Matrimony or Bust

[Xantippe]

From the quoted article:

“All the way back in 1973, George Gilder published a book entitled Men and Marriage. He expanded and republished it in 1986. In his book, Gilder argued that our culture was marginalizing men, to its great peril.”

**I think our culture (and economy) is marginalizing some men (or they are marginalizing themselves), but that other men are much more closely involved with their families than men have ever been. It’s both the best of times and the worst of times with regard to fatherhood and marriage.

At the same time that there are more non-resident fathers in the US than ever before, actual resident fathers are much more hands-on and harder working than they’ve ever been before. My dad was a very decent father as 1980s blue collar dads went and he did work very hard at several different gigs, but that was almost it. He did involve himself with my math homework and college admissions (which he was keenly interested in) and I think he liked to take us big kids out for farm work or other outdoor work, but otherwise, he’d come home after a hard day and hit the newspaper and TV or a book until dinner appeared. He had essentially no indoor chores when I was growing up, no yard duties, and I don’t know if he ever changed a single diaper. Oh, and he’d gripe a lot at my mom for her lousy housekeeping and her cooking. (He would do occasional grocery shopping, as we lived in the country, and the store was on his way home.) My dad isn’t a bad person, but knowing what I know know, a lot of his expectations for my mom were not reasonable.

Fast forward 30 years, and I have a very different home life than my mom did, despite having the same number of kids in roughly the same age configuration. I have a white collar husband who makes a very nice income. He also takes trash out, washes dishes, does a lot of home maintenance (something my dad never did), does enrichment activities with our kids, helps with school stuff (as my dad did), drives kids to activities, pays bills, does some cooking, knows how to take care of small children, and is capable of taking care of one or two children by himself for a week if I take a child to see grandparents.

When I visit my parents and think about the differences, it’s like night and day. For one thing, the parenting job is both easier and harder than it used to be. Household chores are easier because we have a better income. But on the other hand, the demands of school are much higher and the children’s schedule is 20X more complicated than it was when my siblings and I were the same age that my kids are today. There is a very high degree of coordination between my husband and me because our parenting requires both of us to be fully engaged in the project of bringing up our kids.
**

“He articulated the critical role that marriage has in helping men focus their sexual energies in a creative and beneficial way. Women have their nurturing role rather clearly defined in the very design of their bodies. But men’s role in the raising of children and in society in general is less evident. The traditional family gave men a rather clearly defined role that had dignity and supplied them with the feeling that they were needed, indeed essential.”

**And yet involved contemporary fathers are more engaged and more competent with their children than average fathers of 30 years ago. **

“But, as Gilder showed even then, much of that has been stripped away. Feminism and the sexual revolution are sources of the erosion, along with other deleterious social effects. And the erosion of esteem for the roles of husband, father, provider, and leader is hurting not only men, but children, women, and our culture as a whole. For when the sexual energies of men are not channeled toward creative ends, they tend toward destructive ones.”

**I think husbands, fathers, providers, and leaders are highly esteemed, but men who are simply biological fathers are not. That’s not unfair, I think. **

“Gilder’s description of the problem is in full blossom today, and more and more social commentators now describe men as increasingly a combination of angry, disengaged, dysfunctional, cynical, fearful, and legally and socially constrained. The wider culture, heavily influenced by feminism, often depicts men as sexual predators, drinkers, imbeciles, buffoons, and as stupid and immature. And after consuming a steady diet of these portraits, some men do indeed display some of these traits.”

**That sounds like a chicken and egg problem–are some men feral because they’ve been depicted that way, or are they depicted as feral because they are feral? **

 

[Xantippe]

The problem related to matrimony isn’t- ‘men invoking excuses for our own failures’. But men seeing that the institution of matrimony provides nothing of value to them and deciding not to participate in it. Folks like several of my friends who have started businesses and are quite successful and see marriage as nothing but a risky legal entanglement with no upside justifying the risk.

**That’s interesting, because in the famous personal finance book The Millionaire Next Door, one of the features that contributes to wealth for ordinary people is a good marriage to a financially prudent spouse.

“The majority of wealthy people are married and stay married to the same person.”

"…several studies have shown that people who are married accumulate more wealth than those who are single or divorced. However, it’s important to marry someone with the right financial habits. In the majority of millionaire households studied by Danko and Stanley, the husband is the main breadwinner and tends to be frugal, but the wife is even more frugal. As they wrote, “A couple cannot accumulate wealth if one of its members is a hyperconsumer.”

getrichslowly.org/blog/2011/02/09/nine-lessons-in-wealth-building-from-the-millionaire-next-door/**

Or those that pursue whatever passions they have in life, quite content with making very little money and see marriage as taking on financial obligations to others with the potential for it to be a lifetime financial obligation even if their partner decides to end the relationship.

**Why would it be a lifetime financial obligation? That would be very, very, very unusual in the legal environment in the US today. I suspect if you canvassed divorced ladies on CAF, you’d be hard-pressed to find one who was getting indefinite financial support from an ex-husband. And child support is only until 18, or for college at the very latest.

Also, are you quite sure that your friends actually want to have children or actually want to be married? A lot of people don’t. And frankly, if they don’t want to take responsibility for a wife and kids, they shouldn’t.
**

Which was George Gilder’s point in ‘Men and Marriage’- that men’s tendency to simply pursue their own passions and not have much interest in improving society in general changes when they become fathers attached to their children. They then become vested in society and its stability and improvement and the sacrifices in working jobs paying more, but not in line with their passions, becomes worthwhile. Marriage, it’s assurance of their paternity of their children and the obligation on the woman for fidelity and loyalty, becomes a mutually beneficial agreement. The current state of matrimony- with no fault divorce, yet obligations for alimony, child support for children which may not even be his, no assurance of fidelity or paternity eliminate the basis making marriage a reasonable endeavor for men to participate in.

Paternity is a very odd item in that list.

Never before in human history has it been so easy to prove paternity beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I think it would be fairer to say the causation works the other way around. Because it is easy to prove paternity now and the government enforces child support for children born outside wedlock, women know that they and their children will not be left destitute if they don’t immediately marry when pregnant.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

But also over looked is the answer to the question “Why should a man or woman take the risk of marriage?” And yes, while rewarding to many it is one of the riskiest things men and women can do.

If not interested in children (a growing trend?), then the risks from loss of wealth in divorce to forsaking all others to reality that high wage earning couples may pay more taxes than two cohabiting singles are huge.

To me it seems that marriage is a great idea only after you meet the right person but before that, … not so much.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

I think husbands, fathers, providers, and leaders are highly esteemed, but men who are simply biological fathers are not. That’s not unfair, I think.

The bolded is definitely not true for mainstream media or on mainstream TV. Too often, fathers are portrayed as simpletons, buffoons, bigots and imbeciles. Or worse.

For instance: you just portrayed your dear beloved father as a sexist bigot with “unreasonable expectations”. He stayed married to your mother, didn’t he? He got you to adulthood and into marriage, didn’t he? You could portray him in higher esteem for that …

That sounds like a chicken and egg problem–are some men feral because they’ve been depicted that way, or are they depicted as feral because they are feral?

I could ask the same about women. Men are not the entire problem that they are made out to be by that question.

Paternity is a very odd item in that list.

Never before in human history has it been so easy to prove paternity beyond a shadow of a doubt.

While that is certainly true, most US states only allow for a short period following birth or a court order in which a man can legally challenge the paternity of a child borne by his wife or girlfriend, after that, he is stuck with the bill regardless of actual paternity. Bad news if a man raises a kid he assumes is his, then finds out after many years that the child isn’t his. He is the legal father, no matter what. In a divorce settlement, he is still liable to his ex-wife to support that child. She conned him and gets away with it; there is absolutely nothing he can do about it. In California, a man who receives a paternity summons has 30 days to respond or the court finds him to be the father and he can never ever challenge that finding. Even if he was never actually served. Then they attach his paycheck for the child support.

Looking at foreign countries: in France, private paternity tests are illegal. If a Frenchman orders one from a lab in Switzerland, it’s a year in jail if French customs catches that package. Not a good environment for marriage.

I think it would be fairer to say the causation works the other way around. Because it is easy to prove paternity now and the government enforces child support for children born outside wedlock, women know that they and their children will not be left destitute if they don’t immediately marry when pregnant.

Catching individual deadbeats is all well and good, that solves today’s support issue, but the real problem all this time is that child support is being substituted for marriage as the organizing principle of the family. When the lack of need to get married is subsidized, we’re going to get more lack of marriage, not less.

 

[on_the_hill]

What in here can possible describe a man’s experience with catholic woman??

I’m not much impressed with the excuse that men have become wimps because women did it to us. The first step in being a man is stepping up to your own responsibilities. That includes not invoking pathetic excuses for our own failures. We screw up NOT because “feminists have gotten uppity” but because we’re sinners needing a Savior (just like women). Confess it, acknowledge it, get up, dust off and do better next time.

Men have not turned to pathetic self-indulgent wimps because feminists did it to us, they’ve fallen that low by indulging in every desire instead of cultivating virtue and character. Women have their own sinful inclinations, but that’s another thread. And one I’m not interested in participating in. Eye, speck, beam, etc…

My thoughts also. Catholic men (and all men) should look to themselves and take ownership of their own behavior both good and bad. They can succumb to the culture and blame women or they can rise above the sinful aspects of our culture. It’s just too easy to blame women for the difficulties that they face. There are many women who would be delighted to meet a good faithful Catholic man who is emotionally healthy. Be that man!

The change isn’t feminism. It’s society. In times past, men and women were expected to behave in a certain way or they risked censure by both the clergy and society. Now, not so much. Society has changed and previously unacceptable behavior has become acceptable. You’re no longer a social pariah if you get divorced or get pregnant outside of marriage or live together. So, a lot of men and women just do whatever they feel like doing and when someone calls them out on it they blame the opposite sex, poor catechesis, etc etc.

I agree 100%.

I would not be impressed with a 200 lbs woman who ate nothing but potato chips and cookies, didn’t engage in any physical activity, and then blamed her obesity on the lack of quality men and how they relate to her.

Likewise, I’m unimpressed with men who spend all day online, live with their parents, and blame their choices on women.

I think our culture (and economy) is marginalizing some men (or they are marginalizing themselves), but that other men are much more closely involved with their families than men have ever been. It’s both the best of times and the worst of times with regard to fatherhood and marriage.

**And yet involved contemporary fathers are more engaged and more competent with their children than average fathers of 30 years ago. **

**I think husbands, fathers, providers, and leaders are highly esteemed, but men who are simply biological fathers are not. That’s not unfair, I think. **

**That sounds like a chicken and egg problem–are some men feral because they’ve been depicted that way, or are they depicted as feral because they are feral? **

Add my voice.

[my experience differs from Xantippe’s in that my dad was more like a “modern” husband and father than his peers.]

 

[Walking_Home]

The bolded is definitely not true for mainstream media or on mainstream TV. Too often, fathers are portrayed as simpletons, buffoons, bigots and imbeciles. Or worse.

For instance: you just portrayed your dear beloved father as a sexist bigot with “unreasonable expectations”. He stayed married to your mother, didn’t he? He got you to adulthood and into marriage, didn’t he? You could portray him in higher esteem for that …

I could ask the same about women. Men are not the entire problem that they are made out to be by that question.

While that is certainly true, most US states only allow for a short period following birth or a court order in which a man can legally challenge the paternity of a child borne by his wife or girlfriend, after that, he is stuck with the bill regardless of actual paternity. Bad news if a man raises a kid he assumes is his, then finds out after many years that the child isn’t his. He is the legal father, no matter what. In a divorce settlement, he is still liable to his ex-wife to support that child. She conned him and gets away with it; there is absolutely nothing he can do about it. In California, a man who receives a paternity summons has 30 days to respond or the court finds him to be the father and he can never ever challenge that finding. Even if he was never actually served. Then they attach his paycheck for the child support.

Looking at foreign countries: in France, private paternity tests are illegal. If a Frenchman orders one from a lab in Switzerland, it’s a year in jail if French customs catches that package. Not a good environment for marriage.

Catching individual deadbeats is all well and good, that solves today’s support issue, but the real problem all this time is that child support is being substituted for marriage as the organizing principle of the family. When the lack of need to get married is subsidized, we’re going to get more lack of marriage, not less.

---

While adultery by either spouse is a grave offense – it looks to be that a man who finds out – a child he has been raising/supporting-- is not biologically his – and turns away – as if the child is a parasite – draining on the mans resources – is thinking along the same lines as the radical pro-choicers – that see the preborn as disposable.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

While adultery by either spouse is a grave offense – it looks to be that a man who finds out – a child he has been raising/supporting-- is not biologically his – and turns away – as if the child is a parasite – draining on the mans resources – is thinking along the same lines as the radical pro-choicers – that see the preborn as disposable.

There is a difference: every time a man sees that child, he is confronted with irrefutable evidence of his wife’s adultery. It is one of the worst feelings a man can have. It can and does destroy marriages. Even when they don’t end in divorce. I have to admit it would take a far greater man than me to not only forgive a wife who put me in that position but also accept her and her child back into my house. Further, by taking her back, I may have given her license to think she can do it again. In which case, the marriage would be irrevocably broken, but now I’m on the hook for that child. If that makes me insecure and small-minded, so be it. I’m not rich, my resources are limited so if I get married, I darn well want my own children to get all of it. That other man fathered the child, he can be the one who pays.

 

[Walking_Home]

There is a difference: every time a man sees that child, he is confronted with irrefutable evidence of his wife’s adultery. It is one of the worst feelings a man can have. It can and does destroy marriages. Even when they don’t end in divorce. I have to admit it would take a far greater man than me to not only forgive a wife who put me in that position but also accept her and her child back into my house. Further, by taking her back, I may have given her license to think she can do it again. In which case, the marriage would be irrevocably broken, but now I’m on the hook for that child. If that makes me insecure and small-minded, so be it. I’m not rich, my resources are limited so if I get married, I darn well want my own children to get all of it. That other man fathered the child, he can be the one who pays.

---

Well – one would have to let go of pride and ego – to see in the child – a child of God.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

---

Well – one would have to let go of pride and ego – to see in the child – a child of God.

To each his own.

 

[Naskor]

There is a difference: every time a man sees that child, he is confronted with irrefutable evidence of his wife’s adultery. It is one of the worst feelings a man can have. It can and does destroy marriages. Even when they don’t end in divorce. I have to admit it would take a far greater man than me to not only forgive a wife who put me in that position but also accept her and her child back into my house. Further, by taking her back, I may have given her license to think she can do it again. In which case, the marriage would be irrevocably broken, but now I’m on the hook for that child. If that makes me insecure and small-minded, so be it. I’m not rich, my resources are limited so if I get married, I darn well want my own children to get all of it. That other man fathered the child, he can be the one who pays.

I know someone who went through such an experience. Learning that his wife lied to him everyday for 12+ years ended his marriage. He wanted it to work and really loved the child but the trauma was too much.

 

[Walking_Home]

Reminds me of what happens – when a male lion takes over a pride. He “offs” the young of the previous male – to establish his own DNA.

 

[Xantippe]

For instance: you just portrayed your dear beloved father as a sexist bigot with “unreasonable expectations”. He stayed married to your mother, didn’t he? He got you to adulthood and into marriage, didn’t he? You could portray him in higher esteem for that …

**I was a huge daddy’s girl for decades. However, now that I’m a grown woman with a husband and a growing family of my own, there are certain things that I see that were invisible to me at the time. Here are a few:

1. Growing up, we subsisted on a variety of his small self-employment income streams, plus occasional spells of crashing with my dad’s parents when times were tough. Granted, times were tough, but would it really have been so difficult to get a real job? Did we really have to be so poor all those years?**

**2. When I was a bit older, my dad had seasonal work, and regular stretches of unemployment. He’d do his farm stuff, but also spend long stretches of time on the sofa. As far as I can recall, his unemployment was never the inspiration to do more around the house (i.e. anything).

1. As for the “unreasonable expectations,” I had in mind the fact that when I was a kid, we had moved into a half-finished house that my parents were building. There was my dad, mom, me (almost 9), my sister (5ish?) and my infant brother. My parents continued to work on finishing the house for the next five years or so. I remember a number of occasions when my dad was griping at my mom for not finishing some light construction work (sealing some tiles, removing some painter’s tape, etc). Now that I’m a mom with three kids (12, 9 and 2) I look back at that and I’m totally horrified. How was a mother with a family of five to feed and keep safe in an unfinished (and frankly dangerous) house supposed to do that stuff while taking care of an infant and then a toddler? Totally ridiculous. If my dad wanted her to do the stuff, he should have taken the baby and given her time to do so or she should have taken the baby while he did the work. It’s silly to think a woman is going to finish a house while trying to live in it and take care of a little baby and two big kids.
2. At some point my mom started working. She started doing less and less at home. As far as I can tell, my dad never started doing more at home.
3. It is not uncommon when I visit my parents’ home even today for my dad to ask me to clean their refrigerator. Yes, I come home with a couple of my kids for a rare visit, and I get to clean their refrigerator. Really. It’s the worst fridge you’ve ever seen. (I’ve started making him help me.)**

**
6. On the one hand, my dad is very good with doing stuff with kids that he is interested in, but it’s rather visible that he just doesn’t make an effort with the grandkids otherwise. I was there recently with my two oldest and he was doing a lovely job of working with my 12-year-old on her SAT problems (she was prepping for the 7th grade SAT for a gifted program). He’s quite a good math teacher. My 9-year-old was there too. After the visit, I realized, my dad hadn’t actually spoken more than a few sentences to my 9-year-old that he only sees once a year over the course of the several days that we were visiting. That is, unfortunately, typical of my dad’s relationships with his grandkids. If they are doing something that he is interested in or can be proud of their achievements, he is engaged, but otherwise, they might as well be invisible. It’s rather sad.

Obviously there are some individual quirks at play, rather than just generational issues, but I think the generational issues are real. There’s a reason why “Cat’s in the Cradle” got written:

youtube.com/watch?v=KUwjNBjqR-c**

Bad news if a man raises a kid he assumes is his, then finds out after many years that the child isn’t his. He is the legal father, no matter what. In a divorce settlement, he is still liable to his ex-wife to support that child. She conned him and gets away with it; there is absolutely nothing he can do about it.

Why assume a con? There could easily be situations where the paternity could have gone either way.

In California, a man who receives a paternity summons has 30 days to respond or the court finds him to be the father and he can never ever challenge that finding. Even if he was never actually served. Then they attach his paycheck for the child support.

**California has very exotic laws compared to the rest of the US, I’ve heard. **

Catching individual deadbeats is all well and good, that solves today’s support issue, but the real problem all this time is that child support is being substituted for marriage as the organizing principle of the family.When the lack of need to get married is subsidized, we’re going to get more lack of marriage, not less.

A man gets a woman pregnant and she has a baby and he has to contribute to the financial support of the baby that he helped create. That’s not “subsidizing.” That’s just justice.

That language might be more appropriate of government programs where the public subsidizes nonmarital childbearing (and nonmarital child begetting).

I’d also point out that unwed childbearing plus child support is only at all attractive as an option at well below median household income, and at a low enough point, the father is quite unreachable.

There is absolutely no comparison between the pittance of normal child support ($300 per month on average collected, the last time I looked it up) versus having the entirety of a married family income and other resources available to spend on children’s upbringing. Hence, at median income and above, unwed childbearing is extremely unpopular and I suspect will continue to be, as long as middle class and upper middle class childrearing continues to be the resource-intensive enterprise that it is in today’s US.

 

[Xantippe]

Zzyzx Road,

To clarify, I think my dad was a very good blue collar father for 30 years ago. It’s just that the standards for today’s involved middle class father are way, way different than they used to be, just as the standards for today’s mother are very different than they were 30 or 40 years ago.

 

[Xantippe]

On CAF, you often hear people say that kids aren’t that expensive.

I would amend a bit to say that kids cost almost exactly as much to raise as you have. I also caution prospective parents to expect to lose 90% of their free time and 90% of their disposable income once they have kids. And that’s under the best of circumstances–a married couple with kids.

There are going to be a lot of people who don’t find that a very attractive proposition, so I don’t think you really even need to point fingers at “culture” or “society” for why people aren’t in a big hurry to lose their free time and the ability to spend their money on themselves.

 

[Xantippe]

Not to monopolize the thread, but the demographics of marriage are such that well-off people (namely those who are actually in danger of losing something in divorce) are actually the most likely to marry. Meanwhile, the most likely to have children without marrying are those who have literally nothing to lose in divorce. So, I don’t think we can say that fear of financial loss is driving avoidance of marriage (at least not on average).

I have recently started to suspect that it is precisely the lack of assets that makes marriage seem unnecessary before childbearing to many low income people in the US. In the absence of assets, marriage brings very little material benefit to the family.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

I have recently started to suspect that it is precisely the lack of assets that makes marriage seem unnecessary before childbearing to many low income people in the US. In the absence of assets, marriage brings very little material benefit to the family.

Access to government programs acts as a substitute for assets in a marriage for the lower classes. As I said before, subsidize a behavior and you’re guaranteed to get more of it.

To clarify, I think my dad was a very good blue collar father for 30 years ago. It’s just that the standards for today’s involved middle class father are way, way different than they used to be, just as the standards for today’s mother are very different than they were 30 or 40 years ago.

You finally said something positive about your father. So you grew up rough, now you have issues with your father about that. Consider: (1), how much rougher would you have lived had he left your mother? (2), In many cases, even a lousy father or an outright bad father is often better than no father at all. He did at least somewhat support the family. Maybe not to the standard you would have wanted, but better that than no father at all. Further, since he was in your life, you now have an example of what not to do to judge your husband and sons by.

Why assume a con? There could easily be situations where the paternity could have gone either way.

That was really obtuse to my point. If a husband establishes that a child he thought was his for many years turns out not to be his, there’s no ambiguity about that. None. By lying to him daily for years, his wife ran a con on him.

I get your skepticism about California paternity laws. Unfortunately, they’re real. Texas is a bit friendlier to men who challenge a paternity claim. Under a 2012 law, an unmarried man has one year from the date he first suspects he is not the father to challenge his legal paternity status which he can apparently do at any age of the child in question. Think married men who accepted legal paternity are still stuck though. My own state is also a little more reasonable than California though it is still very difficult to an unmarried man to vacate his legal father status on finding that he is not the biological father after he acknowledged paternity. Also, my state allows 3 years for the declaration and establishment of paternity. The unmarried father appears to be allowed more time to challenge a paternity claim.

Back on topic, Fr. Pope’s latest column on the family is worth reading:
blog.adw.org/2014/12/focused-on-a-functional-family-a-homily-for-the-feast-of-the-holy-family/

 

[Xantippe]

You finally said something positive about your father.

No. I think that fairly on I mentioned that he had a good work ethic and took a lot of interest in my math work in high school and my college admissions and that he obviously liked taking us big kids to work with him on farm projects or other outdoor work.

So you grew up rough, now you have issues with your father about that.
Consider: (1), how much rougher would you have lived had he left your mother?
(2), In many cases, even a lousy father or an outright bad father is often better than no father at all. He did at least somewhat support the family. Maybe not to the standard you would have wanted, but better that than no father at all. Further, since he was in your life, you now have an example of what not to do to judge your husband and sons by.
**
What I’m getting at is that in this talk of erosion or decay of the family from the OP, what isn’t being noticed is that American families at some point hit a fork in the road. Some American families are better than they ever were, and some of them are worse than they ever were. There is much more focus on child welfare, education and enrichment than there ever was before. A good father and husband of today is much more sensitive to children, much more capable of dealing with infants and small children, much more competent and knowledgeable with regard to housework than a good father of 30 or 40 years ago, and because he has a closer relationship with the children, he is much more committed to spending family resources on the kids.

Hence, it’s not surprising that a lot of fathers are not cut out for the high-investment upper middle class model and flee it like the plague–it is genuinely very demanding and requires a lot of sacrifice. But there are perks–my husband’s parents (who only raised two kids), rather obviously think that my husband is some sort of domestic superhero. **

**It can also cause a certain amount of dissension in the ranks these days when women who don’t have that sort of support at home look over and see what other women have. I was talking to a friend recently, explaining that I was taking my two oldest children to the West Coast for an eight day trip to see family while my husband stayed home with our 2-year-old (we were economizing on plane tickets and I don’t believe in long trips with toddlers). My friend was amazed–she can barely leave her two kids with her husband for three hours and he can’t put the kids to bed. I’m afraid that my friend’s knowing that her husband is well below average for our socioeconomic class is not doing anything good for their marriage. **

I get your skepticism about California paternity laws. Unfortunately, they’re real. Texas is a bit friendlier to men who challenge a paternity claim. Under a 2012 law, an unmarried man has one year from the date he first suspects he is not the father to challenge his legal paternity status which he can apparently do at any age of the child in question. Think married men who accepted legal paternity are still stuck though. My own state is also a little more reasonable than California though it is still very difficult to an unmarried man to vacate his legal father status on finding that he is not the biological father after he acknowledged paternity. Also, my state allows 3 years for the declaration and establishment of paternity. The unmarried father appears to be allowed more time to challenge a paternity claim.

**It is normal, though, for unmarried fathers to do paternity tests, right?

Here’s an article by someone who is skeptical about the prevalence of paternity fraud:

blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/the-paternity-myth-the-rarity-of-cuckoldry/#.VKTLPlWJOuY**

“The rule of thumb seems to be that males of higher socioeconomic status, and from more conventionally bourgeois societies, have greater warranted paternity confidence.”

No surprise, there.

Back on topic, Fr. Pope’s latest column on the family is worth reading:
blog.adw.org/2014/12/focused-on-a-functional-family-a-homily-for-the-feast-of-the-holy-family/

 

[Groo]

It’s no surprise that the majority of posters either missed the point of Msgr. Pope’s blog or dismissed it entirely. Yet the evidence of a hostile and confusing environment for young men to pursue marriage is right on the first page of this forum.

In one post, a nice young man asked for help in approaching a lady he is interested in. This is an admirable display of humility and openness. What better place to find support than in the Church, right? Too bad many of the responses were less than supportive.

One poster rolled his eyes at asking her out in December.

Another posted some head-banging emoticon with a dose of sarcasm, effectively calling the poster an imbecile for having the temerity to ask her out this time of year.

And yet another poster peppered him in rapid fire succession not to be creepy, and that if he asked her out more than twice he would become a creep.

Now here’s a quote from Msgr. Pope:

The wider culture, heavily influenced by feminism, often depicts men as sexual predators, drinkers, imbeciles, buffoons, and as stupid and immature.

This is exactly what Msgr. Pope is writing about. These negative attitudes towards men are so prevalent and accepted in our culture that most don’t see it even when the evidence is right there. And this is male-specific. No one here accuses young women pursuing a mate of being creepy or stupid.

I was somewhat awkward in the pursuit of my wife years ago. I don’t think that’s unusual. To the right woman, this awkwardness can be charming. But I guess that’s not allowed today, because you might be accused of being a creep.

Finally, Msgr. Pope articulates no less than three times that young men withdrawing to an isolated world of self-medication is not the answer. He only seeks to understand what is going on in the environment that is damaging traditional marriage for both men and women.

 

[Anglewannabe]

He almost exactly describes my experiences with Christian woman.

Have any of you other millennial men experience what he’s describing?

I would like to bring this thread back to the original question. Can you please describe what problems you have had with Christian women? The article describes a change in marriage, but gives very little detail to how this affects men

 

[Xantippe]

It’s no surprise that the majority of posters either missed the point of Msgr. Pope’s blog or dismissed it entirely. Yet the evidence of a hostile and confusing environment for young men to pursue marriage is right on the first page of this forum.

In one post, a nice young man asked for help in approaching a lady he is interested in. This is an admirable display of humility and openness. What better place to find support than in the Church, right? Too bad many of the responses were less than supportive.

One poster rolled his eyes at asking her out in December.

Another posted some head-banging emoticon with a dose of sarcasm, effectively calling the poster an imbecile for having the temerity to ask her out this time of year.

And yet another poster peppered him in rapid fire succession not to be creepy, and that if he asked her out more than twice he would become a creep.

**What practical advice would you give a guy who had struck out once that was different than he got? If you have some better advice, post it there.

The advice the guy got in that thread (from me among others) was very solid and practical, especially the calendar advice. Unless somebody is already very keen on you, late December is bad.

**

From Msgr. Pope:

“The wider culture, heavily influenced by feminism, often depicts men as sexual predators, drinkers, imbeciles, buffoons, and as stupid and immature.”

**All of those things actually exist out in the wild, and did so before TV. You can open up a random 19th century novel (say Jane Austen or Charles Dickens) and find sexual predators, drinkers, imbeciles, bufoons, and stupid and immature young men. And frankly, young men (and young women) almost always start “immature.” We are a slow-maturing species.

Also, the current media images the “wider culture” culture pushes for women are not, by and large, more flattering.**

This is exactly what Msgr. Pope is writing about. These negative attitudes towards men are so prevalent and accepted in our culture that most don’t see it even when the evidence is right there. And this is male-specific. No one here accuses young women pursuing a mate of being creepy or stupid.

**Eh, if a young woman were to write CAF having asked a man out and been refused, I would just as much tell her to wait, ask again ONCE, and back off if she doesn’t get a positive response. Although it is true that I think I’d probably (unless I was being self-consciously gender neutral) tell her to back off and leave it up to him having asked just once. If he’s interested, he can ask–he already knows she is interested. I would certainly not tell a woman to chase and chase and chase–that’s undignified, as well as ineffective.

And the “two” rule isn’t some sort of feminist conspiracy against men. I use exactly the same rule in non-romantic social contexts. I’ll ask a family or a mom and kids to an event or social outing once, maybe twice, but if I get two “I’m busies,” they move down to the bottom of the list and I start asking other families, no matter how desperately my kid wants a playdate with their child. If they are interested in getting together with us, they can ask us. Life is too short to be chasing people who aren’t actually interested in you, either socially or romantically. **

I was somewhat awkward in the pursuit of my wife years ago. I don’t think that’s unusual. To the right woman, this awkwardness can be charming. But I guess that’s not allowed today, because you might be accused of being a creep.

**I also had a regrettable episode in my college days where I had a huge crush on a fellow student and engaged in a lot of lurking. (He usually went to dinner at 7:45 at the cafeteria. What a coincidence that I just happened to be there at the same time–just about every night.) Nowadays, I would tell any woman (or man) in the same situation to either make a move of some kind, be content with friendship or back off. **

Finally, Msgr. Pope articulates no less than three times that young men withdrawing to an isolated world of self-medication is not the answer. He only seeks to understand what is going on in the environment that is damaging traditional marriage for both men and women.