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.
Great save by Thomas! 😀
Nah Molly, the next letter in your all inclusive movement is “I” for incest. Although it’ll probably be renamed to something happy. Here I’ll give you the leftist arguement. There’s nothing wrong with two consenting adults having sex. Besides it’s just some religious taboo. There’s nothing wrong with it as long as contraception is properly used. Love knows no bounds. Ooooo, I like the sound of that catchy slogan.
Sorry, Slavey, we’re not up to incest yet. Even the LGBTQ movement still has trouble with multiple, age-of-consent partners, never mind related ones. 😛
So, to get back to my earlier question: What does the State’s mandates have to do with the divorce rate? You haven’t made your point clearly enough yet.
Reminds me of that utter idiot in that one county that refused to pay the $75 annual fee for the fire service from the local town (that he did not live in.) Most of the people who got huffy never bothered to find out that this was time number three, the city sent out annual notices, was unable to collect from those who used the services after due to a quirk in the law and the county government sat on the recommendations for two years before this fire.
Apparently a city is supposed to just not operate sensibly and keep paying for stuff that someone has no right to in the first place. What is that usually called? Right, stealing.
Was this the dude whose house burned down? 😛
@Spearhafoc: I thought he wanted to live in a Mad Men-esque post-apocalyptic wasteland. Potato, potahto. 🙂
Yes Molly-I went and did a little googling, I wanted to be the one standing on the edge of the property laughing after I finished reading about how this guy was just basically a lazy user who had a habit of setting his house on fire.
SCORES! Wow.. 3-0 Boston and the game’s just 9 minutes old :O Luongo’s gone… another Beantown meltdown for him xDDD I can’t believe how this series has been 1 goal bare wins in Vancouver by Vancouver, and blow outs in Boston O_O;;
@Molly I suspect it’s much like he thinks that rather than state laws relating to queer ppl, trans ppl, abortion, etc always being about restricting or banning, and he thinks that the state actually creates queer ppl and coerces women into abortions… he thinks it’s similar with divorce xD Without the state nobody would divorce b/c the state has brainwashed ppl to think they can …
FOUR NOTHING!!! XDDD
Wow! Kaberle scored! xD Yay!
neways… the state has brainwashed women to divorce husbands and w/o a state they wouldn’t want to. xD
Here Molly, I’ll repost what I did before.
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.
It’s a pretty bad deal if you partner “A”
State mandated, but what faction could have lobbied for it?
NWOslave:
Since you seem hell-bent on not answering the question I’ve repeated in my last couple posts, I’ll give you this one instead (mostly because I want to see you explode.) Do you think the government should prevent two people from having sex if there is a possible risk to the possible child that could possible result? If you don’t, hooray, you are now pro-incest! If not, then you are anti-NWOslave.
But you’re worried about the divorce rate? Isn’t fewer people opting out of such an unfair arrangement a GOOD thing?
look! A woman after NWOaf’s own heart!
I know this is opening up an entire tractor-trailer load of worms, but I don’t think there is a problem with incest, in itself.
The biggest problem is that it’s often difficult to separate it from power imbalance and exploitation–a parent and child have a power dynamic that makes consent a very iffy and complicated and possibly impossible thing, and two siblings raised together may have this as well.
But these are things with reasons and justifications, you know, things that can ultimately be reduced down to “this is wrong because it can hurt people.” Even in the case of incest, we don’t say “it’s wrong because it’s incest and ew and wrong so I don’t have to think now!”
I alrdy exists and is for intersex XD And the next one is still up for a vote… so far “dating my best friend’s girlfriend’s mother’s uncle” is leading b/c they bribed the delegates…
XDDDD
NWO, at any time partner A can dissolve the partnership as well. Are you saying men don’t initiate divorce?
Molly if you’re already in such a partnership, theres a pretty good incentive for partner “B” to up and leave, right? I mean Tiger Woods was a dick for cheating but lets be real. Why does wifey who attacked him deserve a staggering reward? I mean son-of-a-biiiiitch. Thats real moolah there.
Slavey, have you considered pre-nups? Or maybe a common law marriage? Or why so many LGBTQ people want to GET married when it’s that raw of a deal?
… has NWO exploded yet? That was… anticlimactic…
@Holly
I actually agree with you. I’ve gotten caught on the “incest leads to higher chances of mutation,” because we allow couples with genetic diseases to marry and have kids, even though the kids have a higher chance of catching the disease. Obviously there is power imbalance to take into account, but that is not a sole symptom of incestual relationships, so I kinda ignore it for now. Still trying to work this out for myself.
Only about 29% of the time hellkell. They don’t have an incentive to leave. Money talks.
I actually have no issue w/ incest either like Holly o_o as long as it’s not pedophilia… or rape…
So now you’re saying people ONLY get married for the money? That’s what all the lobbying for same-sex marriage is for, then, right? So one partner can fleece the other in divorce?
Incest works out so well in the Heinlein novels… XD
Speaking strictly from personal experience, I’ve never been that attracted to *anyone* in my family. This is why I now live in a kinky household and am best friends with people who have “poly nests”. 😛
Hey did you guys hear about that Syrian lesbian feminists were beating the drum about recently. Well thats no woman, thats a man baby. Leftists and their constant stream of victimology lies. Too damn funny
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/13/syrian-lesbian-blogger-tom-macmaster
My best friend once told me about his client and the lesbian bull whip party but sadly it settled.
Nope, Slavey, we’re still talking about marriage. Leave the faux dykes for later.
Again, you’re saying people ONLY get married for the money? That’s what all the lobbying for same-sex marriage is for, then, right? So one partner can fleece the other in divorce?