NY Times sees Marriage Strike but doesn’t understand it

Like listening to the audio? You can now get The Book of Pook Audiobook and The Pook Manifesto Audiobook - over 28 hours of human narration! The quality is FAR superior to the machine generated TTS on this site, so if you're going to spend hours listeing to the content - get the nice human version!

You can also get all 4 of Pook's books (with audiobooks) as a bundle!


This is a must-read article. NY Times wonders why men are not marrying. They interview social scientists. And, these social scientists think of Mankind as nothing but as a mass of human clay to be poked at with a stick. Notice how limited their contexts are.

Pretty much most social scientists are women and feminized men. The contexts they use are always annoyingly Industrial Age-esque. Just because one doesn’t have a college degree doesn’t make the person stupid. Even the unmarried men they interview have money. The contexts used not only show a female dominated set of looking at things but also shows people behind the times.

Some interesting quotes leaked through:

There is no conclusive evidence that marriage helps men. Still, some social scientists worry that not marrying may further marginalize men who are already struggling.

The key word is ‘some.’ I want to hear about the social scientists who say otherwise. What do they have to say?

David Popenoe, a sociologist at Rutgers and a co-director of its National Marriage Project, argues that it is the men who are choosing to remain single. He says men do not marry because they do not want to. As unwilling to commit as ever, men have been let off the hook by more permissive social mores that have made it acceptable to live together and raise children out of wedlock.

Thank goodness we have social scientists to say the obvious! Men don’t marry…because they don’t want to! Incredible!

Maybe the social scientist will make the next logical step and say, “So in order to get men to marry…they should WANT to.” Then he ought to ask these non-marrying men, “What would it take you to get married?” The answers would involve removal of things like ‘divorce’ and ‘financial devastation’ to what can happen to men. But, all in all, the answers could be summed up as thus: “Remove feminism from law and from the attitude of women.” A woman from another century would look at our world in amazement as many foreign women do when they arrive to tell me, “Pook, it is a wonder that your country reproduces at all!” Indeed, my dear.

Indeed.

Some social scientists have found that married men are healthier and earn slightly more than unmarried men. But it is unclear whether marriage produces higher incomes and better health, or whether people who are richer and healthier in the first place more often choose to marry.

This is correlation, not causation. Married men don’t make more money. It is the case that men who make more money are often pursued by more women for marriage.

Beyond the questions of finances and health, there is the issue of how content these men are. All the men interviewed for this article looked younger than their age. All said they were happy with their lives, even Mr. Cunningham, with his clear longing for a family of his own, and Mr. Thomas, of Fort Collins, who said he might move to Denver to meet more women.

Younger than their age! And all are happy with their lives! So what is the problem? Why the article anyway?

It is because the women now look older than their age and are not happy with their lives. Maybe the NY Times should focus an article on them instead of these happy, young looking, single men?