Is the institution of marriage now more or less dead

Feminist Louise Perry has published another extract from her book, in which she discusses the fall of marriage.

The institution of marriage is now more or less dead. In 1968, eight per cent of children were born to parents who were not married; in 2019, it was almost half. And now in this country there is a divorce for every two marriages.

It was not meant to be like this. Proponents of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act – the key piece of liberalising legislation – believed the changes they argued for would be an act of kindness towards a smallish number of unhappy people stuck in wretched marriages, and lift the stigma from the then tiny minority unfortunate enough to have been through divorce.

‘This Bill does not open the door to easy divorce,’ announced the attorney general of the time. And yet open it did.

There was always a threshold of marital dysfunction above which a marriage was considered beyond saving, and reformers intended to nudge that line only a little.

Yet each marginal divorce made the next one more likely, and the one after that more likely still, with the result that the threshold went hurtling downwards at great speed.

Over the next decade, divorces trebled and then kept rising, peaking in the 1980s. Since then there has been a slight decline in the rate, not because of a return to marital longevity but because you can’t get divorced if you don’t get married in the first place, and marriage rates are at a historic low.

It’s right, of course, that some marriages should end, particularly where there is violence, and in those cases the liberalisation of divorce laws was a blessing. But most modern divorces are not a consequence of domestic abuse.

Rather, they are the result of a fundamental change in attitudes as British society entered the era of self-expressive marriage. Self-discovery, self-esteem and personal growth became the key markers of a marriage’s success. Before then, couples who were not ‘irreparably unhappy’ tended to remain married. Now they usually don’t.

If a couple have grown apart, fallen out of love, they try for a fresh start, even though it’s a step that doesn’t always deliver. For many divorced women, the promise of happier alternative relationships remains unfulfilled – they are more likely than men to remain permanently single afterwards.

As many as half of divorced people in the UK report in surveys that they regret it. But the mood that it’s better to cut and run is catching, and in a culture of high divorce rates even marriages that last will run the risk of being undermined. With wedding vows no longer truly binding, and marriage accepted as impermanent, couples become less confident in their relationships and the institution as a whole changes in ways that no one could have imagined.

Her are my thoughts for what they are worth!

The question is, why has marriage become irrelevant and who has benefitted?

A good starting point is to look backwards first, then try to decipher what has happened. Historically, marriage was a pledge taken by two people in front of their village elders, to devote their lives to one another. In fact, in the days of the Old Testament, the act of sex was considered to be entering in to marriage, that should make a few of you very uncomfortable!

There is no doubt, that there is nothing more beautiful than two people pledging to devote their lives to each other, but that was not to be the case for ever.

The intervention of Church and State

As time went by, the Church decided, in their wisdom, that marriage should be a religious ceremony and using their influence, it gradually became law around the world that only marriage in a Church, or whichever religious institution was prevalent in any particular country, would be recognised. Not willing to be left out of the equation, one by one, most governments eventually involved themselves in the institution of marriage, making it a matter of state.

As this happened over long periods of time, the implications were never considered or even recognised by the masses, who continued to live their lives according to tradition, but behind the scenes, there was a ticking time-bomb.

Once the Church involved itself in marriage, it began to impose its draconian measures upon people, with the usual recipe of threats of hell and damnation for those who did not comply. At the same time, when marriage became a matter of state, the government had the right to impose terms and legal obligations, in matters that did not concern them and more importantly, laws imposed for political reasons.

The ending of polygyny

As many of you are aware, in the Old Testament, polygyny was permitted, there are many arguments on all sides where this is concerned and it may seem like a very strange concept to us in the modern day, but at that time, men would often die prematurely in battle or from disease, so it was a case of ensuring that all women had the opportunity to marry and have children. At the same time, death during childbirth was very high, when a man had several wives, they were able to raise the children together in that event. Supporters of polygyny also argue that raising children is much easier, when the work involved is shared amongst several ‘sister wives’

Opinion here is divided, but as for myself, when I researched it, I actually discovered something that I did not expect. In the first instance, it may seem like every man’s dream to have several wives, but in practice, it is not all about more ‘slap and tickle’ it is a greater responsibility. Assuming that you do take the responsibility seriously, it can be a great burden to provide for several women, when many men struggle to provide for one! On top of this, it seems that when women live together in one household, there is evidence that for some unknown reason, their biological clocks begin to run in sync, that for you my friends means the prospect of two, three or four women menstruating AT THE SAME TIME!!!! Now that’s a thought that absolutely terrifies me.

There was another factor that was eventually addressed by governments, behind the scenes, without any form of public admission. When men could marry more than one woman, it meant that invariably, the small percentage of wealthy men could take their pick of the women, resulting in societies where twenty percent of the men had their choice of eighty percent of the women. This left the vast majority of men with no wives, no family and no responsibility, which resulted in large numbers of bandits, rapists and drunks, who had no purpose in life.

Although the official narrative was that the reasons behind the ending of polygyny was a religious one, with the Church dictating its usual self-righteous autonomy on everyone, the real reasons were in fact much more deeply rooted in government policy. By ending the right for men to have more than one wife, they ended the 80/20 cycle, ensuring that the majority of women could not chase the few eligible men, making them available for everyday men, which resulted in the vast majority of men having the opportunity to raise their own family. Let’s not ignore the fact that by ensuring that all these men were occupied providing for their families, it also meant that they were not free to roam, steal or perhaps raise an army and topple the government, things are not always as they seem.

The formation of the Women’s Social and Political Union (Suffragettes)

Let’s skip all the social, political and economical factors that were a constant threat to every day families over the centuries and skip to the twentieth century. in 1903 its membership and policies were tightly controlled by Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters Christabel and Sylvia (although Sylvia was eventually expelled).

By this time, women around the world were being granted the vote, but in the UK, they had not, this was draconian to say the least, even at that time, but despite the gallant efforts of the Suffragettes, women were not granted the vote until 1928.  The first battle had been won, but the war was not over yet. Over the next few decades, there were incremental concessions made to women, slowly but surely, although it was not until the Equality and Pay Act 1970 that women were finally granted the right to equal pay and terms in the workplace, although in practice, the battle continued.

Around the same time, the Abortion Act 1967 gave women the right to choose, something that they must have the right to do, but there have been social side-effects that exploded exponentially.

As women’s rights gained traction, there was less and less need for them to rely on men, they were no longer dependants, they were becoming equal partners, something that is very admirable in principle, but how did that work in practice?

Over the next decade, women were able to walk away from unhappy marriages, because they could work, support themselves and would not be left destitute, this resulted in the number of divorces rising and rising.

As the battle for equality continued, we entered the 1980s, when the movement changed in to what is known as ‘Third Wave Feminism’ which saw an admirable cause hijacked by a more hostile misandrycal motive. From that time, the rights of men have been slowly eroded, with many men finding themselves completely ruined by divorce, their rights to see their own children abused and many were held to ransom by the ‘Child Support Agency’ which were able to impose ridiculous terms upon them, this in turn, resulted in suicides among men rising to an all time high. In the 90s, the CSA had its powers clipped a little, giving men a breather, but nevertheless, men with children suffer tremendously in divorce.

With the numbers of divorces rocketing and an increasing number of women choosing to have children out of wedlock, there are now more women than ever raising children alone. The consequences of this being so far reaching that many of which are never even discussed, in the modern day, raising an argument that contradicts ‘the narrative’ can be very dangerous, so people tend to keep quiet.

We now have a society where there are millions of ‘floating mothers’ single parents, looking for a relationship, trying to tie down men who really don’t want or care for their children, making do with ‘Beta males’ who they would not have given the time of day to, a decade earlier. These men make ideal ‘lifeboats’ to ferry them to the proverbial dry land, when their children are grown up, by that time, many of them are dispensable and more often than not, they suddenly become surplus to requirements when they are no longer needed.

Let’s REALLY step out on to thin ice

Ask any mother where her loyalties lie and the answer will invariably be with her children. This is not only admirable, but it is a vital element of a successful marriage and family, however, for single mothers, the dynamics change. They are now in a position of wanting to tie down a man to take responsibility for someone else’s children, something that goes against nature itself, after all, when a Lion takes over a pride, the first thing it does is to kill the Cubs, to win the loyalty of the Lioness. I’m not advocating this of course, I’m simply making a comparison in nature.

Throughout the centuries, women have made incredible sacrifices for their children, they have married for them, divorced for them, sold their bodies and souls for them, betrayed their loved ones, their friends or even their own country. That is not a criticism, it is a fair description of the degree of devotion that mothers instinctively have for their children. As a father, I would respect my wife for demonstrating that degree of devotion to my children (or child in my case) although I had the misfortune of marrying one of the few mothers who did not have any loyalty to her own child, but that’s another story.

Whilst all of this is commendable, how does this change when mothers are divorced or single? If we accept the notion that the true loyalties of mothers are with their children, then we must also accept that a single man who gets in to a relationship with a mother, will never have her true loyalty and her loyalties lay with children that are not his. This results in relationships where the man is devoted to a woman, who is not in turn devoted to him, but to her children.  To put it another way, (and I have in the past) if you were in Shark infested waters with a mother, don’t expect her to save you, but rather sacrifice you to save her children.

Rather cynical isn’t it? that’s true, but cynicism is an acute perception of the truth, or something that an optimist calls a realist! Okay, but how does this effect divorced or single mothers though? Firstly there is the pressure of keeping a lid on the dynamics of a relationship that is little more than a logistical ‘sticky plaster’ but also, raising children in a home where they can be alone with a man who is not their father.

The incidence of abuse by step-parents (it’s not just step-dads) is many times higher than by their biological parents. The ‘replacement dads’ may make every effort to care for these children, but no matter what they do, their biological father is their father, full stop. You can devote time and effort to them, but their father can turn up with a some junk bought at a market and they will treasure it, because it is from their dad! (I can vouch for this as I’ve been there)

The domestic consequences are relationships that struggle to pass the test of time, relationships that become even more complicated if the couple then go on to have another trophy child to give their new relationship a physical bond, then all hell breaks loose, when you have different dads., mums, step parents and who knows what involved. We have been sold this as the modern family, I would term it to be a modern day biological mess.

These relationships have even less chance of success than a marriage, but there is actually a far worse social consequence, that is not discussed.

Full circle to the 80/20 society

Now that society has moved to the proverbial left, and women are encouraged to be ‘sexually liberated’ spending their youth sleeping around with no concerns about marriage, or family, inspired by the toxic element of society, there is less or no need for men to marry.

In reality, that which was portrayed to ’empower’ women may have ultimately enslaved them. The latest generation of under 40s, and definitely under 30s have no inclination to take responsibility, men have withdrawn from relationships and life as a whole. We have Tinder where potential partners are paraded like a sales channel, but how do we make our choices when all we are presented with is visual? We first begin to covet what we see and if all we are presented with is visual, then that is how we make our choices. It does not matter how kind you are, how educated or moral you are, on Tinder, you are just another image vying for attention.

As men are free to sleep around thanks to willing females who are prepared to offer themselves to them, there is no need for them to offer anything, in return, is there?

No there is not!

Whilst men may have it made on the face of things, have they really? If women are free to sleep with whomsoever they wish, they will and do invariably choose the most appealing option. We need only look at the images on social media to see what young women aspire to, the glam, the ostentatious, the labels, the cars and the locations, but what does that mean? It means that society has regressed back to the 80/20 with the vast majority of women pursuing the minority of men, provided they are eligible of course, but what makes them eligible?

Once again, a quick look at social media reveals all, women increasingly making desperate attempts to grab attention from men, who are already inundated with single women. They must be young, single, slim, with curves in the right places and make open and public gestures of their willing sexual intentions, or the will simply be left swiped!

In this age of female empowerment, we have also witnessed a climate of female delusion, look at any dating site and check out the requirements made by women. If you look at slightly more conservative cultures, you will see a woman looking for a man to settle down with and have a family, she may be aged 25 and looking for a man from 25 to 40, for example. Then check the women in more western societies, after a long list of pre-requisites, you will invariably see, woman aged 45, looking for a man from 29 to 45, delusion has taken over the asylum. We may have been swayed by the odd freak stomach turning situation where an obviously damaged young man in his 30s enters a relationship with a women in her 60s, but the reality of these situations just does not bare thinking about, all I can say is that Viagra must surely save the day!

As women have fallen for the notion of empowerment, men have had no need to be men, in fact they are disappearing at an alarming rate, being replaced by weak, irresponsible abominations who would never have the honour to take a bullet for the one they love, they would be hard pushed to put them ahead of their games console!

Therefore, it is not difficult to understand that both sexes (yes there are only two) are victims of this culture of freedom, but the greatest irony is yet to come. One of the most common reason that women (who instigate most divorces) do actually file for divorce is infidelity.

“If he cheated on you, then you MUST divorce him and punish him!”

Fair enough, this is commonplace and there will never be a society where men are not tempted by the ways of Eros, unless there is a society without men (now there’s a thought) but isn’t it ironic that these women who so eagerly divorce the man they love, because he was tempted to do that which is natural, will then happily sleep with other men who were sleeping with another ‘hook-up’ from Tinder the night before and probably another on the next night.

“I won’t stand for that” I hear you cry!

I’m sorry to say that you will, time and time again, because once you are divorced or beyond the accepted ‘Instagram aesthetic’ you will have no choice, you either join a long line of bedfellows, accept celibacy and suffer or settle for a beta male that really doesn’t do it for you, but what about the men?

They are not as well off as they think, with more and more men are falling in to the category of the 80%, they are disposable, even when they do manage to enter a relationship, they are treated like a doormat, because they are not really their partner’s first choice, she wants the illusion of the images she sees on social media and compared to them, you sir, are a failure, a deadbeat, you do not satisfy her sexually like Christian Grey (who would have been deemed a deviant if he were not a billionaire) but that’s another matter.

The numbers of disenfranchised men is increasing at an alarming rate, along with a falling birth rate. Governments around Europe have tried to plug the gap by allowing millions of immigrant men to enter their countries, despite their rhetoric this is planned, and many women are willingly jumping in to bed with them, but over the last few decades, Europe has seen an explosion of immigrants who come from cultures that do not respect women whatsoever, cultures that sentence their children to a lifetime of confusion and prejudice. The increasing levels of misogyny are alarming, but the media hide this of course, yet we all know, don’t we?

As the number of men who give up on life increases, so does the crime, the lack of social order and the breakdown of the family. In time, this would leave the government no option but to implement a dystopian society, to restore order for our own safety, which I am certain they would not wish to do, would they?

Conclusion

I must apologise for the cynical undertone of my words, but some things need to be said, or more importantly, they need to be addressed, before society goes in to meltdown. Every time a man is taken to the cleaners in a divorce court, it may be one point to the plaintiff, but it is another nail in the coffin that was society. If marriage were a business contract, only an idiot would sign it.

I fervently believe that there is nothing more beautiful in life than to pledge your heart and soul to a woman who you will live and die for. I was never lucky enough to have this, but that does not prevent me from believing in it, supporting it and suggesting that we should all do our level best to protect this tradition that is as much a part of humanity as birth and death.

The moral is that society needs to re-enforce this to the young, to encourage them and assist them in every way possible to achieve this, the most fundamental of life’s goals. We must cease to aspire to this Bacchanalian society that will surely be our doom. I am repeating myself once again, but I cannot emphasise this enough, where society regresses back to the 80/20, it creates a mass of women throwing themselves at men, to the detriment of their self-respect, their honour and their principles, whilst concurrently creating a mass of men who have nothing to work for, nothing to live for and nothing to strive for.

Final thoughts:

When a man pledges his love to a young woman, he will forever see that young woman, who will invariably become all the more beautiful in the fullness of time, as she bears his children, but when a man glances at a photo of an older woman online he does not see a woman who was his bride, how many more reasons do you need to stop casting off men so easily, the grass is not Greener, it never is.

Some of the most amazing achievements made by men have been for the love of a woman, but in the end, they are men, they will be tempted, they will make mistakes, they will fall prey to temptation, so the dilemma here is, should society understand that and stop encouraging women to walk away at a drop of a hat, or should we continue on our current course of social, moral and domestic Armageddon?