The War on Men

[handerson]

Another thing that might be in play is that in the past, more men left simply because women didn’t have the economic or social capacity to.

Good points, guys, but to me, the point of the article is stronger. The trend I have seen is not just baby boomers, but also Generation X. The women are leaving (or kicking out) the men who want to stay married. It is common to also see them turn away from the evangelical faith.

Our county led the nation in divorce rate in the 1970’s, so maybe we are simply ahead of the times. Or maybe the phenomenon is truly unique to our region?

dcbii said:

The fact that this would make it easier for any of them to *initiate* a divorce is simply coincidental. The reasons for staying married (or not) should be based on the Bible and what is right, not lack of economic choice.

I didn’t mean to imply that financial and social freedom was the reason the women choose to divorce vs. stay married, but simply that women who wanted to leave their marriages in previous generations couldn’t even if they wanted to. Today, the door is wide open if they choose too. I’m all for educating and empowering women, but with the power comes the freedom to use it for good or evil.

Also, this afternoon, I ran through a list in my head of the Christian marriages that have ended in divorce or in the process of divorcing that I have been near—of the first eleven situations that came to mind (yes, it is that bad), four were initiated by wives for no apparent reasons, three were initiated by husbands for no apparent reasons, and the remaining four were the result of infidelity or addictions on the part of the husband. A couple of those last situations may have been salvageable, but like I mentioned before, without a model for reconciliation and restoration, the wife was often left feeling helpless and believed that divorce was a foregone conclusion. I know of only one marriage that survived a possible divorce situation. There may be others, but I simply don’t know of them.

Of course, this is all anecdotal, but that’s what I’ve observed in the last decade. I would also classify these folks in the 25-45 age bracket.

[handerson]

I didn’t mean to imply that financial and social freedom was the reason the women choose to divorce vs. stay married, but simply that women who wanted to leave their marriages in previous generations couldn’t even if they wanted to. Today, the door is wide open if they choose too. I’m all for educating and empowering women, but with the power comes the freedom to use it for good or evil.

Yes, I believe we are saying the same thing.

If someone understands the increased rate of women filing for divorce as a direct fall-out of feminism, it’s possible to misinterpret feminism as the reason women are divorcing instead of the fact that feminism has simply given women more ability to act on their selfish desires.

There has undoubtedly been a devaluing of marriage in the culture at large, but that touches men and women alike. The most obvious change has happened among women, but they are simply catching up with their male counterparts.

@handerson:

First, it is statistically NOT true that the devaluing of marriage touches men and women alike or that women “are simply catching up with their male counterparts.” Instead, the current statistics are that women initiate more than two-thirds of divorces (IOW, women file for divorce twice as often as men), and only a small percentage are due to cruelty or adultery. See the following article reporting on an AARP study of divorced men and women ages 40-79 and an academic paper (American Law and Economics Review) cited in the article: http://www.adn.com/2012/06/24/2518581/most-of-the-time-wife-initiates.html and http://www.unc.edu/courses/2010fall/eccon/586/001/Readings/Brinig.pdf.

Second, here is an interesting blog post from Wednesday commenting on the article in the OP, a previous article by the same author, and a subsequent “clarifying” interview with the author. This is from www.dalrock.wordpress.com:

A year ago Suzanne Venker famously asked: Marriage: What’s in It for Men?

…we must retract the message Boomers sent young women about female empowerment. Indeed, it isn’t a coincidence that marriage rates have plummeted alongside America’s fascination with the feminist movement. Empowerment for women, as defined by feminists, neither liberates women nor brings couples together. It separates them. It focuses on women as perpetual victims of the Big Bad Male. Why would any man want to get married when he’s been branded a sexist pig at “hello”? In the span of just a few decades, women have managed to demote men from respected providers and protectors to being unnecessary, irrelevant, and downright expendable.

She was close to the core of the issue then, but was missing the key point of leadership. Telling the man he is responsible for financing and protecting the family but not leading it places him in a subordinate role. As others have pointed out, the difference between a driver and a chauffeur is who is calling the shots. Far too many self labeled “traditionalist” women want to put men in the drivers seat as figureheads with the wives calling the shots; they are feminists who don’t want to get their hands dirty. The issue of headship is the litmus test which separates out truly traditional women and feminists in traditionalist clothing.

Just this week Ms. Venker launched what has become a celebrated broadside against the results of feminism with her Fox News opinion piece The war on men. The signature line of the piece is by now familiar to most readers:

Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don’t.

The piece certainly has its merits, as Vox Day, Empathalogicalism, and LGR have already explained. However, she still avoids the question of headship in the article.

In the meantime Ms. Venker spoke with the Daily Beast to correct the record: ‘The War on Men’ Author Suzanne Venker: I’m Misunderstood! Venker explains (emphasis mine):

Women should understand that they absolutely can be strong and independent and be married, but that being feminine and vulnerable and taking on that more traditional role as being dependent on a man and letting him have some say in the matter is not wasting that empowerment. They are confusing what empowerment means. They think it’s about money and prestige, but there is a tremendous amount of empowerment in surrendering in the home and letting the man in your life be what he wants to be, which is to protect you and care for you and provide for you.

One might read that as suggesting that men are made to be servants to women, and women need to let men act as servants (and perhaps even consider their husband’s input when making decisions). This of course sounds familiar. She reinforces this concept later in the interview:

I work outside the home. My husband does his thing. No one would consider me a docile or obedient housewife… I am married to a guy who works so that I can have a cushy writing life. That is the beauty of marriage.

Thank you for posting the statistical links. Perhaps I can clarify my statement about the devaluing of marriage and offer one other observation.

When I referenced the fact that the devaluing of marriage touches men and women alike, I was including the point that men are simply not entering marriage at all (like the article referenced) and thus devaluing it. It is the women, of my generation, who are pushing marriage and usually for all the wrong reasons (again as the article you quoted suggested).

What I see happening among my secular friends is that a girl has a fantasy idea about relationships and marriage, she finds a guy, moves in with him, and then manipulates him into marrying her. (He is not the one promoting marriage because given a choice, why would he if he already has the benefits of a wife but not the responsibility?) But the girl is pushing for this fairy tale wedding, for this idealized domestic situation, and then when it doesn’t happen after the wedding—because nothing intrinsically changed in their relationship—she is dissatisfied and angry. The guy is passive through the whole process.

Both men and women devalue marriage in their own way. Also, the stats you referenced reflect the age bracket above mine and my observations were anecdotal of my own generation.

I guess my biggest concern is acknowledging that while feminism may have altered the ways that our selfishness expresses itself, it has not fundamentally altered the human condition. Throughout time, men have been selfish when it comes to marriage and women have been selfish when it comes to marriage. Feminism is not the “Great Satan” anymore that heavy-handed masculine rule is. Feminism is the expression of hearts that have been selfish all along and finally have freed themselves from social and economic restraints so that they can practice their selfishness with abandon—much like men of previous generations have been able to. (For example, in the past, men could routinely be sexually promiscuous before marriage and it was simply understood as “sowing wild oats.” Women who did the same thing where viewed as harlots.)

Here’s my ultimate concern: if we get distracted by fighting feminism, if we reduce this whole context to a gender war, we will miss the real enemy—our own sinful hearts.

[handerson] I guess my biggest concern is acknowledging that while feminism may have altered the ways that our selfishness expresses itself, it has not fundamentally altered the human condition. Throughout time, men have been selfish when it comes to marriage and women have been selfish when it comes to marriage. Feminism is not the “Great Satan” anymore that heavy-handed masculine rule is. Feminism is the expression of hearts that have been selfish all along and finally have freed themselves from social and economic restraints so that they can practice their selfishness with abandon—much like men of previous generations have been able to. (For example, in the past, men could routinely be sexually promiscuous before marriage and it was simply understood as “sowing wild oats.” Women who did the same thing where viewed as harlots.)

Here’s my ultimate concern: if we get distracted by fighting feminism, if we reduce this whole context to a gender war, we will miss the real enemy—our own sinful hearts.

I’m afraid that what you see among the secular friends of your generation is what I see in my generation of Christian friends, though dressed up better in a (too successful) attempt to retain moral legitimacy. In at least 2/3 of the divorces where there is no biblical ground (i.e., no abandonment, adultery, or abuse), the Christian woman is the initiator and the real reason for the divorce is that she is not happy. (She may genuinely be deeply unhappy, and may have been for a long time, and she may have some good reasons to be unhappy, but she does not have biblical grounds for divorce.) She has been taught by the church and by parachurch ministries and Christian marriage books, explicitly and implicitly, that if she is not happy and doesn’t want to submit to her husband’s leadership or respect him or have sex with him, it is because he does not love her as Christ loved the church. She will view her husband’s failure, consciously or unconsciously, as an ultimate failure on his part that is at least grounds for further disrespect and sexual refusal, which only worsens whatever other issues she has with her husband’s behavior, which fuels further disrespect and sexual refusal, etc. Eventually, she will justify filing for divorce for reasons of varying moral force to other Christians: (a) God doesn’t want her to be so unhappy, especially if it’s her husband’s fault; (b) her husband’s surliness, though he has never physically abused her, equates to “emotional abuse,” which is close enough to justify divorce; or (c) her husband has viewed pornography, which is tantamount to adultery (because Jesus said looking with lust = adultery), which is grounds for divorce — regardless of whether her husband is contrite or whether her persistent sexual refusal contributed to (though it did not excuse) his sin, as Paul recognizes sexual refusal will do in 1 Cor. 6. (This excludes the much less frequent instances where there has been actual physical abuse or actual adultery.)

I agree that men and women are both depraved. In that sense, it might be possible to get distracted by feminism. But to the extent the churches’ current teaching is presenting an unbiblical and imbalanced view of marriage (husbands have responsibilities, women have rights, etc.), to the extent the church as an entity and Christians as individuals are giving a pass to women who divorce without biblical gorunds, and to the extent society (especially through its divorce laws) is giving women incentives to file for divorce more often than men (because there is no fault requirement and because women still get superior access to the children), it’s not an issue of equivalent depravity. It’s an issue of tilted scales, and the church needs to address it.

He’s correct.

I interact with a fairly large group of unmarried 20 and 30 somethings on a regular basis. I am overwhelmed with the number of women who believe or appear to believe that they are just as capable of leadership in a marriage as men. They will argue vociferously that the male headship pattern is a cultural tradition. That because of their education, their financial position and their career achievements they have proven their ability to be leaders. Add to that their positions of leadership in small group Bible studies, singles groups and some in having positions of responsibility in evangelical churches and they simply will not accept the notion that male headship is a Biblical pattern established by God.

The male response to women with these opinions is to run away. They reject the idea of marriage to women who will constantly be in competition for them as the leader in the relationship. Thus the men simply stop dating, make no effort to find a suitable marriage partner, and often walk away from the church because they see the church encouraging these “empowered’ women.

Yet the women play the victim in this game. They accuse the men of failing to “man up”, of being afraid to step up and act as leaders, while at the same time, accusing the men of being cultural traditionalists who are afraid of “strong women”.

I have three teenage daughters. I am trying to help them understand the dynamic of the current male/female relationship minefield in Christian circles. It is very discouraging.

One more thing. In an earlier post, I mentioned three marriages which have ended in divorce. One was at a neighboring church, one at a church where a friend goes some miles away, and one in another denomination nearby. I did not mean to imply that they were all at my church.

I don’t doubt what dmyers or the article says about women becoming more aggressive— I too see the trends that you describe.

I’m just arguing for a slightly nuanced approach—it is simply too easy to label this as a problem of feminism. Prior to feminism, women were just as manipulative, just as willful, just as aggressive, just as usurping of men—except in more subtly, socially acceptable ways. (If you don’t believe, it’s probably because you never were a jr. high girl. :-)) The way that feminism has changed the playing field is how we are able to express our sinfulness. It’s more open, more acceptable now to do precisely what our grandmothers have wanted to do (and sometimes did) all along. Because from my perspective, the woman who is socially demure, paying credence to traditional structures but then privately uses her emotions or femininity to control men (and teaches her daughters to do the same) is as dangerous as any out-spoken, brassy feminist ever will be.

Relevant to one of my points above — that great emotional pain in a marriage, even if real and justified, is not grounds for divorce, and that the church misrepresents Christ in condoning such divorces out of sympathy and to avoid being judgmental — see this post today from Desiring God about the real-life spiritual and societal benefits of enduring emotional pain in a marriage: http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=94431c7fc1ffa54485d1c84fe&id=73c203079f&e=d2464ba89e.