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.
I don’t like to call children “assets,” myself.
I also like how you won’t admit to liking marriage… yet it’s the fall of Rome if marriage declines.
But then again, to do that you’d have to admit to liking anything other than lashings and jail sentences. Are you actually in favor of… um… anything?
No, it doesn’t.
Oops. Quoted the wrong part.
Again NWOaf-if a person can be loyal and fidelious (if that is a word) to someone without some dude or chick saying “and do you and do you” then what does it matter if there is no ‘marriage.’
You are stuck in “western United States idealization” of human mating.
Sometimes I wonder if you are a frustrated sub who wants to plan weddings.
Maybe we should just ask NWO to lay out how his ideal world will work, complete with what’s illegal and what’s not (since he seems to dislike a LOT of things ppl do with their own bodies, abortion, homosexuality, etc etc) and how he believes everybody will behave freed from feminism & the gay agenda & etc then work from there.. that way ppl will have a consistent idea of what he believes :]
Holly if I said I like marriage you’d say It’s bacause I want to keep a woman locked away, “in her place.” If I said I didn’t like marriage you’d say it’s because I want to “use” women or I can’t commit. Either way I lose so why bother. Suffice it to say my answer is wrong. Only the collective wisdom of the manboobz mind can guide me to the light. Damn thats beautiful!
Actually, I second Ami. I couldn’t find good sources for marriage of inner city dwellers, and I doubt NWO will be willing to supply them. So lets see what NWO’s ideal world would be like, and if he wants to forbid people from doing things with their own bodies, does he want everyone to be enslaved to the government? C’mon NWO, don’t be shy.
So, Wimminz is ebil. So marriage is bad. Unless the rates goes down, because no woman should be able to divorce and take a man’s munnies, so bitches need to stay married.
And even though they eschew marriage and go their own way, teh dirty gheys can’t have any of it, because they’re icky, even though legally sanctioned same-sex marriage would make the rates go *up* which is what they… sort of….kind of… seem to…want?
I borked my brainz.
Ami – NWO never says what he wants. He just grouses sarcastically about “man bad woman good, isn’t that what you think?”
Because the truth is that he doesn’t have a perfect world. He doesn’t have plans or desires, or even wishes. He just has a formless, mouldering anger at the world, and even the hypothetical resolution of problems does not soothe that anger, because the truth is–he isn’t angry about anything. He merely is angry, hormonally, meaninglessly, a dog gnawing at a bone not to reshape the bone but merely to gnaw.
He’s also kinda dumb I think.
Imagine a world with no government.
You mean absolute chaos? Do you even know why government exists?
It is because rights might be natural but they sure as hell are not free.
You know what? New plan, guys!
Let’s start believing NWO! Let’s take him at his goddamn word!
Suffice it to say my answer is wrong.
Yes, it is, and I’m glad you admit that and you’re willing to learn.
Only the collective wisdom of the manboobz mind can guide me to the light.
That’s being a little harsh, NWO–really, it’s personal reflection and open-minded self-education that brings people to “the light,” if you want to call it that.
Is he going to elaborate? xD Or is he doing exactly what Holly was talking about? XD
Ya know, it is really hard to find a government-less country these days, but here ya go. Not very recent, but the closest I can do.
So NWO, in a world without government, would abortion, homosexuality, transsexuality, marriage, and so forth all be unregulated by said missing government? Cause in the best case, that’s what I can imagine.
A world with no government would have a marriage rate of exactly 0.
It would also have, in short order, an emergent government. You can’t really have more than 5 or 6 people without organization; someone wants to be boss, and the only thing that could stop them would be another boss of greater power, and so forth. It took thousands of years to get to the point where the bosses build us roads and stuff and don’t (usually…) kill us just because they feel like it, and I think it would be pretty miserable to have to start the process all over.
PosterLiz our Guv was originally set up to escape the bankers. Wanna see what your guv costs in real time?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Oh btw http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/06/13/double-killer-suspect-david-oakes-s-condition-worsens-in-hospital-115875-23197781/ this is the best wrong pic evar xD (hopefully they haven’t fixed it when ppl click)
Jeez, the new Superman costume may be bad but it’s not that bad. Get some perspective, Mirror!
I also love it that NWOslave wants to live in a Mad Max-style post-apocalyptic wasteland.
Good luck to you Bostons tonite btw! After all the dirty play by the Canucks this Finals (on top of the rest of the playoffs), I’m now rooting for you guyz :3
NWO:
Have you clicked on the “world debt clock” stuff? We are doing pretty bad, but not as bad as other places, notably France.
Also, could you describe your ideal world for us, including how abortion, LGBTQ, and other issues you’ve complained about would work? Otherwise, give back the bone you’ve been chewing, others want to play, and you’ll get indigestion later on if you go too far. (yes I own a dog)
You know what’s really funny? In a world with no government (that still had some technology and public order… somehow), it would be way easier for long-term couples to separate, for one parent to take the kids away from the other and just run away, and for women to get abortions.
Do I need to break out the graphs and charts and infosheets from the U.S. Census Bureau and divorcerate.org to prove Slavey wrong again?
That was a lot of fucking typing, and I kind of don’t want to do it again.
In summary: approximately 82% of the U.S. population will die married. The numbers are probably off because I don’t know how to crunch them when it comes to situations like a bride’s first marriage but a groom’s third, widows and widowers remarrying, and lesbian/gay couples who would like to marry but can’t. To say nothing of those who have not been married by the State, but are quite happy cohabiting or handfasting or poly nests or whatnot.
Also, on the divorce rate: it is not contingent upon the population, it is the % of marriages that end in divorce. If the divorce rate is 50%, that means that half of all marriages are going to end in divorce, whether 10% or 80% of the population gets married. The divorce rate falling along with the marriage rate means that people are getting more cautious about getting married, and are likelier to stay married once they finally find someone they like.
Oh, and the majority of divorces are filed by couples who are younger than the national average for first marriages, anyway. It’s not a protestation against marriage, it’s youthful error being rectified.
And 48% of black children in America are in a single-parent home, which means 52% are in a two-parent family.
@Holly and for ppl to transition and be queer! Did you see (or has he brought this up before) the thread where he alleged the Gay Agenda that’s Turning Our Kids Gay and how supporting queer rights is supporting pedophilia? xD
Answer: “No, I am completely ignorant as to why we have government.” Not really a shock, it is more of a shock when NWOaf is accurate then when he is not.