I just came across this clip of the Tom Leykis show in which Tom (or Dad if you are a regular listener) interviews Michelle Langley, author of Women’s Infidelity: Living In Limbo: What Women Really Mean When They Say “I’m Not Happy.” (Not sure why the book needed two subtitles.)
A four-time divorcee, before he went off the air Leykis was without a doubt the most prominent media figure seriously promoting the idea that the institution of marriage was a bad business and personal deal for men. He never called it a “strike,” he simply told every man who asked about it on the show to not get married. When asked why he got married four times, he explained that his experiences qualified him to speak on the matter and emphasized the words “institution” and “commitment.”
I love this woman’s voice, by the way.
Langley makes, among others, the following assertions:
- Women have been taught that they should “want” commitment and marriage, while the days of women needing a husband to support their basic needs are over.
- “Women want to get married, they just don’t like being married,” but they are taught they should manipulate and cajole men into marriage.
- Women have been taught that men are slothful dogs and that women are intrinsically moral beings, thus they lack empathy for men and believe that their female instincts and drives are ipso facto morally right (hmm, could it be….haaamsters?)
- Marriage has been oversold to women, who feel disappointment when marriage turns out to be like real life with a permanent roommate. Meanwhile marriage has been undersold to men, who are taught they are to avoid “commitment,” and so their reaction to marriage is sometimes “this isn’t as bad as I thought it was.”
- According to her research the general tendencies are that married women cheat for sexual satisfaction, while married men cheat for emotional fulfillment (the latter backs up what your intrepid blogger has been reading).
- Sex releases bonding hormones (paging Athol Kay), and marriages without any sex unsurprisingly lack the fruit of that bonding mechanism.
- Females’ lack of skill (or lack of desire) in communicating their wants to their husbands is a major contributor to their continuing marital unhappiness and to their husbands eventually not trying at all.
- Paternity tests should be mandatory and Lord Manfield’s Rule of child support (your wife, your kid no matter the DNA) is terribly unfair. Joint custody should be the law in a divorce with children.
- Female sexual shaming, and propagandizing females as intrinsically monogamous, evolved to maintain credible paternity in patriarchal society.
- Said sexual shaming is outdated now that we have paternity tests.
- Backing off on sexual shaming of women will lead them to make better decisions about marriage because they won’t have to get married in order to have control over their sexuality (i.e. sex within marriage is socially approved).
I thought the last point was rather specious in modern urban society (who outside of religious communities is getting married strictly to be able to have sex?) but putting that aside Langley was lights out. In discussing male and female mating strategies she flirted with hypergamy but never said the words; she described it as “men spread the seed and women gather it.”
Leykis takes a call from a middle-aged married childless woman who tells listeners to not get married, citing her frustration that her husband doesn’t “think about her 24/7.” (Langley responds that women “only need 6-7 hours per week of undivided attention.”)
Another married caller complains that as the breadwinner she risks loss of lifestyle and time with her son if she leaves her cold fish husband. Langley noted that she could empathize with men, who are overwhelmingly the ones in the position to lose material worth and child access in divorce. The caller’s solution was to have an “open marriage” (which by my definition and Leykis’ is not a marriage).
Research like Langley’s is very interesting to me, putting words to the real problems and backing off the pressure of the marriage cartel to make participation in the institution a matter of personal choice instead of social pressure and herd approval. Some people could learn an awful lot from her.
FWIW, I’m not really in line with the marriage strike idea, first of all because it’s an impractical idea to get behind; most men want to have relationships with women, and many want to be husbands and fathers as part of their natural instinct to lead and to breed. Shaming men for getting married is going to produce another group of weak, confused men – these ones getting it on both sides, from guys who say they are too committed along with the ubiquitous women who say they aren’t committed enough. (The best move would probably be for men to just stop listening to the criticisms of women on this front entirely, and simply ask themselves “is this the life I want for my future?” If no, move on and date someone else or be single and get on with your life’s work.)
- Are head over heels in love with a woman who is same
- Have seriously considered their bride’s fitness for marriage
- Openly prepared to commit the effort (“game”) necessary to remain the #1 man in her life
It blows my mind that in an era where almost nobody really has to get married lest they risk the confirmed bachelor/old maid reputation, people are still getting into bad marriages at a huge clip. Dalrock has said (brilliantly) that men should feel no social or moral obligation to marry in an environment where “commitment” is really only until one spouse decides to call the divorce attorney, and/or the cops.