Crazy statistics: college educated women initiate 90%(!!!!) of divorces...

[MatureDJ]

It's OVER for CoedHusbandCels.

 

[viking22]

Duke made the same point as me in a more succint way.

When there is no longer any social stigma to living together as an unmarried couple and having kids together then why wouldn't you do so?
People used to get married for religious reasons and for social respectability and in many cases a man could only progress in his career if he had a wife that he could bring to corporate social functions etc. Those things no longer apply to the same degree. Also if a woman is just marrying for social respectability and to avoid being left on the shelf then there is a good chance she is marrying for those reasons and not because she loves you and wants to spend the rest of her life with you. I think if she truly believes you are soulmates and has very high interest level then refusing to get married won't be a dealbreaker.

Enrique Iglesias and Anna Kournikova have 3 kids a very long relationship especially considering they are attractive celebs. They attribute its success to the folllowing factors:

-relationship is validated by openness, trust and mutual respect rather than a legal document
-what really matters is a stable home life and having children
-do not believe that a marriage certificate makes you love anyone more and doesn't make the relationship stronger

 

[BeExcellent]

Listen, You want a woman NOT to be idle? Get her pregnant. Babies and very young children are exhausting. She will have time for very little beyond the family, the husband, and the household.

But here is the kicker. The inconvenient truth in today's world is this.... As women become more educated and less economically dependent on men, she has greater power of choice, even if that power of choice means she will remain alone. While men choose women based on appearance as the number 1 determinant (and it's not even close), women do not choose men the same way men choose women.

Most women choose a provider/protector. Why? Pregnancy and young children make a woman very vulnerable physically. This is evolutionary biology. Women will seek a man who can protect her and the children and provide for her and the children. Despite societal developments over the last half-century to century, this evolutionary biology remains. That means that a woman is going to expect a man to be able to financially support her and the kids, because for a time she is not going to be physically able to provide for herself/children.

Traditional marriage accomplishes this. The man (afterall many men do desire children, and a biological legacy) gets a wife and mother for his kids and himself; the woman gets a husband, father and provider. Y'all can rail against this all you like, but that is the reality of how things work best. Yes you can do that without marriage, but good luck getting a solid woman to agree to all the physical risk (very VERY real risk) without some assurance that the man is going to stick around when the next hot young thing shows up nearby.

Women do file more of the divorces, which in the end doesn't really matter. But fewer and fewer men are holding up their end of the bargain (being able to provide/protect for a wife & family.) At some point, if the man is really an overgrown manchild, he becomes just another burden to the woman. Go accomplish something and make yourself worthy of a family. Yes many women choose poorly. Others, like me, think they have chosen well and then discover, after the marriage, that when life hits the husband in the face that he really wasn't prepared for all that. You cannot know everything in advance, as nice as that would be.

An educated woman who can provide for herself is not going to tolerate this for any real length of time. I put up with it for 15 years (to keep the family intact) but lost more and more respect for my first husband as he refused to "man-up" over time. I became, in fact, his enabler and concerned about what my children were growing up seeing as acceptable behavior from a man. Being a loser (and being with a loser) are unacceptable outcomes that I did not want to model for my kids. And I was perfectly capable of supporting myself and the children and everyone (yes, the ex-husband too), so I made my own life simpler, and showed that loser-ness is not OK.

And my children took note. My son is NOT a loser, and my daughters are not going to date men who have no ambition or game plan. To me those are far better outcomes. They can learn what NOT to do from what they saw in their own family.

Food for thought. Relationships do not happen in a vacuum and both the man and the woman must take some responsibility.

 

[intricate design]

man this topic is brutal. you know?

I haven’t traveled internationally for a long time but what’s it like elsewhere???

would a white American do okay finding a cool wife in Thailand or some place like that? I suppose this has been discussed ad nauseam

but you have to be real because this stuff is SO BAD in the United States it’s just been poisoned by feminism

 

[intricate design]

Listen, You want a woman NOT to be idle? Get her pregnant. Babies and very young children are exhausting. She will have time for very little beyond the family, the husband, and the household.

But here is the kicker. The inconvenient truth in today's world is this.... As women become more educated and less economically dependent on men, she has greater power of choice, even if that power of choice means she will remain alone. While men choose women based on appearance as the number 1 determinant (and it's not even close), women do not choose men the same way men choose women.

Most women choose a provider/protector. Why? Pregnancy and young children make a woman very vulnerable physically. This is evolutionary biology. Women will seek a man who can protect her and the children and provide for her and the children. Despite societal developments over the last half-century to century, this evolutionary biology remains. That means that a woman is going to expect a man to be able to financially support her and the kids, because for a time she is not going to be physically able to provide for herself/children.

Traditional marriage accomplishes this. The man (afterall many men do desire children, and a biological legacy) gets a wife and mother for his kids and himself; the woman gets a husband, father and provider. Y'all can rail against this all you like, but that is the reality of how things work best. Yes you can do that without marriage, but good luck getting a solid woman to agree to all the physical risk (very VERY real risk) without some assurance that the man is going to stick around when the next hot young thing shows up nearby.

Women do file more of the divorces, which in the end doesn't really matter. But fewer and fewer men are holding up their end of the bargain (being able to provide/protect for a wife & family.) At some point, if the man is really an overgrown manchild, he becomes just another burden to the woman. Go accomplish something and make yourself worthy of a family. Yes many women choose poorly. Others, like me, think they have chosen well and then discover, after the marriage, that when life hits the husband in the face that he really wasn't prepared for all that. You cannot know everything in advance, as nice as that would be.

An educated woman who can provide for herself is not going to tolerate this for any real length of time. I put up with it for 15 years (to keep the family intact) but lost more and more respect for my first husband as he refused to "man-up" over time. I became, in fact, his enabler and concerned about what my children were growing up seeing as acceptable behavior from a man. Being a loser (and being with a loser) are unacceptable outcomes that I did not want to model for my kids. And I was perfectly capable of supporting myself and the children and everyone (yes, the ex-husband too), so I made my own life simpler, and showed that loser-ness is not OK.

And my children took note. My son is NOT a loser, and my daughters are not going to date men who have no ambition or game plan. To me those are far better outcomes. They can learn what NOT to do from what they saw in their own family.

Food for thought. Relationships do not happen in a vacuum and both the man and the woman must take some responsibility.

I dunno, I appreciate your response and everything but the whole fairy tale you described is just that. It’s based upon a perfect guy who makes millions per year and has a perfect body and no stress

the truth is women gravitate towards bad choices or guys like myself who are ambitious they just never made the millions of dollars that your fairy tale requires

so I present my own model male: he is not a millionair or billionaire, he is just none of the high requirements in your stupid fairytale. But also he is not a gay Democrat and in today’s world if you want a job that pays huge bucks you need to be basically anyone EXCEPT a straight male, especially a white male.

the whole HR system of feminists with their make-work fake jobs in the HR office. The whole house of cards is falling down

 

[BeExcellent]

I dunno, I appreciate your response and everything but the whole fairy tale you described is just that. It’s based upon a perfect guy who makes millions per year and has a perfect body and no stress

the truth is women gravitate towards bad choices or guys like myself who are ambitious they just never made the millions of dollars that your fairy tale requires

so I present my own model male: he is not a millionair or billionaire, he is just none of the high requirements in your stupid fairytale. But also he is not a gay Democrat and in today’s world if you want a job that pays huge bucks you need to be basically anyone EXCEPT a straight male, especially a white male.

the whole HR system of feminists with their make-work fake jobs in the HR office. The whole house of cards is falling down

Wow. Reactionary a little maybe? There is no fantasy at all in what I posted. Quite the opposite. Stop blaming women and go make yourself into a grown man. You could use some lessons in reading comprehension for starters.

Not only did you not really read my response, you made a bunch of assumptions about me personally that are a reflection of your own (faulty) belief system.

1. You assumed that I am feminist. Incorrect.
2. You assumed that I am some variety of "Woke". Incorrect.
3. You assumed a millionaire is required to protect/provide. Incorrect.

Does wealth help? Sure. But it takes time for a young man to build wealth. My son is not a millionaire, but he is married to a woman he provides for and who he protects. She is a fulltime wife/mother who has a one year old and is pregnant. You see my son has made choices as a young man to be able to provide. He is a handsome man, and fit, but he has dealt with some adversity in his life. He married a small town girl who adores him. They are off to a good start in life so far. They are both under 24 years of age, white & American.

And I know many young couples like them.

So you see, my own son has followed the path I described above.....not easy mind you, but best in my view.

I know many couples who are not millionaires who have done just fine doing the trad-con family thing. I know many millionaires too. When wealth is introduced you really find out what sort of character someone has....because wealth affords many vices if one is inclined toward vice.

People who don't have money assume that money saves the day no matter what. It certainly can help in life to have financial means. But it also magnifies character flaws, which is why "money is the root of all evil" has been a Biblical stance since Biblical times (and before). Money isn't evil at all. Its just a tool. But it magnifies character, and unfortunately many people have poor character and will act irresponsibly with or without means. Money often just accelerates bad habits & bad behavior. It also makes you a target if you are not careful.

And there are still plenty of ways for an ambitious young man to create wealth or make a meaningful living.

What is happening globally in fact, is that women are getting better educated and better opportunities than before, and men are falling behind. All sorts of statistics bear this out (you have Google for that)...That is a tough thing because as women become less and less dependent, more and more women opt out of creating families in the traditional sense because there are too few men out there who are equal or better partners. This undermines family formation and the family remains the basic building block of society.

This is bad.

But the solution is not to oppress women. That ship has sailed and Pandora's box is already opened.

The solution is to improve men. That is the only thing that will reverse the troubling trend.

And that is why this site focuses so much on self development and improvement. The world at large needs better men. And the better you are as a man? The better your life outcomes will be.

 

[BillyPilgrim]

Wow. Reactionary a little maybe? There is no fantasy at all in what I posted. Quite the opposite. Stop blaming women and go make yourself into a grown man. You could use some lessons in reading comprehension for starters.

Not only did you not really read my response, you made a bunch of assumptions about me personally that are a reflection of your own (faulty) belief system.

1. You assumed that I am feminist. Incorrect.
2. You assumed that I am some variety of "Woke". Incorrect.
3. You assumed a millionaire is required to protect/provide. Incorrect.

Does wealth help? Sure. But it takes time for a young man to build wealth. My son is not a millionaire, but he is married to a woman he provides for and who he protects. She is a fulltime wife/mother who has a one year old and is pregnant. You see my son has made choices as a young man to be able to provide. He is a handsome man, and fit, but he has dealt with some adversity in his life. He married a small town girl who adores him. They are off to a good start in life so far. They are both under 24 years of age, white & American.

And I know many young couples like them.

So you see, my own son has followed the path I described above.....not easy mind you, but best in my view.

I know many couples who are not millionaires who have done just fine doing the trad-con family thing. I know many millionaires too. When wealth is introduced you really find out what sort of character someone has....because wealth affords many vices if one is inclined toward vice.

People who don't have money assume that money saves the day no matter what. It certainly can help in life to have financial means. But it also magnifies character flaws, which is why "money is the root of all evil" has been a Biblical stance since Biblical times (and before). Money isn't evil at all. Its just a tool. But it magnifies character, and unfortunately many people have poor character and will act irresponsibly with or without means. Money often just accelerates bad habits & bad behavior. It also makes you a target if you are not careful.

And there are still plenty of ways for an ambitious young man to create wealth or make a meaningful living.

What is happening globally in fact, is that women are getting better educated and better opportunities than before, and men are falling behind. All sorts of statistics bear this out (you have Google for that)...That is a tough thing because as women become less and less dependent, more and more women opt out of creating families in the traditional sense because there are too few men out there who are equal or better partners. This undermines family formation and the family remains the basic building block of society.

This is bad.

But the solution is not to oppress women. That ship has sailed and Pandora's box is already opened.

The solution is to improve men. That is the only thing that will reverse the troubling trend.

And that is why this site focuses so much on self development and improvement. The world at large needs better men. And the better you are as a man? The better your life outcomes will be.

With women initiating 90% of the divorces, the answer is to educate men, not "improve" them. If one wants men to better themselves at large, you need a society that rewards that betterment, as Western society currently does not.

If you don't improve society, you get a environment full of Kevin Spacey's character from American Beauty.

And even if you "improve men" that 90% figure might go down slightly, to about 80% or so as the bigger, better deal will always still be out there. While a 6/10 after widespread improvement would be better than a 6/10 before widespread improvement, the woman is still stuck with a 6/10. The only thing changing is the attraction of being alone will slightly go down.

If men want to better themselves (as they should to a reasonable degree, as all humans are works in progress) they should focus on being the best version of their *authentic* selves, not some bastardization based on societal dictates.

 

[BeExcellent]

I agree with you @BillyPilgrim . Women initiate 70% of divorces. That 90% stat is educated women who have a level of self sufficiency such that they do not feel the need to put up with unsatisfactory behavior. I mean a mantra around here is to find a woman who makes your d1ck hard, not your life. The same is true of women (why put up with an ass when you can afford not to?)

It is the power in freedom of choice.

I think many men stay in unsatisfactory relationships because generally it is harder for men, at the individual level, to easily replace a spouse or LTR partner. I also think men idealize relationships more than women, while women tend to be more pragmatic. That is an important distinction...men holding the torch for an IDEA while women look at the day to day workings of how something is actually going in real time.

I mean how many posts do we routinely see around here where the guy is hanging onto something well beyond its expiry date, and making excuses for her bad or disrespectful behavior? We see that here quite often.

Really all divorce arises from unsatisfactory behavior within the marriage, so really who initiates is immaterial, and kind of a "so what" statistic that y'all get hung up on. The power to walk away is a type of power that men have withheld from women for eons, And the withholding of that power has historically been based in a need to control.

So now the power dynamic has shifted. It is not going to shift back any time soon, probably never. So in the evolving dynamic men can no longer exert economic control as in the past. Now men actually have to themselves be educated, accomplish something, and have some thing to offer. And society is doing a terrible job of explaining this to young men, and helping young men learn to succeed in the current landscape.

 

[Barrister]

They also need to have a purpose. An idle woman with too much time on her hands is a ticking time bomb. Women think than an ideal lifestyle involves spending your days shopping, going to the spa, and gossiping with your girlfriends while sipping lattes and wine. But I can promise you that no a single woman who leads that kind of life feels content, let alone happy. On the contrary, they are all on antidepressants.

You're describing the classic bored housewife, but I have been in an LTR with a "career woman" before who was the exact opposite of "idle" and who one might say had a "purpose" outside of shopping or getting her nails and hair done. It really doesn't make a difference. It is how they are all programmed regardless of how they spend their days. They still want it all and then some and become unhappy when they don't get it. Still whine about "not being understood" and make it the man's fault despite their own inability to communicate and be an emotional wreck.

You have experienced it with one you have experienced it with all. The specifics may change but the overall mindset towards the man doesn't.

 

[Gamisch]

I agree with you @BillyPilgrim . Women initiate 70% of divorces. That 90% stat is educated women who have a level of self sufficiency such that they do not feel the need to put up with unsatisfactory behavior. I mean a mantra around here is to find a woman who makes your d1ck hard, not your life. The same is true of women (why put up with an ass when you can afford not to?)

It is the power in freedom of choice.

I think many men stay in unsatisfactory relationships because generally it is harder for men, at the individual level, to easily replace a spouse or LTR partner. I also think men idealize relationships more than women, while women tend to be more pragmatic. That is an important distinction...men holding the torch for an IDEA while women look at the day to day workings of how something is actually going in real time.

I mean how many posts do we routinely see around here where the guy is hanging onto something well beyond its expiry date, and making excuses for her bad or disrespectful behavior? We see that here quite often.

Really all divorce arises from unsatisfactory behavior within the marriage, so really who initiates is immaterial, and kind of a "so what" statistic that y'all get hung up on. The power to walk away is a type of power that men have withheld from women for eons, And the withholding of that power has historically been based in a need to control.

So now the power dynamic has shifted. It is not going to shift back any time soon, probably never. So in the evolving dynamic men can no longer exert economic control as in the past. Now men actually have to themselves be educated, accomplish something, and have some thing to offer. And society is doing a terrible job of explaining this to young men, and helping young men learn to succeed in the current landscape.

I can't agree that it a " so what " stat when the consequences are so severe for a man. I purposely posted the screenshot, because je its me right.. people here gonna need that visualization to believe it.

It's not my opinion or a gut feeling or a " I feel like ". It's stats and facts. Even 65/ 35 would've been problematic. Heck. Even if it was men 70 women 30 I would be cautious. But 90????? That's an entire novel hidden within those stats..

I do understand that it probably doesn't mean that 90% of the time the woman out of nowhere initiates divorce. And if anything, arguably it says something about women actually being more proactive and realistic when the " cord needs to be cut". That is actually something I've been seeing my entire life.

Yet , a man must I repeat MUST consider whether he'll be okay with:

- a broken heart and damaged soul
- more importantly; to pay for a woman who hates you while she spends that lonely on maybe another man.

To adress the latter: if you get kids AND get married after 40 but separate after 10 years( and thats quite sometime nowadays 3 / 5 would be more realistic), you will be legally paying untill your sixties. For what? Fading memories from 2 good years? It's that worth it?

 

[Barrister]

Listen, You want a woman NOT to be idle? Get her pregnant. Babies and very young children are exhausting. She will have time for very little beyond the family, the husband, and the household.

But here is the kicker. The inconvenient truth in today's world is this.... As women become more educated and less economically dependent on men, she has greater power of choice, even if that power of choice means she will remain alone. While men choose women based on appearance as the number 1 determinant (and it's not even close), women do not choose men the same way men choose women.

Most women choose a provider/protector. Why? Pregnancy and young children make a woman very vulnerable physically. This is evolutionary biology. Women will seek a man who can protect her and the children and provide for her and the children. Despite societal developments over the last half-century to century, this evolutionary biology remains. That means that a woman is going to expect a man to be able to financially support her and the kids, because for a time she is not going to be physically able to provide for herself/children.

Traditional marriage accomplishes this. The man (afterall many men do desire children, and a biological legacy) gets a wife and mother for his kids and himself; the woman gets a husband, father and provider. Y'all can rail against this all you like, but that is the reality of how things work best. Yes you can do that without marriage, but good luck getting a solid woman to agree to all the physical risk (very VERY real risk) without some assurance that the man is going to stick around when the next hot young thing shows up nearby.

Women do file more of the divorces, which in the end doesn't really matter. But fewer and fewer men are holding up their end of the bargain (being able to provide/protect for a wife & family.) At some point, if the man is really an overgrown manchild, he becomes just another burden to the woman. Go accomplish something and make yourself worthy of a family. Yes many women choose poorly. Others, like me, think they have chosen well and then discover, after the marriage, that when life hits the husband in the face that he really wasn't prepared for all that. You cannot know everything in advance, as nice as that would be.

An educated woman who can provide for herself is not going to tolerate this for any real length of time. I put up with it for 15 years (to keep the family intact) but lost more and more respect for my first husband as he refused to "man-up" over time. I became, in fact, his enabler and concerned about what my children were growing up seeing as acceptable behavior from a man. Being a loser (and being with a loser) are unacceptable outcomes that I did not want to model for my kids. And I was perfectly capable of supporting myself and the children and everyone (yes, the ex-husband too), so I made my own life simpler, and showed that loser-ness is not OK.

And my children took note. My son is NOT a loser, and my daughters are not going to date men who have no ambition or game plan. To me those are far better outcomes. They can learn what NOT to do from what they saw in their own family.

Food for thought. Relationships do not happen in a vacuum and both the man and the woman must take some responsibility.

Sure, there are plenty of men out there who don't have their sh1t together. But your story as well as your son's story are anecdotal. They don't repudiate the statistics mentioned here which is the reality of the situation.

I am surprised your mindset seems to be so dismissive of this, but perhaps I am misreading. Plenty of men have dealt with women like this (of which a large proportion of the current demographic in millenials and Gen Z women are) and are anything but a "manchild." I will also push back on this notion that women are relationship pragmatists. Most women are not red-pill aware the way you are. Women have an idea of how she wants to feel in a relationship, and if reality doesn't match that, she immediately begins wondering what the man isn't doing for her to make her feel how she should feel. It becomes the man's fault with very little introspection into her own (maybe) unrealistic expectations. She is then unhappy, and makes the man miserable, who often shuts down and only reinforces her own beliefs that he isn't "putting in the effort to understand her." It is self-fulfilling prophecy that starts and ends with the woman being her own worst enemy in a relationship.

There are of course situations where the man is some deadbeat leeching off the woman and she just wants to cut out the dead weight from her life. But I would say that is an extreme minority situation based upon what I have seen both personally and professionally.

 

[zekko]

You have a better chance of winning at the roulette table than to be in a successful marriage lol.

Well, you have to remember they initiate 90% of the divorces that happen, it's not that they will initiate a divorce in 90% of marriages. The current divorce rate is still under 50%. Another thing that might cut into the pessimism is that although the woman might initiate the divorce, it doesn't necessarily mean she causes it - the guy could be a cheater, batterer, drunk, or whatever. Still, however you slice it, those are some staggering numbers.

 

[BaronOfHair]

@The Duke "The government is against the man and for the woman"

Our entire civilization made a wrong turn back in The mid-late 1970s, when we began expecting Washington/City Hall to be "for us", rather than viewing those who declared themselves to be The Adults In The Room

with immense skepticism

Even after the torrential wet sh-t Uncle Sam has taken on The Constitution, every day since 9/11, we still haven't gotten the memo

 

[Bokanovsky]

I agree with you @BillyPilgrim . Women initiate 70% of divorces. That 90% stat is educated women who have a level of self sufficiency such that they do not feel the need to put up with unsatisfactory behavior.

So you are saying that women initiate divorces because of "unsatisfactory behaviour" on the part of men? I guess that kind of makes sense. As @Barrister said, women are never satisfied with anything. It's just not in their nature. So no matter what a man does, it will ultimately be seen as "unsatisfactory".

 

[Bokanovsky]

So now the power dynamic has shifted. It is not going to shift back any time soon, probably never. So in the evolving dynamic men can no longer exert economic control as in the past. Now men actually have to themselves be educated, accomplish something, and have some thing to offer. And society is doing a terrible job of explaining this to young men, and helping young men learn to succeed in the current landscape.

Don't get too excited about your newfound "economic power". The pendulum always swings back. Just wait until the West gets fully islamizised, which is happening much faster than originally anticipated. A society where women hold socio-economic power over men is too unnatural and fragile to exist for a long period of time.

 

[BaronOfHair]

Just wait until the West gets fully islamizised which is happening much faster than anticipated.

It's native born men spearheading that campaign https://www.patheos.com/blogs/churchformen/2015/06/why-young-christian-men-choose-radical-islam/ , not foreign immigrants

On a more serious note though, what you say is true: Current advocates for "men's issues" resemble Fredo Corleone far more than they do Pietro Savastano here

Start providing men across our nation with a mission statement similar to the one Savastano gives his crew, between 0:30-1:00, and we'll likely experience a reveral of the past decade's misfortunes

 

[BeExcellent]

Sure, there are plenty of men out there who don't have their sh1t together. But your story as well as your son's story are anecdotal. They don't repudiate the statistics mentioned here which is the reality of the situation.

I am surprised your mindset seems to be so dismissive of this, but perhaps I am misreading. Plenty of men have dealt with women like this (of which a large proportion of the current demographic in millenials and Gen Z women are) and are anything but a "manchild." I will also push back on this notion that women are relationship pragmatists. Most women are not red-pill aware the way you are. Women have an idea of how she wants to feel in a relationship, and if reality doesn't match that, she immediately begins wondering what the man isn't doing for her to make her feel how she should feel. It becomes the man's fault with very little introspection into her own (maybe) unrealistic expectations. She is then unhappy, and makes the man miserable, who often shuts down and only reinforces her own beliefs that he isn't "putting in the effort to understand her." It is self-fulfilling prophecy that starts and ends with the woman being her own worst enemy in a relationship.

There are of course situations where the man is some deadbeat leeching off the woman and she just wants to cut out the dead weight from her life. But I would say that is an extreme minority situation based upon what I have seen both personally and professionally.

I think @zekko has the most accurate perspective here. The divorce rate is NOT 90%. Nor is it 70%. For first marriages it hovers around 48% give or take. Subsequent marriages the % increases, but that is to be expected.

I greatly respect @Barrister and his experience....I am not a Pollyana with a naive view. My son saw my first marriage fall apart because his father abdicated being a man. My first husband would tell you this himself. And although my first husband is a likable guy and a loving father, he did not have necessary leadership skills. We sent my son to an all boys military prep school for that in addition to what he learned from me. A place where my son could see solid male role models other than my dad (who died when my son was 13). My first husband went to work at that school and this afforded my son the opportunity to attend, so its not as though his dad did nothing, he did what he could. But those years helped form my son into who he is today.

As aware as I may be, I am not a man, and therefore cannot fill the male role model boys need. My son did not become who he is by happenstance, and even though he is the product of a broken home, he so far is doing fine. But his father and I consciously decided to put our differences aside to parent as a united front. Many divorced couples are too angry/petty/immature to do this, and of course that hurts the kids.

And many women have stupid expectations too. Certainly that is true. There are no perfect people. Those don't exist. You cannot have it all. There are only trade-offs. If married people are honest they will tell you that the first year or two of marriage are tough. The reason is that the idealized romanticized fantasy gets dashed by the reality of everyday life. So couples must adjust to reality as well as to one another. Those who can adjust expectations survive to build something meaningful and real. Those who can't or won't? Those marriages fail.

So I'm not poo poo ing that some women are never satisfied. Those women exist. Men who are abusive, unfaithful and drunkards also exist. What a stat like this cannot tell you is how many divorces happened for what reason.

In 90% of domestic violence, the woman is victimized by the man. Those women should not stay in abusive relationships.

My point is that a stat such as the one presented by the OP is too high level to have real meaning. As such, a stat like that should be taken with some skepticism......just as in some % of those DV cases the woman might be crying wolf.

High level stats are not granular enough to accurately interpret. Just be aware of that.

 

[BadBoy89]

Get the feeling alot of men on this site want women to "love them" like the mothers; unconditionally, no judgement, always nurturing.

Women don't love like mothers and aren't looking to take care of a manchild, they want to marry a King. If you make yourself into a King, a woman will gladly be by your side and have a family with you.

She won't do that because "you are you".

 

[Gamisch]

I think @zekko has the most accurate perspective here. The divorce rate is NOT 90%. Nor is it 70%. For first marriages it hovers around 48% give or take. Subsequent marriages the % increases, but that is to be expected.

I greatly respect @Barrister and his experience....I am not a Pollyana with a naive view. My son saw my first marriage fall apart because his father abdicated being a man. My first husband would tell you this himself. And although my first husband is a likable guy and a loving father, he did not have necessary leadership skills. We sent my son to an all boys military prep school for that in addition to what he learned from me. A place where my son could see solid male role models other than my dad (who died when my son was 13). My first husband went to work at that school and this afforded my son the opportunity to attend, so its not as though his dad did nothing, he did what he could. But those years helped form my son into who he is today.

As aware as I may be, I am not a man, and therefore cannot fill the male role model boys need. My son did not become who he is by happenstance, and even though he is the product of a broken home, he so far is doing fine. But his father and I consciously decided to put our differences aside to parent as a united front. Many divorced couples are too angry/petty/immature to do this, and of course that hurts the kids.

And many women have stupid expectations too. Certainly that is true. There are no perfect people. Those don't exist. You cannot have it all. There are only trade-offs. If married people are honest they will tell you that the first year or two of marriage are tough. The reason is that the idealized romanticized fantasy gets dashed by the reality of everyday life. So couples must adjust to reality as well as to one another. Those who can adjust expectations survive to build something meaningful and real. Those who can't or won't? Those marriages fail.

So I'm not poo poo ing that some women are never satisfied. Those women exist. Men who are abusive, unfaithful and drunkards also exist. What a stat like this cannot tell you is how many divorces happened for what reason.

In 90% of domestic violence, the woman is victimized by the man. Those women should not stay in abusive relationships.

My point is that a stat such as the one presented by the OP is too high level to have real meaning. As such, a stat like that should be taken with some skepticism......just as in some % of those DV cases the woman might be crying wolf.

High level stats are not granular enough to accurately interpret. Just be aware of that.

Dont shoot the messenger...

I don't think anyone thinks that 90% of marriages end in divorce. But this company specialized in statistics says that 90% of the time its the woman who files for the divorce. So it definitely does say something about the probabilities. At such a high number its basically undeniable.


We already knew something about an 80 % stat. But njw the mainstream starts to pick up on it and it might be even higher than 80 as we see...

Im not the researchers. I'm not the one interviewing millions of couples. However , I do know that stats like this DO say something is up...If the stats are sketchy, I'd like to see other investigations that tells a different story.

To say its no real meaning is a tad too much. It has a very real meaning

 

[plumber]

In 90% of domestic violence, the woman is victimized by the man. Those women should not stay in abusive relationships.

lets reframe that. to be what gets recorded...

there is a huge very huge set of violence against men by female domestic partner. lets include all the types, mental, emotional and physical.

men usually do not report, and when they do it usually is ignored or made into humor.

men and women should not stay in abusive situations.

very unfortunately in some countries the laws are very biased toward women. in many western country if a woman even makes a claim it is believed and action is taken. the man literally does not even get a chance to answer or defend. If your accused of murder you will get a chance to defend and a jury. If your accused of domestic violence you will be judged guilty without behind heard. simply telling NO about something is considered domestic violence in some regions. no harm, no threat, just a disagreement is enough.

this is done to ensure the safety of every woman, but without any care or concern for the men. many many men get railroaded by this and it can be extreme. yet we continue to do it that way and sacrifice many men just to protect some women. while at the same time women continue to enjoy this situation and gaslight that it is them that are the victim.

likely for every woman that gets abused there are at least 2+ men that are abused and are either silent or officially ignored by policy and law.

other countries are not that way.