Back to the 50s

Ok, so from a Jezebel.com article I clicked over to the Anti-Misandry.com site and read this article on why men shouldn't get married. And all the way through the article I wondered, "Who are these people?"

I don't know women who insist that their fiancees spend their life savings on weddings. Or even engagement rings. In fact, I know women who didn't have an engagement ring and were absolutely fine with it. And I don't remember being asked if I wanted one or not - my husband went overboard, as far as I was concerned. And if you're going to blame the engagement ring requirement on a De Beers ad campaign from the 40s, you may as well point the finger at your own gender - I'm pretty sure it was a male-dominated field at that time.

I don't know women who insist on staying home with their kids. The families I know with children weigh the cost of daycare against the cost of working and make a joint decision based on what's best for the family. If staying home is a moral decision, it is agreed upon by both parents from the outset (before the children arrive) and accommodations are made from day 1 to make that a possibility. In fact, I know stay-at-home dads who do so because they make less than their spouse and the money works out better. And as far as a man being trapped in a career or job because they are the sole bread-winner, welcome to life. Suck it up, pal, a lot of us are trapped at one time or another because the money is too good to quit. Or have an honest talk with the family unit about making changes in lifestyle so you can explore other options. Any wife who flatly refuses is someone you shouldn't have married in the first place.

I don't know anyone with a maid, or a cook, or a nanny. People with that kind of money are a bit rarefied for those of us down here working our asses off to pay the bills each month. Grow a spine and say no.

The marriages described in the article appear as nothing more than a caricature or a TV sitcom, the same sitcoms they rail against for their anti-male message. I agree that men are portrayed deplorably on TV - so are women and children. Entertainment is essentially bringing stereotypical behavior to an extreme to produce laughs, generally at someone's expense. It's not a portrayal of real life. NO ONE WOULD WATCH THAT SHOW. But I'm not sure the marriages described here actually exist either.

In the end, the ultimate power over the marriage rests with the two people involved. I don't believe anyone has any business getting a marriage license until both parties have disclosed the entire state of their finances and credit history and had discussions at length regarding children, work, division of labor inside the house, and what will happen in the event of several predicatable crises (death of a spouse, job loss, affair, etc.). These discussions should not stop at the alter, they should continue throughout the marriage as life and circumstances change. If either party is not willing to have these discussions, the other one should run for their life.

So if any man finds himself "trapped" in a job he doesn't like because he was "forced" to be the sole provider for the family while his wife is out shopping and living a life of leisure while the children are in school, he has only to blame himself. He chose the woman, married her blindly without having some important discussion, and allows the behavior he finds so odious to continue.

My marriage is a partnership where we both make decisions based upon our financial and emotional health and that of our family. We are both fully responsible for the exact place we are at in life and there is no blame game. When things get tough, we take responsibility for our own shortcomings and the problems that resulted and we work together for solutions.

And as Jezebel pointed out, misandry definitely exists, but the movement won't get far when it's solely populated with misogynists.