Fun with charts, or why MGTOWers don’t understand marriage trends
As we’ve seen again and again on this blog, misogynists love to talk about how much better men are than women when it comes to things like math, logic, and scientific thinking generally. Unfortunately, their posts and comments online – filled with breathtaking failures of logic, absurd unsourced assertions and magical thinking — do not seem to bear out this hypothesis. I would compare the scientific thinking of most manosphere misogynists with that of the creationists, but frankly that would be insulting to creationists.
A case in point: a graph – provenance unknown – posted in a recent MGTOWforums discussion of marriage. The standard line amongst the lady haters is that marriage is on the way out , because men are “waking up” to the evils of marriage in an allegedly feminist state and deciding to, well, go their own way. The reality: while the marriage rate has been falling fairly steadily for the last quarter-century or so, for a variety of reasons, most people do marry at some point in their lives; it would be silly to assume that a trend over the course of several decades heralds the death of a social institution that has lasted (and has had many previous ups and downs) for millennia.
Of course, that’s not the way the MGTOWers in question see it. Their proof that marriage is doomed – doomed, I say – lies in this little graph which charts with mathematical precision the exact date range within which marriage will vanish forever from this good earth:
That's not right.
Now, there are many problems with this little graph. For one thing, what happens AFTER the projected marriage rate goes to zero? Does the marriage rate bounce like a rubber ball back into the positive realm? Or does it go below zero, with unmarried couples divorcing one another – just in case?
Second, this chart is based on a tiny number of data points – a mere 25 year sliver of the millennia-long history of divorce. If you go back a mere century and a half – see the chart below, taken from a paper you can find here — you’ll see that the marriage rate doesn’t conform to any neat mathematical formula; it jumps up and down, affected not only by slow-moving cultural changes but by events in the real world – look at the gigantic spike in marriage after World War II.
But the main issue here is that there is simply no way you can come up with a neat equation to predict the future of marriage because THE WORLD DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. History isn’t math. It cannot be predicted in advance, and any attempt to do so — especially one based on a tiny sliver of data — is doomed to failure. (Well, certain aspects of reality can be predicted — like when Halley’s comet will next return (assuming it’s not eaten by a giant space monster we haven’t discovered yet). Orbits can be calculated with mathematical precision; social trends cannot.)
To illustrate the dangers of extrapolation, let’s consider the little chart below, prepared by a helpful assistant (who happens to have access to a scanner). The chart provides some interesting data on the age of a hypothetical cat named “Fluffy” and her projected life expectancy. As you can see, Fluffy was hypothetically born in 2001, making her ten years old today, with her age increasing by one every year. (Just pretend that the numbers line up properly; my assistant, despite her many other charms, is not big on precision, and may have been drunk when she prepared this chart.) Based on this data (which show Fluffy’s age increasing by one every year), we could project that by the time the next century rolls around our dear little cat will be 99 years old.
If projecting the future were as easy as drawing little lines on graphs, the world would be a much simpler, and much less interesting, place to live. Most of us realize this. MRAs and MGTOWers, not so much.
Posted on June 13, 2011, in idiocy, marriage strike, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny. Bookmark the permalink. 421 Comments.
Molly, the hetro family consists of mom/kids, dad is seperate, he can get the boot at anytime. Hell, on the new UN childrens passport theres a line for mothers name, a line for childs name, and a line simply called other. Dad is just an other.
LGBTQwxyz is whatever polyandrogenous union the State makes up.
“it’s not a replacement for family”
It’s not? :P I wanna hear more about this.
I also wonder if part of the taboo against incest comes from a time in which people lived closer, in tribes and villages, than they do now. If a community marries locally for ten generations, people are going to be more closely genetically related than it appears on paper (see: European royalty). So the chance of inbreeding (not mutation) goes up.
And even given the chance for brother/sister matches to produce inbred offspring, we still don’t mandate other people undergo genetic screening and then ban them from marrying; or ban people who are known to have certain genes from marrying people with similar genes. For instance, if a man and a woman who are unrelated each have a child from a previous marriage with a genetic condition, like Fragile X or sickle cell anemia (by which we know they carry these genes even without screening), they are still allowed to marry.
Also, “incentive for divorce”? Say what? The primary incentive for a couple to divorce is being unhappy living with a person and having their futures tied together; not looking for a payout. But NWOslave can’t even comprehend a satisfying marriage, so he can’t imagine people would divorce due to unhappiness or falling out of love with someone. I bet NWOslave thinks that spouses feel something between tolerance to resentment towards each other, with no comprehension of love, affection or respect. I feel pity for you, NWOslave, I really do – did your parents have a loveless marriage when you were growing up?
NWO – The State won’t even recognize my polyamorous relationship. Even in Massachusetts!
If they made up my relationship, they’re doing a pretty bad job at encouraging it.
“LGBTQwxyz is whatever polyandrogenous union the State makes up.”
Um, you do know same-sex marriage isn’t legal in a lot of states, right? Poly marriages aren’t even on the radar yet!
Damn, that’d be a nice world to live in, tho. Me and my (theoretical) two other partners could all share each other’s job benefits and see each other in the hospital…
Holly, I don’t even know what a polyamorous relationship is.
@Holly given that they’ve been having trouble scoring even in their wins, and they needed overtime to put THREE goals past Thomas as their highest output… it seems pretty grim for them XD
Why the hell would you want to live in a world where every day is a struggle to exist?
because he imagines that he will be some kind of local Big Chief, rather than zombie lunch.
“Holly, I don’t even know what a polyamorous relationship is.”
This explains so much. o.O
According to Wiki NWOaf is once again wrong.
NWO – I’m in a serious long-term relationship with a man who is also in a serious long-term relationship with another women. This is all above-board and agreed to, I’m friends with the other woman and see her often, and the three of us will travel and do things together.
“Polyamory” is literally “many loves”–it’s having multiple serious relationships simultaneously.
Wait… so everybody here that’s queer is queer only b/c the state made us so? xD We draw lots or something and it’s like “hey you drew G, you’re gonna be gay!” “ooh you drew trans AND genderqueer!” xD
@Molly Ren and yet it doesn’t stop him from being an expert or formulating opinions xD
@NWO:
“Hell, on the new UN childrens passport theres a line for mothers name, a line for childs name, and a line simply called other. Dad is just an other.”
Ummm… source please?
@Victoria von Syrus:
I’ve been going through the same line of thinking, re incest. Once you realize you can’t discriminated based on squick, its kinda difficult to find a reason against marriage for consenting adults.
And like I said earlier, NWO’s idea of marriage is one woman in the kitchen, one man at work. I supposed they’d have to have one son, one daughter, and one dog as well. And live in suburbia. And be part of a show called “Leave it to Beaver.”
I got the jackpot, yo. Pansexual, genderqueer, prefers open relationships, fat AND female! :D
Back from my walk. Beautiful rainbow outside. Anyway,
I am too.
Social things like the role of government are hard to talk about in objective terms but Slavey kept arguing about “place woman” even when he was definitely, 100% incorrect. It’s sort of sad.
And I see he’s given up on apostrophes as well.
I’d be fine if it were a Mad Men-esque wasteland, minus the sexism and racism of course. Cool clothes and Christina Hendricks; where do I sign up?
@Molly Ren
Better not let MRAL here that last bit… But in an ideal world, you might actually have the jackpot. *slight little tiny bit of envy*
Whats the point of a source Kirby, I gave you a real time debt clock. All of you laughed it off and cried, More Government! The 176 thousand dollar debt per person to the bank that the State agreed you will pay didn’t even phase you.
Aw, thanks, Kirby. Whichever bit you’re a little envious of, I sometimes feel like they don’t always go together! ;)
NWO:
So.. because we didn’t think one source proves your point, you don’t need another one to back up your assertion of a different fact? Great logic there.
It’s not owed to “the bank,” it’s to a variety of individuals and corporations, a lot of them in China.
Anyway, NWO, this isn’t an all-or-nothing deal. I agree that the government spends and borrows too much money–but I still think it should exist. I wish we had a smaller (and more sensible) government, but not that the government would disappear altogether.
@Molly:
So I’m a straight male myself. I wouldn’t mind having more open sexual preferences, since I’m kinda a lovable guy, and being able to be lovable with more people seems like a nice idea. Course, more relationships could mean more drama, so only a little bit of envy. :P
“All of you laughed it off and cried, More Government!”
No, we were trying to figure out how that connected too… oh, hell, I can’t keep track anymore. I think it was whether or not the gas tax covered road repair. We’re still talking about marriage. I’m still not sure how marriage applies to the overall debt.
No Holly, that debt is only to the federal reserve. The deficit is seperate and has nothing to do with what the State borrows from the Fed. Not one cent of your taxes pays off the deficit.
Well, no one pays the deficit, that’s just a line on the budget. But the debt is paid (or rather, not, but like I said, I don’t love our current government, just think we need something government-like in our lives) to foreign and domestic investors, most of whom are not Rothschilds.
…weren’t we talking about LGBTQ stuff a second ago, and marriage before that? I’m getting whiplash.
It goes to turn our kids (or us) into LGBTTQQ2IABPVSNZARUEW<LDFPRO!*#R&AF(ALXD ppl… and sometimes animals… and plants… but not minerals… yet
Ami, do you think the State should teach any social values to children?
So the chart seems to be showing its largest down trend since the chart began and its challenging its lower support line for the first time in its history.
Seems Manboobz doesn’t understand charts.
Yeah but then I asked him just to lay out his worldview, and he gave a vague non-answer, then obfuscated like woah and somehow we came here xD I blame Kirby.
(yet another idea for a T-Shirt “I blame Kirbywarp”)
@Holly I’ve got whiplash too. : / This better pay off next time I get in an argument about marriage!
@Kirby It’s not a magic bullet. ;) It’s just another way to do stuff. I’m still learning how to talk about what I need, how trying to get everyone’s schedule to overlap can be like herding cats, etc.
@Ami, I always liked LGBTWTFBBQ
NWO – To answer for Ami, public schools (which are hardly some pure expression of the monolithic State, which is a totally nonexistent and implausible concept, particularly in the US) should indeed teach things like sharing, respect for others, waiting your turn, speaking politely, being nonviolent, and using critical thinking, as well as understanding and participating in civics.
@NWO elaborate xD
@NWO:
Mind reading this and tell me exactly how the government is being controled by the system that it controls? Thanks.
@Holly:
NWO’s views are easy enough. LGBTQ are unnatural entities created by the state (through brainwashing) and also pedophiles. Marriage is awesome, but only if its one man and one woman marriage, and only if the participants are not allowed to leave each other once they get hitched.
See, that wasn’t too bad, was it?
Yes, of course they should.
@NWO what’s the “state” neways? You use that word so interchangably xD You consider like… me the state xD
I did lay out my worldview Ami, No Government. Pretty simple really. Do you hate freedom so much?
Damn, Kirby, you make NWOSlave sound consistent! :O I was beginning to feel like Ahab…
NWO:
Without government, marriage does not exist.
*sits back and waits for logic loop meltdown*
No Government means that strong people can beat up weak people with no consequences. I’m against that.
So you’re an anarchist, Slavey? An anarchist who supports marriage? o.O
But I alrdy know the answer of what he believes and how he’s gonna interpret nething I say regardless of what he means… cuz he doesn’t consider focusing purely on heterosexual narratives (every fairytale, disney movies, etc ) to be “teaching kids” what’s normal xD It’s just all hopscotch…. xD But if you had like a fairytale where a princess rescues another princess and they marry, that’d be OMG TEH GAY AGENDA!!!!!! xD
There’s no such thing as no government when people get in groups of more than… well, more than one, honestly. If my boyfriend and I agree to have pasta for dinner, what we are doing is a very small and petty act of government.
Grammar nazi, if the State is teaching social values, (which they are). Isn’t that an infringement on a persons right to formulate their own opinion? Aren’t you being taught what must be considered a religion, whatever the State deems is moral?
I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that the State teaches people to be gay. Where the fuck are all the lesbian movies??? We’ve been showing the same 5 over and over for ages!
NWO:
Aren’t you being educated by the state on what happened in the history of the world, how chemicals react, and how electricity works? Don’t you feel that everyone should formulate their own opinion on the facts of the world?
Oh wait… Yes you do…
Why does marraige not exist without the State, kirbywarp? Surely you know pre 1913 the State had nothing to do with marriage.
Do you hate freedom so much?
XDDD
That sounds a little familiar xD
I dunno, I’m not the one who constantly whines about what ppl are doing w/ their own lives, w/ other consenting adults, w/ their own bodes…
you sound like you hate freedom
hence why Kirby keeps asking you to elaborate on how you plan to enforce your social worldview xD
and my question was how do you think the world would look like with no state? you won’t elaborate xD
@Molly Ren:
Everytime a little boy asks his teacher if its okay to like another little boy, and the teacher doesn’t say “No, that is a very dirty thought and you are a terrible child for even thinking of such a thing. You will go to hell and your mother will cry over your grave if you even THINK about that again…” then he’s being taught to be gay.
Chemical composition and electricity aren’t social values Kirby. The three Rs will be just fine. The State has no right to dictate morals, yet they do.
“Surely you know pre 1913 the State had nothing to do with marriage.”
All these documents are fake.
@NWO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
With no entity to enforce a contract between two people, marriage (a contract) can not be enforced, and therefore cannot exist. Such an entity must, by necessity, be “the state.” (in simplistic terms)
I apparently can’t make this clear enough. The State has no right to dictate any morals at all in school. Do any of you agree with that?
@NWO just so we’re clear, you believe that kids are being taught to be gay in schools? xD
The involvement of the state is the entire difference between a marriage (in which people can own shared property, are treated as spouses in estate arrangements, can make medical decisions for each other, can be covered under each other’s insurance, can file taxes jointly, etc.) and two people who just live together. Without government sanction, “marriage” is entirely meaningless and I really can marry a duck if I feel like it.
I can marry all the ducks. Every duck in the world is now my spouse. Since I didn’t say “government-sanctioned spouse,” there’s really no telling me this isn’t true.
Also, I don’t think you can run a school without dictating morals. I mean, if a kid runs up and hits the teacher in the gut, is the teacher supposed to avoid wincing, for fear that this might discourage the kid from gut-hitting, which it is not the state’s place to judge?
@NWO what do you consider “dictating morals” I’m curious? Cuz I suspect that there are bunch of normative behaviours and worldviews you don’t think are being dictated that are but b/c they’re “normal” you just see it as hopscotch xD
Eh… I don’t know. o.o
I would consider stuff like “don’t bite your tablemates” something kids should be taught at home AND have it reinforced in kindergarden. That’s moral, right?
I think public schools aren’t allowed to enforce a specific *religion*. I don’t think it gets as specific as “no morals at all”.
Someone help me out?
@NWO:
So, as opposed to physical facts about the universe, you are making the case that social values are entirely subjective? You know, like how wrong murder, rape, and divorce are? I fail to see where you could go with this…
The thing is we aren’t advocating one single value for every social dilemma ever faced. We want people to be able to make up their own minds about things (like abortion and marriage and sex and so on), while enforcing others (like murder). You seem to want to make up your own mind about everything, yet you refuse to accept that other people should make up their own minds about abortion or marriage or sex. So… which is it? Do you want freedom, a mix, or subjection?
Slavey wants to be King! :D It all makes sense now!
@Molly:
NWO is stuck in an all or nothing. The state does everything, or it does nothing. Everything is up to the individual, or nothing is. But of course he contradicts that by saying things like abortion, murder, and pedophilia are wrong (and I suppose he would want this taught and enforced). You can grasp nuance, he cannot.
I’m amused by how going after me he is lately xD It used to be he pretended to ignore what I said cuz of how I write xD … then he started to say I wasn’t understandable… XD and now.. apparently it doesn’t matter how much my writing hurts his eyes… he can’t let go… XDDDD
As ppl have said, Ami is infectious >:3
(plus he tried to use a smiley last night! :D )
Last question I answer Ami, since you won’t answer mine. Schools are for learning the three Rs so to speak. Whatever shop classes, sciences, ect. Thats it. Any class that teaches pro/anti abortion pro/anti gay pro/anti any social or moral issue is off limits. Now. Do you agree?
NWO clearly doesn’t recognize anything other than western style marriages. Bet his doors would blow clean off to learn that “western” marriage at one time had very little do with romantic love, and that it was more of the business arrangement (consolidation of land and family wealth). Which is what he sort of thinks it is, but different.
How many think he had a truly spectacular divorce?
Do you think a strong person has the right to rob and kill a weak person, with no consequences?
Will anyone field my question @NWOslave | June 13, 2011 at 8:50 pm
You won’t clarify your question o_O I can’t answer when I dunno what you mean by “morals”
” Any class that teaches pro/anti abortion pro/anti gay pro/anti any social or moral issue is off limits. ”
What are you these classes?
Do you consider teaching storybooks, or books in English involving homosexual relationships morals?
NWO:
So you don’t want schools to teach children not to be racist? Or is anti-racism okay to teach in your book. If it is, why not sexist or genderist? Why is pro/anti gay not cool, but pro/anti racism cool? And if not… erugh… then you don’t know what you are talking about when you say teaching morality…
*what are these classes xD
No, I don’t agree. That’s dumb.
NWO – Since schools of more than about 20 kids will generally have gay students, it’s impossible to be neutral on such an issue. Telling a gay kid “we have no official stance on whether it’s okay that you exist or not” is, in fact, a very strongly anti-gay act.
Also, you really need to get over your obsession with asking and answering questions. We’re just trying to determine what you believe so that we can more clearly explain our beliefs to you–we’re not trying to rack up some sort of Question Trade Deficit.