Why I Remain Single

thrownaway_MGTOW · 2016-03-08T17:42:08+00:00

Not a fan of that site overall -- the entire point of it is essentially gynocentric and aimed at creating more cuckservative-cuntservants.

But I find a few things in that particular post to be rather ironically hilarious in regards to just how BLIND people can be, most especially in regards to the following points that he simply accepts as if they were true, without questioning the underlying reality:

The research regarding the benefits of marriage has inundated the popular media; there seems to be an endless number of scientifically proven reasons why we should marry. Studies have shown that getting hitched is good for men’s health. Married people outlive their single counterparts, and married men earn 10 to 40 percent more than similar unmarried ones. The facts overwhelm me and I cannot stand to look at another report or paper. The road to romance has advantages because romantic prowess leads to survival of the fittest.

First you need to note that the "earn 10 to 40 percent more" -- in addition to being such a ridiculously broad and uncertain number (which is it? 10% or 40% or is it 25% I mean if we're talking aggregate averages here then such ambiguity represents some massive validity problems with the underlying data) -- is that it's a total "lifetime earnings" -- basically meaning that it represents a LONGER working career. (Consider that if the typical career would be from say age 20 to age 60, a time span of 40 years, even if earnings were entirely FLAT across those decades, then working an additional 4 years would create a 10% increase in lifetime earnings.)

Ergo what that statistic (if it can be called that), what it really says is that married men retire LATER, that they are stuck in the rat-race of indentured servitude for several more years than single/unmarried men.

Moreover it ignores several other important things; namely that if it IS in fact "lifetime earnings" data, then it is being computed based on a wage & salary world that no longer exists -- i.e. back decades ago when people remained at firms longer, received compensation in return for that loyalty; and when the impact/toll of "feminism" and "equal pay" (among other things) had not yet wreaked it's full havoc on men's earnings; when in fact it was quite common for companies to not only pay MEN more, but to pay & promote MARRIED men over "single" men as well.

And then there is the simple math. If we set a single man's lifetime earning at the 100 mark, and then the married man's earnings at the 110 or even being more generous at the 140 mark -- well divide that by the number of people that salary is "supporting" (a minimum of 2 with no children; or if we assume the wife DID work for a few years, then perhaps 1.5), and the married man ends up with far LESS value from the proposition than it appears in the strict nominal sense -- in terms of his personal benefit from his labor he's down far below the single man at around the 55 to 70 mark (possibly higher if we use the 1.5 and assume the 40% premium; but even still below the 100 mark of the single man). Add in children -- and really what is the point of marriage/family without children -- and his return is even LESS.

Moreover it ignores the character of that work -- the married man slaves away because he essentially HAS NO CHOICE, he is quite literally an "indentured servant" -- in many if not most cases he dare not quit sooner or earn less, else he impoverish not only his own circumstances & life, but those of his wife and children as well.

From that perspective, one really ought to marvel at how/why the total lifetime earnings of married men isn't FAR higher -- in the realm of TWICE or MORE that of the single man -- for that is the only way for him to actually live the equivalent lifestyle of the single man.

And then the lifespan -- measured simply in nominal years and with no accounting for the QUALITY of those years. It is simply "assumed" that the rewards of family/marriage are sufficient in and of themselves -- that they somehow are sufficient compensation for all of those (longer & harder) working years.

Moreover... is the addition of a few extra years at the tail end of life -- sitting in a nursing home for an extra decade, or even being tended in several years of dotage by a "caring" wife & children -- is that really the equivalent of and a "good trade" for the additional "overtime" during the man's youth and middle years?

Of what value is stopping and "smelling the flowers"? According to that crude metric of lifespan, it's worth none at all.

The same with a life of "peace and quiet" -- a proverbial "handful with quietness"; versus the chaos & drama, the "both hands full with travail and vexation of spirit" that is all too common (especially these days) with marriage and children (even presuming they don't turn self-destructive). That too is not taken into account with the nominal/quantitative "years" meme. It not only imagines that all such relationships are not only a "net" positive, but it denies the reality that they are all too often so problematic as to be a wholly negative experiences.

FRedington · 2016-03-08T21:14:39+00:00

Title	Why I Remain Single
Author	Arzu1982
Upvotes	6
Comments	3
Date	March 8, 2016 3:00 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/49iudv/why_i_remain_single/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/why-i-remain-single.637640 https://theredarchive.com/post/637640

Comments