Warum Männer heiraten sollten
Die amerikanische Autorin Suzanne Venker findet, dass viel zu wenige Männer noch heiraten und es immer weniger werden. Deshalb hat sie eine Liste der Gründe erstellt, warum Männer heiraten sollten.
Die Liste ist leer.
Der einzige interessante Punkt ist noch Sex, und Rumvögeln könne man heute – dem Feminismus sei dank – genauso gut auch ohne Ehe. (Anmerkung: Eigentlich viel besser.)
Ansonsten stellt sie fest, dass die Ehe dem Mann überhaupt nichts mehr bringt – außer Nachteile:
What exactly does marriage offer men today? “Men know there’s a good chance they’ll lose their friends, their respect, their space, their sex life, their money and — if it all goes wrong — their family,” says Helen Smith, Ph.D., author of “Men on Strike.” “They don’t want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over.Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phobes. They’re being smart.”
Öhm, ja. Stimmt.
Unlike women, men lose all power after they say “I do.” Their masculinity dies, too.
What’s left of it, that is. In the span of just a few decades, America has demoted men from respected providers and protectors of the family to superfluous buffoons. Today’s sitcoms and commercials routinely paint a portrait of the idiot husband whose wife is smarter and more capable than he.
Ja, so sieht die heutige Medienwelt wohl aus. Und warum ist das heute so?
There was a time when wives respected their husbands. There was a time when wives took care of their husbands as they expected their husbands to take care of them.
Or perhaps therein lies the rub. If women no longer expect or even want men to “take care of” them — since women can do everything men can do and better, thank you very much, feminism — perhaps the flipside is the assumption that women don’t need to take care of husbands, either. And if no one’s taking care of anyone, why the hell marry?
Oder mal ganz trocken und arbeitstechnisch ausgedrückt: Solange es eine klare Arbeitsteilung gab, brauchte man „Zweierteams”. Die Arbeitsteilung hat man abgeschafft und die Eigenschaft „Teamplayer” verdammt. Also funktionieren Zweierteams nicht mehr.
Kein Problem für Männer. Großes Problem für Frauen:
For women, the reason is obvious: kids. Eventually most women decide they want children, no matter how long they put it off to focus on their careers. So they often nab the best guy they can find, usually the one with whom they’re currently sleeping, and convince him to get married.
If the man refuses, we call him, as Smith notes, a “commitment phobe.”
Ja. Alles, was nicht in den Kram passt, wird heute als „…phobie” bezeichnet. Dabei ist es keine Phobie, sondern Realitätsssinn:
Perhaps these men know all too well that women initiate the vast majority of divorces — anywhere from 65-90 percent, depending on demographics. And when they do, they take the kids with them and hang hubby out to dry with the help of a court system that’s heavily stacked in their favor. In the past, Mom got the kids because she was home with them doing the thankless, unpaid, mountainous work associated with that role. Today, neither parent is home, so there’s no reason the default custodial parent should be Mom.
Und so stellt sie die Frage:
So remind me, why would a man marry today?
No, really. What’s in it for him?
Yup. Nix ist mehr drin.
Sowas ähnliches, sie verlinkt es, gab’s auch aus England.
The state of matrimony is not just ailing. It is dying out faster than a mobile phone battery.
For an army of women, Mr Right is simply not there, no matter how hard they look for him. And the reason? When it comes to marriage, men are on strike.
Why? Because the rewards are far less than they used to be, while the cost and dangers it presents are far greater.
When British businessman Alan Miller married his first wife, Melissa, in 2003, he thought it was for ever. She immediately decided to give up work, including her £85,000 salary, to become what is known as a ‘Harvey Nichols wife’ — spending her time shopping and lunching.
When they separated just two years and nine months later, he was forced to pay her a £5million divorce settlement, which included his £2.3million home in Chelsea and a £2.7million lump sum — despite the fact they did not have children. That’s £5,000 a day of marriage. Ker-ching!
Or take former Arsenal footballer Ray Parlour. When he wed girlfriend Karen in 1998, it all started out rosy. But by the time the relationship fell apart in 2004, the former optician’s nurse didn’t just get two mortgage-free houses, £38,500 in annual support for their three children and a £250,000 tax-free lump sum…
Oh no. She also got personal maintenance of £406,500 a year from her ex’s future earnings. This, she said, was because she had ‘encouraged’ him to be a good midfielder.
Das ist doch was. Beruf Männer-Abzocker.
This is precisely why the WAG culture rages through our country like an aggressive disease. Girls of 16 aspire to be glamorous girlfriends because it’s an easy life — not because they love the game or even the men playing it.
Young women who wear so much make-up they have to tip their heads back to get their eyes open are encouraged to hunt in packs until they snag a rich footballer.
Why? Because it beats getting up at 7am, doing the daily commute and actually thinking about something other than themselves.
And then, when the marriage is over, it’s time for the wife to make what Mayfair-based divorce lawyer Camilla Baldwin calls ‘some real money — more than the average person ever dreams of’. Especially as some judges, particularly those in London, are renowned for favouring the wife in the division of assets.
Schön auch diese feministische Note:
‘Now we want total independence from men, but if we divorce — even without having children — we expect to get alimony for ever. We can’t have it both ways.’
Along with the prospect of endless domestic criticism, this is why men are saying ‘I don’t’ rather than ‘I do’. Men need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle.
‘Many women have been raised to think of men as the enemy,’ says Venker. ‘It’s precisely this dynamic — women good, men bad — that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes.
Sie beschreiben dann auch sehr schön, wie Männer beim Kampf um Kinder ausgebootet und ausgeschlossen werden. Und es wird immer schlimmer, keine Spur von Einsicht:
Considering that the annual cost of family breakdown is reportedly £44billion — that’s more than the defence budget — you’d think curing fatherlessness would be a priority for a country haemorrhaging money. But it isn’t.
Instead, everyone is petrified of inadvertently apportioning blame to single mothers, even though it’s not about them. Only recently, in a bid to woo the female vote, David Cameron said deadbeat dads ‘should be looked at like drink drivers’, yet said nothing about the mothers who deliberately steer them off the road. […]
Meanwhile, single-parent organisations such as Gingerbread — supported by children’s author J. K. Rowling of all people — casually dismiss studies that suggest a lack of male role models at home increases the likelihood of crime and mental illness.
This is despite a study conducted by Oxford University, which followed 20,000 children from 1958 and found those with a father were far less likely to break the law or suffer from psychological issues. Young boys with involved fathers also performed better at school.
Und die Sache mit dem Männer-Abzocken als Hauptberuf spricht sich herum:
The Trust for the Study of Adolescence recently proved scores of teenage girls in Britain are deliberately becoming young mothers as a career move because, with the state and the father contributing, it offers more guaranteed security than a job.
Even 13-year-old girls admitted this, which might explain why Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, at an annual government cost of nearly £63million.
Perhaps the law-makers need to think about radical action to break the cycle. Maybe men could be allowed to have a financial abortion from a child to which they didn’t pre-consent.
Haha, ja, das wär’s, wenn jetzt Väter ihre Kinder „finanziell abtreiben” lassen könnten. (»Mein Einkommen gehört mir« oder sowas) Wie würde das aussehen?
In a specified time — say, legal abortion guidelines — men could be allowed to formally relinquish all monetary obligations, rights and responsibilities if duped into fatherhood. The woman still wants to proceed? Fine, that’s her choice. But not on his salary.
Das wäre richtig so.