Why Marriage Is Too Risky For Men

Karen Straughan is a Canadian spokesperson for Men’s Rights who featured prominently in the controversial film The Red Pill. In 2013, Karen created her YouTube channel What Girls Write. She has used the channel to post her views of feminism, calling it a disgrace. On a visit to Australia in June, Karen Straughan addressed The Sydney Institute on Wednesday 7 June 2017.

WHY MARRIAGE IS TOO RISKY FOR MANY MEN

 KAREN STRAUGHAN

I’ll tell you a bit about myself, and get some inevitable questions out of the way right off the bat, which should streamline the Q&A.

I do not have mommie issues. I do not have daddy issues. I am not a lonely woman who’s been unable to form long term committed relationships with men, or who just wants male attention. I don’t hate women, and I actually think marriage is good for society and, more specifically, necessary for the healthy development of children.

All of that said, I’m here to make the case that marriage as it exists today is simply a raw deal for men, one that involves massive risks and very little benefit.

I have the pleasure of speaking to you all about issues you’re probably familiar with to one degree or another. You might not be consciously aware of them as issues, but I would suspect that whether you’re a man or a woman, you’ll have been witness, first or secondhand, to some of the things I’m going to talk about tonight.

The first thing I’m going to ask you all is this: what are the scariest three words you can imagine hearing? I want you to think about that, and I’ll come back to it in a few minutes.

My second question: which sex, men or women, desires marriage more? And, no, that doesn’t automatically translate into, “which sex asks for marriage?” Which sex desires marriage? Surprisingly, the answer to that question is the same as the answer to the question, “which sex desires divorce?”

The answer to both questions – who desires marriage, and who desires divorce – is “mostly women”.

In Western cultures, we have a unique perspective on this because, unlike in more “patriarchal” cultures, women in the West are capable of financial independence, both men and women have sexual freedom and divorce is a very easy thing to get. You don’t even need grounds anymore, let alone an act of parliament (something that used to be necessary in order to divorce a couple hundred years ago in Britain).

This means that two of the primary drivers of marriage that existed traditionally – women’s need for access to men’s resources, and people’s desire for access to sex – no longer necessitate “pairing up for life”. Women need the redistribution of resources implicit in marriage less now than they ever have in human history, and men do not need to make a lifelong commitment to a woman in order to have access to sex.

Neither men nor women need marriage. Yet, even now, women overwhelmingly want marriage and it’s also, counterintuitively, overwhelmingly women who initiate divorce.

When you think about it, it makes a certain sense. Marriage has become not a staple, but a luxury item. And when it comes to a luxury item, the people who are most able to afford that luxury item, and the people who are most likely to throw it away or trade it in for something better or different, tend to be the very same people. Poor people treasure their luxuries. Rich people are more likely to take them for granted.

Because we’ve been doing things this way for quite a while, women intuitively understand that they have more to gain from marriage than to lose, while for men the formulation is the opposite – more to lose than to gain. Women know they will almost always be granted possession of the marriage’s most valuable asset – the children. They also know that the party who retains possession of the children typically receives the marital home and regular income supplements from the other party.

So, this is not only about the immediate benefits to men and women within the marital contract – pooling of resources, an extra set of hands and eyes in terms of child care and supervision, and the savings involved in single-residence dwelling. It’s also about projected outcomes should one party or the other decide to terminate the contract, something that unilateral no-fault divorce allows either party to do against the wishes of the other.

So, it’s not just about what you gain when you get married. It’s also about what you can expect to get if and when you divorce. When one party understands that they are in a position to gain, relative to the other, by terminating a contract, this provides them with all kinds of leverage against the other party in terms of continual, often unilateral, renegotiation of the contract itself. And women, consciously or subconsciously, do bring that leverage to bear when engaging in negotiations within their marriages. I’m just going to provide an example.

I have an acquaintance (we’ll call him Bill) who’s in a very difficult marriage. When he and his wife (let’s call her Janet) married about five years ago, they were both high earners. They purchased a home and lived a lifestyle based on their combined income which was in the top 5 per cent of households in Canada.

When they had a child, Jane unilaterally renegotiated the contract, and changed the life plan they’d both agreed to before they got married. She was suddenly uninterested in going back to work in her old position (as a full time senior administrator) soon after having the baby, the way she’d said she wanted to do before having a child. And, I don’t blame her. As a mother, I’m well aware of the biological imperatives involved, where every fibre of your being is screaming at you to stay close to your baby. I can’t fault her for that.

After six months, she insisted she wasn’t ready to return to work in any capacity. After 18 months, she finally decided she’d return to work part time (earning about a quarter of what she had previously, given that you can’t exactly be a part time senior administrator). It is here is where I must find fault with Janet. It is here where she becomes a hostile negotiator within her marriage, and exploits her leverage in order to call all the shots.

When Janet returned to work part time, Bill suggested they sell the fancy house they’d purchased, downsize to a more affordable home in a less ritzy neighborhood, trade the BMW in for something cheaper and essentially live within their new means. Janet wouldn’t hear of it. What would her friends think? After all, nearly everyone in her social circle lived in a gated community of palatial homes, and here was her husband trying to convince her to downgrade to a four bedroom, two bath rancher surrounded by plebes.

The more he suggested it, the more she suggested to him that she hadn’t married him so she could live in the burbs or drive a used Honda Civic.

So, for the last three years, Bill has been working 60 to 70 hours a week, often hundreds or even thousands of miles away from home for weeks at a time, to maintain the lifestyle she demands. One day a few months ago, he told me, “I haven’t seen my kid in a month, or my wife naked in six. If this keeps up, I’m going to cheat. Something’s gotta give.” And the horrible thing is, it’s not like she’s happy, either, which is probably why he hasn’t seen her naked in ages. She complains to him constantly that he’s never around, and that when he is around, he’s not emotionally available.

Why isn’t he around? Because he’s doing what she’s demanding of him – earning enough to give her what she insists on having – and that means being away. A lot.

Why is he emotionally unavailable when he’s home? Because if he actually told her how he feels about the situation, if he actually opened up and put it all out there, I can pretty much guarantee you she’d pack up the kid and leave.

He knows that. And he knows what that means, too. It means alimony, it means child support, it means him paying for that same house but not being able to live in it, and it means seeing his kid even less than he does now.

Under the law as it stands now, he can’t stop her. Divorce can be unilateral and for any reason or no reason at all. And who was at fault for the breakdown of the marriage has zero impact on the entitlements and responsibilities of the spouses. Even if she was found to be 100 per cent unreasonable and recalcitrant, if she’s fit she’ll still get primary custody, and he’ll still have to pay generous maintenance, because she’s the primary carer and he’s the primary earner.

In fact, on the surface of things, they look like the typical couple feminists talk about – where the wife tragically sacrifices her career to raise his children. You heard me, according to feminists, she’s the victim here. Look at what she gave up! All so that he could pursue higher pay, status and career advancement, at the expense of her own.

So, does Bill drop the feelings bomb now, or does he continue to tie himself in knots trying to keep her from leaving for one more day, then another, then another? What is he to do, when she has this sword pressed up against his neck and they both know it?

So, coming back around to that first question I asked you: what do you all think are the most terrifying three words this man could imagine hearing her say? I can tell you what they are. “I’m not happy.”

For many men, those three words are the harbinger of a life-changing, sometimes life-destroying, sequence of events over which they will have virtually no control. Their estranged wives will lead the entire dance in family court, often armed with free legal counsel and the assistance of social workers and government agencies, helping her navigate a system that almost invariably grants the mother full custody and the father ongoing financial responsibility.

Approximately 70 per cent of divorces are initiated by women and, in the majority of cases, the reason given isn’t abuse or abandonment or even irreconcilable differences. It’s “dissatisfaction”. It’s, essentially, “I’m not happy.”

I’m not happy, so I’m going to break up my family. I’m not happy, so I’m going to turn my children’s lives upside down. I’m not happy, so I’m going to force my husband into a position where if he doesn’t keep earning the way he is right now, he can be put in prison. I’m not happy, so I’m going to turn my kids’ father into an “every other weekend dad”.

When I’ve talked about people like Bill and Janet in the past, I usually get bombarded with comments that he just needs to be honest. He just needs to put his foot down. He just needs to assert himself. But both Bill and Janet are well aware of the power Janet has if she chooses to be annoyed by such audacity on his part, and of the leverage it bestows on her in the constant renegotiation of their marriage.

Is Bill really in a position to put his foot down and insist that they downsize their home and begin living within their new means? Is he really in a position to tell her he’s quitting the job that pays for that house and lifestyle but keeps him away for weeks at a time, and taking a different one that pays less but allows him to be home every night? Is he really in a position to insist she go back to work?

Can he really do those things when they both know that the moment he annoys her she can harness the system to keep him exactly where he is now in terms of his job and his financial responsibilities, and maintain her own lifestyle, but downgrade him to a studio apartment and restricted access to his child?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is where men are right now. And it permeates every aspect of the relationship between men and women within marriage.

Have you ever heard of something called a “honey do” list? You might call it something different here in Australia, but in North America, it’s a list of tasks a woman gives her husband to do on his days off. Honey, do this. Honey, do that. Honey, stain the deck. Honey, fix the bathroom faucet. Honey, clean the leaves out of the gutters. Honey, change the oil in the car and get it washed. Honey, trim the hedge and fertilise the lawn. Honey, fix the squeak in the floor.

The honey do list is completely uncontroversial. No one thinks twice about it. No one would bat an eye over a woman ripping a page out of a home and garden magazine and saying, “Honey, make the yard look like this.”

Imagine what would happen if men had a “honey do list” filled with traditionally feminine things they’d hand to their wives on the weekends. “Honey, cook prime rib tonight. And don’t forget the yorkshires.” “Honey, bacon and eggs Saturday morning, in bed, please.” “Honey, the kitchen baseboards are looking a little dingy – they could use a scrub.” “Honey, take my suit into the cleaners.” “Honey, I want cupcakes.” “Honey, bring me a beer.” “Honey, I could use a steak and a blowjob.”

Even in marriages where both parties arrange things along traditional lines, such a honey do list would be considered gauche at best, boorish and misogynistic at worst. How dare a man have these sexist expectations of his wife! Does he think he’s living in the 1950s?

But it isn’t about sexism and gender roles at all, because at the same time, what would be the reaction if a man handed his wife a honey do list? With items like, “Honey, change your own tire.” “Honey, fill up the cars with gas.” “Honey, install that new light fixture in the dining room.” “Honey, rake the leaves.” “Honey, the fence needs repairing.” I don’t think that would go over very well, either.

And what if a woman gave her husband a list with items like, “Honey, empty the diaper pail.” “Honey, do the dishes.” “Honey, throw in a load of laundry.” “Honey, take Becky to ballet”?

No big deal, right?

The sexism at play here is not about sexist expectations of women or men. It’s about which sex is allowed to even have expectations of the other. And when one partner is allowed to have them and the other is not, that should, I hope, tell you something about the power distribution in the relationship. Men are not in a position to have expectations and make demands. Women are. And that’s not a partnership.

That’s an inherently exploitative relationship. One where a man can be dismissed at any time, for any reason or no reason, and yet still be held to his side of the bargain. You still have to put in the same work, you just don’t get the reward.

Is it any wonder that men are becoming disillusioned with the idea of marriage? That a growing number of men are not only saying they’ll never get married, but that they’ll never live with a woman, never share space with a woman, never trust a woman enough to not use a condom? Because doing any of these things can legally obligate a man to a woman and a child, without providing him with any benefits, privileges or rights. He’s like the divorced guy, but he didn’t even get to be married first.

Live with a woman long enough, and the law considers you married, with all the attendant legally enforceable responsibilities to a woman who bears no legal responsibilities toward you. Trust the wrong women when she says she’s got birth control covered? Say hello to a two hundred thousand dollar baby mortgage, amortised over the next 18 to 26 years and, as an added bonus, you’ll have to apply in court at your own expense for parental rights that may or may not be granted to you.

And here we can see the true nature of the issue. What is marriage? What is it for?

Ask a feminist, particularly a feminist of the second wave, and they’ll tell you marriage as an institution was created by men to subordinate women and exploit them for sex, for their reproductive ability and for “free” domestic services. A wife, to many such feminists, is sexual chattel, a brood mare and a domestic slave. The enterprise of marriage was a one-way contract, with the husband reaping all the benefits and the wife relegated to sexual, reproductive and domestic serfdom.

But as marriage has become less necessary to men or women, what aspects of marriage remain? Certainly not the traditional roles of wife and mother.

We have done our level best as a society to mitigate the situation for women who might find themselves accidentally pregnant and unwilling to become a mother. Abortion and emergency contraception are legal and accessible and, in most Western countries, new mothers are able to legally abandon their children via safe haven or baby moses laws—they can hand over their babies to the state and walk away from any and all obligation to them. Women have more than a dozen highly effective forms of birth control at their disposal, so they can decouple the act of sex from the condition of motherhood.

No husband can legally force his wife into sex – that’s rape. No husband can legally coerce his wife into having a baby – that’s a form of domestic violence called reproductive coercion. No husband can legally require his wife contribute to the household in particular ways – like staying home to take care of the kids, or even going out and getting a job.

So what remains of marriage? The man’s moral and financial responsibility toward his wife and children, not only during the marriage but after divorce, no matter who broke up the family or for what reason. And not only does this responsibility remain regarding marriage, but we have increasingly imposed traditionally male contributions to marriage on men who are not married. On men who have foolishly lived with a woman for more than six months, or who’ve contributed, intentionally or otherwise, willingly or against their consent, to a pregnancy.

As fewer people than ever choose to get married, we’ve responded by forcing the traditional obligations of marriage on unmarried men. We routinely tell men tricked into fatherhood, if you didn’t want to be a father you should have kept it in your pants. How reminiscent is that of the arguments of pro-life advocates when opposing abortion and emergency contraception, or even birth control? And it constantly amazes me how the very same people who would never accept that argument regarding a woman’s right to choose abortion will trot it out when men complain about a single mistake tethering them to a huge financial obligation that can and frequently does completely disrupt their educational and career aspirations.

In the US, things are so lopsided that a woman can legally abandon a child without the father’s knowledge or consent, absolving herself of all responsibility to it, a child that only exists because of her unilateral choices, while at the same time the state will garnish income from a 15-year-old boy’s paper route to pay child support to the adult woman who served prison time for raping him. The state will then require that boy to apply to the court at his own expense for visitation rights to the child, while providing the mother with a free lawyer so she can oppose his motion in court.

What does all of this tell us about what marriage was actually for? If “marriage 2.0” is the imposition of obligations on men who engage with women sexually, whether or not they ever bothered to pop the question, then what was marriage 1.0 all about? Was it really about the subjugation of women the way feminists have always suggested? Or was it about identifying the fathers of children and holding those men responsible for those children and their mothers?

And where does this all leave men these days?

In Japan over the last decade, an increasing number of men under 30 are being described by cultural analysts as Soshoku danshi, or “grass eating men”. They have no interest in marriage, but what is more, they have no interest in dating, in sex, or in full time work. They spend more money on cosmetics than women do.

Economists in Japan are losing their collective minds over this, because their entire economy has been built on the willingness of men to put in long days getting things done, in order to generate a surplus of productivity to benefit women and children. What happens when huge numbers of men go on strike? When they throw up their hands and say, “the juice is not worth the squeeze”.

Some interesting numbers came out of New Zealand back in 2015, crunched by the government and Victoria University. They examined the cumulative contributions to the tax system of men and women over a lifetime. The idea was that you start with a zero balance, and then over your childhood you’re dipping into your overdraft as you consume taxpayer funded services like health care and education. Between age 20 and 24, when you finish school and start working, you begin putting tax money back into the system.

The data reveal some concerning realities. If the average man dies at his retirement party, aged 65, he will have put $55,000 more into the system than he’s taken out. If the average woman dies at age 65 the day she retires, she will have taken almost $50,000 more out than she has put in. By the time he is 80, the average man’s net, cumulative contribution to the tax system is zero. If the average woman lives to age 80, she will be $150,000 in the red.

Perhaps the most terrifying thing of all is that the only group that pays more taxes than they take out, is men aged 40 to 65. Men aged 40 to 65 are carrying the entire shebang.

And what have we been doing as a society? We’ve turned marriage into a rigged game that any sane man would avoid like the black death. We’ve tried to compensate for the decline in marriage by coercing marital responsibilities from unwilling men at the point of a gun. Countries like Sweden have proposed a “man tax” to subsidise women’s needs, and struggling cultures in decline since the Roman Empire have attempted to enact “bachelor taxes”, and have even pressed men into marriage by withholding citizenship rights from any who would decline the invitation.

And the really sad thing is, coercive and punitive measures might appear to work in the short term, but they aren’t enough to keep a civilisation going, or to keep its men invested in it.

Societies need men. Men are overwhelmingly the people who keep the lights on, the water running and the planes from falling out of the sky. They are overwhelmingly the people who produce our food, and move it from farm to supermarket. They are overwhelmingly the people who guard our borders, police our streets, and carry injured people to hospital. They are the producers and suppliers of the raw materials we consume every day of our lives, from wood, to oil, to natural gas, to potash, to the magnesium in your cell phone battery.

We need men, every single one of us, and they’re bugging out. They’re failing out of school, they’re increasingly not in employment, education or training, they’re failing to launch and when they do launch, they’re not as interested as they used to be in landing in a nest of their own with a woman and producing children. And to be frank, I can’t blame them. We’ve built an entire culture around dissing them, treating them like monsters or idiots, and even when they step up and do what they’re supposed to, when they put in the hours and the effort to give us what we demand, we’ll happily take away their kids and then, as Robin Williams once put it, rip their genitals out through their wallets.

We can force them all we like. We can shame them all we like. We can call them Peter Pans, manchildren, manbabies, stunted adolescents, fragile males, whiners and losers all we like. We can talk until we’re hoarse about what a “real man” is supposed to do. It won’t matter, because for a growing number of men, the juice is just not worth the squeeze, and no amount of shame, blame or even coercion is going to bring them back in line.

What we need to do is begin to really see what men do for us, we need to appreciate it, and we need to reward it. We need to equalise the gendered imbalance of power within the institution of marriage, and within the cultural discourse as a whole.

We need to consider men a vital and necessary part of the families they help form, and provide them with equitable rights and the respect they’re due when they take on that burden. But more importantly, to my mind, we need to start realising that men are people too. They hurt and they suffer and when they do and they tell us and the first thing we do is twist the knife, we need to ask ourselves what that says about us.

Unless and until society is prepared to do that, I’m going to continue to recommend to men that they stay as far away from marriage, and even women, as they possibly can.