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.
How do you know she attacked him? Aren’t you accusing her of domestic abuse? What a terrible accusation! She wasn’t even charged… given that Tiger Woods even denied it (he didn’t even recant), doesn’t that mean you just made a false accusation? You TERRIBLE FALSE ACCUSER xDDDDDD
Oooooo, Molly. Polynest, is that da new family. Qweeeeet. Damn patriarch, if I had a hammer I’d smash it. Wait I’ve got one.
I thought only women made false accusations?! I iz confused.
NWO:
So, am I to understand that you are pro-incest then, given your absolute hatred of anything state or law? By your own definition (law can’t give you a right you don’t already have), people already have the right to incest. Good to know.
Also, yes, I’ve heard about that, and its really fucked up that now idiots like you can trumpet it around as if saying “See? Now we know that ALL feminist bloggers everywhere are just manginas lying for ladies!”
I think he’s done xD
Damn B&C people, causing problems for all the A’s of the world.. NWO and MRAL need to get their alphabets straight, though I admit, I can’t read MRAL’s Alpha rants without wondering exactly what they put into the decanting fluid to make an Omega, I mean, even in Brave New World, I don’t remember anything lower than an Epsilon. But it’s been several years, could be mis-remembering.
Nah, we’re not poly, I just live with people I’m not related to. Closer than housemates, but not lovers.
Wait… does this mean I live in a very small commune? O.o
So 71% of divorces are initiated because of the money involved? Who knew? You really mean divorce is that big a payoff the woman never has to work again in every instance of divorce?
Shit, I’ma call my lawyer right. now.
“I think he’s done xD”
Did me mentioning that I knew actual living, breathing poly people do it? Do I get an award?
So where exactly is all this going? NWO apparently lurves marriage with a hard, throbbing passion, but also doesn’t want more marriage in the form of the queer community because they are all pedophiles.. And he doesn’t like group marriages either because… its not a “1 man 1 woman marriage?” Is that all this is? A really roundabout method of saying that all marriages should be one man breaking his back at the mills, and one woman locked in the kitchen watching the kids?
If that’s the case, who would ever want to get married?
OMG, Holly, or whoever else is Bostonian… are you watching this game? :O
Kirbywarp, I’m gaining a new respect for the usual commentators tonight. It’s damn hard to argue with someone when they won’t stay on topic!
I am an actual living, breathing poly person! I live in a, uh, “polynest!”
And if you’re asking “is that da new family,” well, it’s not new and it’s not a replacement for family, but it is actually a very nice way to live and should be added to the (infinite) list of things not to judge on “outrageousness” but on their actual harms and benefits.
Ami – No TV, or I would. But I’m following the score and hot damn. Canucks are toast.
Molly:
You get used to it after a bit… The conversation is kinda like a ship out a sea, tossed upon the deaththroes of bull. You just kinda tighten the rigging, batton down the hatches, and ride it out wherever it goes. Its all the same sea, in the end.
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? 😛 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.