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:
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.
So, at first my ladybrain was all, WHAA? Math? What is this — a blog for dudez? But then it saw the cat and it was happy and babbling again. Because cats. *scurries off to find thing to pet*
**DAVID: Can you erase my otherpostthanx.
I honestly can’t tell if the MRM stance on a marriage decline is Thank god we don’t have to get married to those people we hate! Or if it’s Goddamn I really hate those people we hate for not wanting to marry me!
Bee, why not both?
I’m sort of flattered by people believing feminists are that influential. Shit, we seemed like we could barely convince people of things like “women don’t want to have sex they don’t want”, and then we’re suddenly to reshape the very personal decisions of hundreds of millions of people? Sweet!
I don’t have enough information from the graph (ignoring that horrible attempt at extrapolation) to know whether the decline in marriage is a good or bad thing. If it represents more people being left to raise children alone against their wishes, bad; then again, if it represents more people living together without legal sanction, or living alone by conscious choice, good.
Also, I thought MRAs thought marriage was a horrible trap for men, so why do they think this is a bad thing?
This seems to be pretty common in general. People live for, what, less than a hundred years? And in those years they see only a very narrow sliver of the entire history of the world leading up to their time. Predicting trends based on such small amounts of data (comparitively) is fickle indeed.
One interesting thing I thought of: the 25 year period of data? Is just enough time for a generation to be born, grow up, and reach the average marriage age. One generation’s worth of data predicting marriage til the end of time? Please….
@Bee:
Why can’t it be both? “Goddamn I really hate those people I hate for not wanting to marry me, but thank God I won’t get married and abused by her.” Didn’t say it had to make sense.
Off topic, is it weird to listen to the same song 32,164,616,346,846,312,346,546,203,165,430,320 times in a row?
On topic:
The problem with talking about any generation is that there is so much variation within any generation. But boy when you point out to the baby boomers they raised the current generation they kvetch about do they get MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD. *snickers.*
I don’t know what all the hullabaloo is about. Destroying marriage is one of the goals of feminism, No matter how you slice it, divorce/marraige rates. Feminist destruction of marriage has been a resounding success.
“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement
must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won
without the abolition of marriage.” Sheila Cronam, feminist leader
“Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession. The choice to serve and to be protected
and plan towards being a family maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical
feminism is to change that.” Vivian Gornick, feminist author speaking at the University
of Illinois
“The end of the institution of marriage is necessary for the liberation of women;
therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not live
individually with men. All of history must be rewritten in terms of oppression of women.
We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft.” Declaration of Feminism
1971
There are of course countless others but you all know that already, after all you’re all so well read. Don’t mourn the death of marriage, after all it’s just a patriarchal institution designed to enslave women to men. Instead celebrate the dawning of a new feminist era. Loyalty, fidelity, adultery; why they’re nothing but evil man words designed give ownership of female sexuality to men.
Why do you have to get married to display loyalty, fidelity and avoid cheating?
*hands out the bacon popcorn*
So, NWO, what would you do with the institution of marriage? I assume from the quotes you picked that you’re pro-marriage, but I’m curious about that, because to be married means that one of them evil wimmenz lives in your house.
Do you think it’s good when people get married? Do you think it makes them happy–the man and the woman? Do you wish more people got married?
…also, if I top you again, will you go away again?
NWO, the fact that some people (MGTOWers and radical feminists, for example) want marriage to do away does not therefore mean that marriage will actually go away.
interestingly, if I am reading that long-term graph properly, while the first time marriage rates are declining somewhat in recent years, so is the divorce rate.
Also, the decline is from a peak in about 1980, which was higher than the post-WWII peak; but overall, the rate of marriage is still climbing over the past century.
So, you know, you feminists; if you are trying to destroy marriage, YOU ARE FAILING! No wonder my marriage hasn’t been destroyed yet.
If Slaver likes marriage so much, he should be pleased by those trends. Unless, of course, he is as inept at graphical analysis as he is at mathematical analysis. IF SLAVER LOVES MARRIAGE SO MUCH, HE SHOULD MARRY IT!
@PFAElizabeth: Depends on what song it is, and thanks for the bacon popcorn. Mmmmmm, bacon.
Seriously, NWO, why are you so in favor of marriage? Do you see it as a partnership or a means of control?
Nor does it mean that ALL feminists/MGTOWers want marriage to go away. I personally like the idea of marriage. *shrug*
But here’s the thing; I’ve seen this exact line of reasoning before in creationist screed. You take some influential or random person who happens to be a feminist, and name them a/the “feminist leader.” Or take a tract written by some small group, not agreed on by everyone, and call it the “Declaration of Feminism.”
How about, instead of arguing against people who aren’t here, argue against those who are? You’ll avoid any possibility of strawmanning us, and we get to debate you instead of people who we both disagree with.
@Holly:
I think that last post of yours is a given. 😛
You remind me of Bobby Fischer without the talent.
This is what happens when someone has vague memories from physics labs, finds the “fitting curve” button on Excel and proudly presents the results, not realising that no scientists woth their salt would ever publicize such bad correlation coefficients, and that human beings usually behave in a way that is so much more complex than a voltage or a molecule.
It is a Roxette song: Fading Like a Flower to be specific.
Wait, I shouldn’t speak without first knowing all the facts. NWOslave, are you in fact a chess genius?
girlscientist: Or maybe they worked out that sociologists have a hardon for math (seriously, people looking over my shoulder at my readings often say “oh, I didn’t know you were taking a math class”) so if they have numbers it’s instantly sociology, the same way gluing wheels on yourself will make you a car.
Hey! My Feminist Handbook doesn’t say anything about destroying marriage! Wtf? =O
Clearly I did not get the memo. After all, I decided to get married next spring. Unless…I’m a sleeper agent, intended to take down the institution from the inside o_O
It isn’t just a fetish for math… Its a fetish for math without the understanding of statistics. You can get these guys to crunch the right numbers correctly, but then make a rediculous conclusion based on limited data. Marriage? Yeah, its been in decline for the past 25 years. Doesn’t mean squat in terms of the death of marriage.
Yes, but feminism is also a plot by the Illuminati, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Tri-lateral Commission, Major League Baseball, Minor League Hockey, Pee-Wee Golf, and the Mommy-and-Me Water Aerobics class offered through your local Parks and Rec. We mustn’t forget that!
I’m not sure why we mustn’t, but we mustn’t.
@Elizabeth: maaaaaybe that’s too much, but I am not a Roxette fan.
I’d watch a show in which NWOslave and Ron Swanson team up to fight the Illuminati. I’d even buy the DVDs if the Illuminati also turned out to be Reptilians.
Yeesh, you people are testy. The trend seems pretty irreversible at this point. If as the graph shows divorce rates are going down, it also show that is directly proportional to the marriage rates. Divorce among blacks in the innercity is almost non-existant because marriage is pretty much non-existant.
Hellkell called it a “partnership.” We’ll call a man partner “A” and a woman partner “B” and a child asset “C” Well at anytime partner “B” can disolve the parnership and take asset “C” plus at least half of the holdings. Partner “B” can also demand payment from partner “A” for asset “C” while denying access to asset “C” backed by the guns of the State.
Pretty much anyone can see being partner “A” is a really bad deal.
Again this is a major goal of feminism. We can see it’s working fanfuckingtastic. So just relax, I’m just an observer watching Rome fall.