for the pleasure.

The term social scientists use for this is bargaining in the shadow of the law, and the use of the family courts to weaken married fathers is an open secret. Economists Stevenson and Wolfers describe this in their paper “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress” published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 2006. Emphasis mine. {Ed note: the threat point is the outcomes from men and women from divorce.}

“In the literature on the economics of the family there has been growing consensus on the need to take bargaining and distribution within marriage seriously. Such models of the family rely on a threat point to determine distribution within the household. The switch to a unilateral divorce regime redistributes power in a marriage, giving power to the person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage.”

For an example of this see the paper “Do joint custody laws improve family well-being?” by Martin Halla (professor of economics at the U Linz), published in the IZA World of Labor, May 2015. {Ed. note: I recommend reading this paper!} The paper opens with this …

“Joint child custody laws affect not only divorced families but intact families as well.”

Halla focuses on the implications of moving towards a joint custody model. For the purpose of this post, I’m more interested in the perspective of the author than I am in the paper’s findings*. Number one in the “cons” of joint custody is that it weakens the threatpoint wives can use to gain power over their husbands:

“The introduction of joint custody reforms reinforces the traditional division of labor within the family and gives men greater bargaining power over the intrahousehold allocation of resources.”

Another “con” that stands out is the fact that the study didn’t find an effect on women’s suicide rates:

“Joint custody reforms have had no robust, long-term effect on female suicide rates.”

I’m assuming Halla isn’t expressing disappointment that women’s suicide rates didn’t increase. What I think this bizarre statement boils down to is a complaint that joint custody decreases men’s suicide rate (listed as a pro) without decreasing women’s suicide rate (listed as a con). In a sane world that would be seen as a positive without a corresponding downside, not a pro and a con.

At any rate, the takeaway from both items is the same. When the family courts crush men it is according to plan, and they fully understand the devastation they are meting out to men in the process. They don’t want men to commit suicide, but they know that in order to generate the kind of fear they want to instill they have to inflict extreme brutality on the men who are made examples of.

In closing his Author’s Main Message, Halla advises policy makers to be careful when changing custody laws to avoid the negative consequences he found in the study (number one being lessening the coercive power of wives by reducing men’s fear of losing their children).

“Policymakers should acknowledge that regulating families’ post-divorce life may affect intact families and try to minimize any unintended negative consequences.”

He further elaborates in Summary and Policy Advice (emphasis mine).

“Joint custody laws affect both intact and non-intact families in substantial ways. A very crude description is that joint custody improves men’s bargaining position within marriage, enforces traditional gender roles, and leads on average to worse outcomes for children. A more detailed account would contrast these clearly negative and unintended effects with positive effects on other outcome variables (such as lower male suicide rates and less domestic violence)…

“Despite the negative effects of joint custody on some family outcomes, abolishing it may not be a desirable policy option …. To predict the effects of a planned reform, it would be important to assess how the relative bargaining positions of spouses will be affected. This can be approximated by checking how the reform affects the well-being of each partner in the case of a potential divorce. The party who will benefit from the reform will gain power within the marriage.”

*See Larry Kummer’s caution on papers like this.

Update! See Dalrock’s follow-up post: “Never forget the eager role of the conservative anvil.”

He shows how the Right is complicit in this social revolution.

—————- End of Dalrock’s post —————-

Editor’s note

The destruction of marriage is just another symptom of an underlying illness. We’re in a process of broad institutional decay. That’s the core insight – my little satori – that led to A new, dark picture of America’s future. Unfortunately, we don’t see the process.

We are like primitive people looking at an epidemic of syphilis. So many diseases! In fact there is only one. As nicely said in The Exorcist (1973) …

Father Karras: “It might be helpful if I gave you some background on the different personalities Regan has manifested. So far, I’d say there seem to be three.”

Father Merrin: “There is only one.”

When we identify the underlying cause of our problems, we will have taken a giant step towards reforming America.

About Dalrock

He is a married man living with his wife and two kids in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. He is very interested in how the post feminist world impacts himself and his family, and uses his blog to explore these issues. See his website. Especially these posts ….

For More Information

Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about women and the gender wars, about marriage, about divorce, and especially these …

Two major books about modern marriage

The classic: Men and Marriage by George Gilder.

Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters by Helen Smith.