In a post provocatively titled “Total Douchebag Domination,” Dalrock quotes Susan Walsh and links to her video entitled “Douchebag Math” in which she attempts to explain to tingle-following college women how hooking up with players creates more players. Those darn men are quite pragmatic, you see, and as they observe what works in the SMP, they learn to imitate it.
More and more nice guys are going to figure out that with an attitude and poor treatment of girls they are going to get what it is that they want.
Allow me to respond with a statistical thought experiment of my own.
WOMEN MARRY AT AN ASTOUNDING CLIP
Dalrock has made a blogging career out of compiling and exegizing marital statistics, a career so distinguished he made the brainz.com list of Top 100 blogs of 2010 after only six months online (a list also graced by Walsh, Athol Kay and the incomparable Roissy).
I cannot hope to even summarize Dalrock’s numerical research, but one key fact he’s uncovered is that approximately 90% of women marry by age 40. In other words, there is no perceptible “marriage strike,” at least not yet, on the part of men. What does manifest in the stats is a couple of interesting factors: a continuing trend of delaying marriage to later in life, and a definite drop in the number of divorced women remarrying (a “second marriage” strike.)
THE SHOW CAN’T GO ON
Even if there is no marriage strike in the numbers, it is incomprehensible to me and many others (Walsh is one of them though I can’t find the quote right now) that marriage rates will NOT decline. The cultural phenomena are aligned against it: the radical changes in college sexual practices over the past decade towards even-less-committed “hooking up” than the Greek and jock scenes had already been known for, the increasing gender imbalance in American colleges that threatens the female hypergamy instinct, the further decline of romantic relationships as a feature of even mid-20’s young adult lifestyle, and the normalization of long-term cohabitation as a parallel alternative to a full marriage (which itself is a result of the degradation of marriage caused by no-fault divorce which made marriages themselves “disposable.”)
While I believe the committed MGTOW (men going their own way) lifestyle will be attractive to only a small subset of men, as I said above, men are generally quite pragmatic. Many of those pragmatic men who desire relationships with women will stop short of marriage if it is not in their interests, and still others will not find a woman sufficiently worthy of their marital commitment within the timeframe in which marriage is the biggest net benefit to their life (i.e. the childbearing years and the years in which they are doing the most active, interesting things with their lives).
The point of this post is not to debate the costs and benefits of marriage; however to allude to the pragmatic position, I will quote radio host and four-time divorcee Tom Leykis: “I do not say marriage is bad. I say there’s very little benefit to men, far less than women and children get from it – a man can get almost everything marriage used to provide without getting married today.”
Allow me now to play with some numbers.
Let’s use Dalrock’s numbers above and say that today, an adult woman has a 90% chance of being married within her young or early middle-age years.
Let’s say also that of the 10% that’s unmarried, half of those are “voluntary” (lesbians, WGTOW, non-monogamists, or didn’t like the deal of marriage).
That means the other half of the 10% are “involuntary” – they didn’t cash their chips in when they had enough to exchange for marriage, they backed the wrong horse as a partner and he bailed on her, they exhibited a snotty entitled attitude and are humbled too late, they got really bad advice on spouse-hunting or whatnot. In any case, their lack of proximal committed maleness causes them pain and consternation. Susan Walsh noted to me the emergence of a new writing genre, that of “involuntary spinster literature” (which I shortened to the double-entendre “invol-spin.”)
ON THE MARGIN
Stats involving ratios near 1:1 can be very deceptive to analyze, and so to show what I am about to explain I like to do a statistical illustration involving hockey (eh). One of the stats used to measure goalies is save percentage – the ratio of shots on goal that the goalie prevents from getting in the net. If a goalie had a save percentage of 98%, but he has dropped to 96% lately, it doesn’t sound like a big drop. Those two percentage points are only a 2.1% decline in the value of the metric. But look at it from the reverse perspective – he used to let in 2% of the shots, now he’s letting in 4%. That’s a twofold increase, he’s allowing double the goals!
THE SORROW AND THE PITY
This is where the real trouble starts. Let’s finally say, for the sake of the argument, that in the coming generation the marriage rate is set to decline to around 80%. It doesn’t sound like a catastrophic decline, but it doubles the number of unmarried women.
But the impact could, and almost certainly will, be even greater than that. It’s likely that most of the additional single women will also be involuntary.
That would leave us, following my semi-cooked numbers, with THREE TIMES the number of involuntarily unmarried women. That’s two more cat ladies to go with every one we have now. So now we have a cohort that comprised 5% of women becoming up to 15%.
There is not going to be a full-on marriage strike anytime soon. But there doesn’t need to be one. The effects of the decline of marriage are going to hit very hard on the margin.
It’s like being the goalie…your save percentage drops a few points and all of a sudden you’re allowing in whole-number multiples of goals.
And considering how much carping we’re already seeing from women not getting what they think is their birthright in the sexual (and marital) marketplace, we best be prepared for a media cacophony.