AS HAS been discussed here before, there is a movement by men in Western society to reject marriage because of the widespread phenomenon of unilateral divorce by women and its accompanying injustices, including the appropriation of property and children. The roots of this movement are understandable. But the prescribed cure, if it involves the refusal to marry and have children to avoid the possibility of divorce, is as harmful as the wrongs it seeks to redress.

Here’s a useful analogy by Alan Roebuck. He writes:

When the buildings of a great city are crumbling, a citizen (as opposed to a vandal) has two options: Attempt, at some danger to himself, to repair the damage, or ransack the debris in order to construct for himself a temporary hovel. By ransacking he is, of course, hastening the destruction, but at least he may gain a temporary roof over his head.

So it is with the advice that men should not marry or should have vasectomies or date only older women. The man who chooses to associate with women in such ways is ransacking our civilization in order to obtain a temporary spiritual hovel. Being a looter rather than a builder, he gains some temporary relief for himself even as he participates in demolishing the structure that is the foundation of society: the family. He contributes to the destruction not only directly, but also by making the destruction more widespread, and therefore apparently more legitimate.

We have sunk very low indeed when many apparently normal men conclude that they have no reason to support civilization, and can only get female companionship in the no-offspring ways mentioned above. The short-term pressure to become a looter may feel intense, and no other valid course of action may seem to exist, but it is looting just the same.

Looter and builder alike will be dead in a hundred years. Long-term, the only difference between them is what they leave behind. 

                                                                         — Comments —

Max writes:

I have to disagree a bit.

First, not all men reject marriage in favor of the serial use and discarding of other women. Some take the celibate route, preferring to have little or nothing to do with members of the opposite sex. Whether this is done out of piety or frustration differs from man to man, but I know a few in both camps. This strategy will, in the long term, and if adopted by enough men, hasten to heal civilization. Women who want offspring will be forced to look at what lead to this, and perhaps the law and culture will be bent to make marriage more attractive to men.

Also, the men who do insist on using “Game” as a method of attaining non-committal female companionship are far from blameless, but I place more blame on the women who bed such men. If such behaviors didn’t work, men would not do them. If men are being consistently rewarded for doing the wrong thing, then it is only reasonable that those without the correct formation and moral fortitude will continue doing it, and more so. If, on the other hand, the only way most men could attain regular intimate companionship with a woman was in the context of marriage, the vast majority who are now behaving as irresponsible cads would mend their ways very quickly.

Laura writes:

Celibacy is more noble than the alternatives, but the end result is the same: no children. The next generation is denied life. Consider these new figures on the fall in the white birth rate. For me, the argument would be the same even without the falling birth rate. By the way, there will always be a minority of men who are temperamentally unsuited to marriage and intimacy. I’m not talking about them.

Truthfully, I think the idea that enough men will choose celibacy to have the impact you describe is unreasonable. I wonder if the men you know who choose celibacy for this reason have done so after years of intimate encounters. Anyway, your argument is similar to the one feminists have sometimes used for divorce. They say if enough women divorce men, men will change and be more appealing mates (sharing housework, being generally perfect, etc.). The truth is, the end result is tremendous frustration and anger in the opposite sex that is entirely non-productive. Put it this way. Let’s say you have a woman who falls in love with a man and wants to marry him. He likes her but tells her he is choosing celibacy out of a sense of duty and in the hope of leading to a cultural revolution. The woman may very well then have no children to pass on this vital information that women should not shirk their marital duties. Or she may have a child out of wedlock with a man she doesn’t want to marry, passing on to her child her bitterness and frustration.

The other thing about your scenario is that it punishes those who have done nothing wrong for the crimes of others.

I think it is far better for the man in the above situation to say: “How can you assure me that I will not be maltreated and lose my children? I will not marry unless you can give me a satisfactory answer.” A prenuptial agreement is better than no marriage.

As for your second point, women are to blame too. Whether they deserve more blame: yes, perhaps. In any event, women should return to the norm of premarital restraint for many reasons, not least of which is the selfishness involved in the way things stand. But still men have choices to make too. 

Marianne writes:

I read with great interest Alan Roebuck’s analogy: “When the buildings of a great city are crumbling…” In the Paul Newman movie “Nobody’s Fool,” a damaged house is a central metaphor, and what it means to be a man is a central concern. I recommend the movie! My thanks to you, once again, for focusing on these issues.

Max replies:

When I speak of celibacy, I mean celibacy as a priest or religious would be celibate. Dating, even devoid of physical intimacy, would be out of the question. The same sort of boundaries should be maintained as would celibate clergy. The only potential sin of the man in your scenario is leading the woman on initially to think marriage is a possibility. Agreed; men should not waste womens’ time, particularly since their reproductive potential is limited.

However, if the man decided that late and otherwise acted in good faith, there is no evil. Traditional customs involving canonical betrothal even recognize this to a degree. If one is betrothed in the church, he is bound to marry within a reasonable time-frame dictated by the circumstances. There are conditions under which the betrothal may be dissolved, and one of which is that either party realizes a call to a higher vocation, such as the priesthood or the religious life.

How can you, as a Catholic, suggest a prenuptial agreement? The 1983 Code of Canon Law explicitly states “A marriage subject to a condition about the future cannot be contracted validly” (CIC 1102). The mere presence of the prenuptial agreement nullifies the marriage.

Laura writes:

When I speak of celibacy, I mean celibacy as a priest or religious would be celibate.

Do you believe enough men are willing to do this to make for a cultural revolution?

However, if the man decided that late and otherwise acted in good faith, there is no evil.

We’re considering a model of action. Obviously, if one sanctions a period of promiscuity followed by noble celibacy, that encourages a lax attitude in others early on. As a model for others, it is wrong.

On the issue of prenuptial agreements, I don’t recommend them. They are a bad way to start a marriage. If one thinks of talking these things over with a potential spouse and coming to an informal understanding that divorce is out of the question, that is the only prenuptial agreement that is right. Ultimately, authority over marriage should be removed from control by the state. 

Renato Rocha writes:

While I’m now happily married with a wonderful wife and have already two kids I cannot but remember a time when I could put myself on the shoes of these men, the “quality” of the women I met just gave me real terror of being financially ruined or having my future children taken. So I can understand them and for the last few years I’m recomending friends that do not find a true woman to buy “donated” eggs and use surrogacy so they can have kids. This is abominable to me yet it’s much more abominable to have multitudes without family or emotionally or financially destroyed by the typical XXI century woman. I do hope that this zeitgeist passes as quickly as possible and this feminazi mores get at least very attenuated.

Congratulations on your blog.

Laura writes:

Thank you.

I can understand the apprehensions of men too, but your recomendation fits into Alan Roebuck’s category of cultural looting. To reduce offspring to commodities and deliberately deprive them of contact with their natural mother is cruel and unjust. You should never recommend such a thing to a man. If he finds absolutely no one to marry, he can make the best of celibacy, perhaps helping others to care for the children they have.

Mr. Roebuck writes:

Thanks for the post. 

I was trying to express the heart of the matter. If a man refuses to marry (meaning that he has a reasonable chance of marrying well but refuses even to try), regardless of how valid the reasons or how noble the manner of his singleness he is still, in a matter of speaking, a looter of our civilization.  And you expressed this same idea in your response to Max. 

I was also trying to inspire men. It’s easy to blame the opposite sex, especially when so many of them really are blameworthy. But we cannot wait for “the System” to get fixed. Real families are needed right now. Aspire to be a builder, not a looter.

Western Civilization is looking for “a few good men.”

Laura writes:

And a few good women.

Needless to say, there are many good men and women marrying. There just aren’t enough of them. And they’re often marrying late. 

Max writes:

Do you believe enough men are willing to do this to make for a cultural revolution?

Perhaps, if combined with many other factors.

But that’s also irrelevant to such degree. There is no requirement of any kind for men of good will to marry. St. Paul says as much. It is superior to stay celibate than to marry — preferably to become a priest or a religious, but I’ve known a small handful of men who made this choice years ago so they can serve God better, as they are not beholden to a wife and children. My primary objection is your presumption that men should just shut up and get married to a good woman, even though there are so incredibly few to go around. And those, like myself, who attempted to do just that and entered into a marriage in good faith are stuck with truly awful wives for the rest of our lives. My wife talked a good game, but changed as soon as the honeymoon was over.

There is no obligation for anyone to seek a mate. I wish I had this attitude earlier. Honestly, I’d probably be a cloistered religious if I did.

 We’re considering a model of action. Obviously, if one sanctions a period of promiscuity

followed by noble celibacy, that encourages a lax attitude in others early on. As a model for others, it is wrong.

I truly don’t understand this straw-man you keep erecting. A lot of holy, Catholic men have a past which they regret, as frankly, many of us weren’t raised right. It is best if someone lives a life of chastity, but it is also good if they come to chastity later in life. This is not a “lax attitude”, nor do I encourage sexual licentiousness at any age, nor will any be tolerated of any sons I may have.

I agree with you about marriage being removed from the authority of the state, but prenuptual agreements are not “a bad way to start a marriage” — they make it impossible, absolutely null and void. A prenup isn’t better than no marriage — it IS no marriage.

Laura writes:

1. Perhaps you could tell me where I have stated that men should shut up.  

2. If you are talking about men giving up marriage only so they can serve God, then by all means, all the better. I thought we were talking about men giving up marriage because the risks were too great. St. Paul advocated celibacy for those who would devote their lives to spreading the news of salvation. If many men became celibate and devoted their non-work hours to bringing about spiritual renewal and attempting to convert others, working as hard at this as the average father does at raising his children, that would be a good thing.

3. If your wife changed before, she might change again. But marriage is risky. It always has been. See Mr. Roebuck’s analogy of a crumbling city, which ackowledges things are worse.

4. It is fine if a man chooses celibacy after making mistakes but the idea that a period of indulgence followed by celibacy is a worthy model is not fine. The holy men you speak of didn’t choose celibacy because they wanted to avoid pain and hardship, they chose it because they wanted to face pain and hardship. But a man who is called to the monastic life purely to serve God should answer that call.

5.  I agree with your view of prenuptial agreements.

Max writes:

Response to Mr. Roebuck:

I was trying to express the heart of the matter. If a man refuses to marry (meaning that he has a reasonable chance of marrying well but refuses even to try), regardless of how valid the reasons or how noble the manner of his singleness he is still, in a matter of speaking, a looter of our civilization.

So, every man who becomes a priest or monk is a looter of our civilization? Really? What should I tell the Benedictine priest who convinced me that Hell was necessary for justice, and thus enabled me to convert from a cheap and shallow agnosticism to faith in Christ? I guess he wastes his life teaching in the inner city at an all-boys school, and providing spiritual direction to young men like myself in college.

Laura writes:

I’m sure Mr. Roebuck’s response would be the same as mine. He was not talking about men called to the priesthood.

A man who becomes a priest because he does not want to face the possibility of a bad marriage is similar to a man who becomes a priest because he has homosexual desires.

Mr. Roebuck writes:

Max said, 

So, [Roebuck says] every man who becomes a priest or monk is a looter of our civilization? 

But I said, quote, 

If a man refuses to marry (meaning that he has a reasonable chance of marrying well but refuses even to try), regardless of how valid the reasons or how noble the manner of his singleness he is still, in a matter of speaking, a looter of our civilization. 

Qualifications matter. Some men should not marry, and some are just temperamentally incapable of advancing civilization rather than being deliberate looters. But don’t miss the main point because the exceptions distract you. Aggressive, ideological singleness, somewhat like ideological homosexualism, erodes our civilization.

Please follow and like us: