A Good Pact

For John, BLUF:  If I could I would create a law that said the Father must support the Mother and Child.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Leftist women discover traditional marriage

From Twitter, by Common Sense Extremists, 6 Jul 62022, 8:55 PM.

Here is the lede plus one:

Common Sense Extremists
@crushmarxismnow
Leftist women discover traditional marriage

Me and some of my girlfriends did a retreat this weekend to help us cope with the monumental serback in human rights.  By the end of it, we had moved from sad to ANGRY.  We all agreed to a pact not having sex with any man, until he had proven himself a capable provider, and until that man had signed a contract, written on paper, agreeing to stay with us and support us if we get pregnant.  We started drafting an actual contract, and we're planning on sending it to a lawyer to make sure it is legit.  At this point I am completely done with men who want to hook up and leave, its high time for American men to STEP UP.

The way it should be!

I have always thought that having sex carried a covenant that if pregnancy resulted, marriage followed.  Forget about your "career", being a husband and father was your new priority.  I hope that American women step up to this new (old) standard.  That would be real feminism.  That would be real self-respect.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Star Chamber?

For John, BLUF:  Whixh should be controlling when it comes to social/cultural issues, the welcoming nation or the culture of the immigrants coming in?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Denmark’s Ex-Immigration Minister Gets Jail Sentence for Ordering Separation of Child Brides From Their ‘Husbands’

Here is the sub-headline:

BBC:  “The verdict cannot be appealed and the jail sentence is unconditional, meaning that it must be served.”

Freom Legal Insurrection, by Blogger Vijeta Uniyal, 14 December 2021, 11:30am.

Here is the lede plus one:

On Monday, Denmark’s high-power court convicted Inger Stoejberg, who served as the country’s immigration minister between 2015-19, for ordering the separation of refugees couples if the woman was under 18.

Stoejberg’s 2016 order, as she argues, was aimed at stamping out the practice of child brides who were being imported into the country in the wake of the migrant wave. “A total of 23 couples were separated, with the wives ranging in age from 15 to 17 years,” Germany’s DW News reported.

Here is the really disturbing part of the story, which is why the title of this Blog:

The so-called Impeachment Court, specially set up for Stoejberg’s trial, “agreed that the order had violated Danish law and the European Convention on Human Rights,” the TV network Euronews reported.

It seems to me that if a nation has age restrictions on marriages they should be enforced on everyone.  Otherwise they should be changed to reflect what is being allowed for some.  A two tiered system is inherently unequal.

Considering that in the West young teenage bridges were accepted several centuries ago it might be the way to go, except that in our current culture education suggests that 18 is a reasonable marriage age for all.  Our culture expects youth to stay in school until graduation from high school.  It is a reasonable expectation for society today.

A special court for Ms Stoejberg seems fishy to me.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Ms Lisa Page Declares Her Innocence

For John, BLUF:  I sure wished that Ms Lisa Page would have quietly gone away after the election and the exposure of corruption in the upper reaches of the FBI.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Lisa Page:  'There's No Fathomable Way That I Have Committed Any Crime at All'

From PJ Media, by Mr Tyler O'Neill, 2 December 2019.

Here is the lede plus four:

As America awaits the inspector general report into whether or not the FBI abused its power by investigating potential collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia in the 2016 election, a key figure in that drama has stepped forward.  In an interview with the Daily Beast published Sunday evening, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page insisted that she committed no crimes and she predicted that the report should exonerate her.  Yet the Obama administration's pursuit of the Trump-Russia investigation stinks to high heaven, regardless of her denials.

Page became notorious for text messages she sent to FBI agent Peter Strzok, with whom she was having an affair.  Both were involved in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails and in the Trump-Russia investigation.  In the text messages, Strzok promised, "we'll stop" Trump from getting elected.  They also discussed an "insurance policy" should Trump get elected, anyway.

President Trump has repeatedly mocked Page and Strzok, and he has suggested that the former FBI lawyer committed treason.  The Daily Beast interview cast Page as a victim of Trump's misogyny and harassment, agreeing with her suggestion that she did nothing wrong — besides the illicit affair (Page is still married to her husband and has small children).

In the interview, she claimed she decided to speak out because Trump seemed to act out an orgasm in mentioning her and Strzok in an October rally.  It seems more likely she spoke out in advance of the IG report, which will be released on December 9.

"Honestly, his demeaning fake orgasm was really the straw that broke the camel’s back," Page said.  "But it’s also very intimidating because he’s still the president of the United States.  And when the president accuses you of treason by name, despite the fact that I know there’s no fathomable way that I have committed any crime at all, let alone treason, he’s still somebody in a position to actually do something about that.  To try to further destroy my life.  It never goes away or stops, even when he’s not publicly attacking me."

Yes, I agree that the President should not be talking about adultery on the campaign trail.  Young ears are listening.  I would like to think that Ms Page had a momentary slip and has since regretted it and has reformed her life.  That part of her life should be left alone.

On the other hand, her prejudice, in 2016, against Mr Trump, is obvious.  That prejudice should be appropriately forgiven, but not forgotten.  The FBI has been here before, with a much earlier Director of the FBI.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Making It Work

For John, BLUF:  Marriage is not about gaining equality, but about mutual self sacrifice.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Secret to Lasting Love Is Sexual Inequality

From The Epoch Times, by Ms Suzanne Venker, 14 March 2019.

Per Wikipedia, The Epoch Times is a multi-language newspaper founded in 2000 by John Tang and a group of Chinese Americans associated with the Falun Gong spiritual movement.

Here is the lede plus five:

Not long ago I received an email from a divorced real estate agent in Beverly Hills who had this to say:

Dear Suzanne,

I just read about you, and I’d like to talk to you about my daughter who’s a high achiever.  She’s 38, well-educated (two Ivy League schools), creative, intelligent, sophisticated, loving, successful, and attractive with a model-like body, and surprisingly can’t find a desired partner.  I must say she wasted many years on several senseless relationships.  She is now extremely unhappy that she doesn’t have a partner and, most importantly, she wants to have children.  She has consulted with a few relationship coaches, but she is still single.  All of her friends are married with kids.  I’m clueless why she can’t find her desired partner.  Thank you in advance for your help.

” My emailer’s daughter is not alone.  Countless women today face the exact same problem:  They’re successful in life but not in love.  And their quandary is bigger than they realize, for if and when these women do find a husband, it will not be the end of their struggle.  Finding a man to marry today is only half the battle.

The other half is keeping him.

Although “keeping him” isn’t really the right phrase since men aren’t the ones leaving their marriages in droves.  Women are:  70 percent of divorces are initiated by wives.  Ergo, even when women do marry, they have no idea how to stay married.

Time to read the article, but the theme is that winning in the gender war may be losing at life.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Marriage Bonus

For John, BLUF:  One is better off married than single.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Marriage linked to longer lifespan, new data shows

Here is the sub-headline:

Part of the marriage benefit could be explained by the fact that people in good health are more likely to marry, said Katherine Ornstein, a professor at Mount Sinai's Icahn School of Medicine.

From United Press International, by Reporter Dennis Thompson, 10 October 2010.

Here is the lede plus two:

Married folks not only live longer than singles, but the longevity gap between the two groups is growing, U.S. government health statisticians report.

The age-adjusted death rate for the married declined by 7 percent between 2010 and 2017, according to a new study from the National Center for Health Statistics, part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"Not only is the rate for married lower, but it's declining more than any other group," said lead author Sally Curtin, an NCHS statistician.

Between the headline and the sub-headline I am confused.  Was it causation or merely correlation?

My personal conclusion, based on this and other things I have read, is that marriage is a social good, and we have done a bit of damage to it since the 1960s.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Keeping It Together

For John, BLUF:  Your Spouse is someone you should walk with (and talk with) to the very end.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

How to Keep a Good Marriage During Bad (Trumpian) Times

From , by Playwright Carla Seaquist, 4 August 2018.

I have met Carla, and followed her writings over the years.  Her husband, Larry, was my boss's Deputy when I was on the Joint Staff.  While I don't agree with all of her politics, I do think she makes a very good point here.  Marriage is very important and should not be allowed to decay over issues of domestic politics.

The other thing I picked up was a link to an Opinion Piece her husband wrote, along with another person, on Homelessness in their part of Washington State.  The [West] Coast is having a terrible time with homelessness, and my understanding from when I was a teenager is that trends start out in Southern California, head east to New York City and then spread out from there.  This homelessness trend is not something we want to see spread to Lowell.

Homelessness isn't one thing.  Rather, it is a combination of things, including skyrocketing home prices, high unemployment, mental health issues, addiction of some form, a desire to be free of obligations and a failure to launch as an adult.  Our solutions need to consider all those factors  One solution does not fill all needs, but we do know that adequate housing does reduce medical costs, and thus the physical cost to the person who is homeless.

Regards  —  Cliff

About the Birds and Bees

For John, BLUF:  Number one indicator of success in the US?  Are your natural parents still married.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Some Songbirds Have Brains Specially Designed to Find Mates for Life

From The Old Gray Ladies, by Ms Joanna Klein, 13 February 2018.

Here is the lede plus three:

If Cupid wanted to make two songbirds fall in love, he’d have better luck aiming at their brains.  That’s because songbirds, which form lifelong mating pairs, have brain systems perfectly tuned to fit together.

While you sort through the messages of admirers, deciding who to make your Valentine, consider finches.

Young males in this family of feathered crooners learn the song of their father, perfect it and perform it as adults to attract a lifelong mate.  It’s loud, elaborate and precise.  With their songs they say “chirp, chirp — my brain is healthy, and my body is strong.  That’s something you’re into, right?”

A female finch also learns the songs of her father from a young age, but she doesn’t perform.  She’s the critic.  She analyzes every detail of a potential mate’s song, compares it to her father’s example and decides if this performer is one she’d like to keep around.  If she detects a song is too simple or off in any way, she’ll have nothing to do with its performer.  She’s very picky, as she should be, because the mate she chooses will help raise their young — till death do they part.

We definitely have, as humans, free will.

My question is, do we find women (and children and men) better prospering under the institution of marriage or in a more free wheeling set of relationships?

I am betting marriage, with, of course, the sanction of separation.

Regards  —  Cliff

Divorce Hurts Society

For John, BLUF:  Divorce and remarriage actually decreases diversity in marriage, overall.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Does easy divorce lead to more assortative mating?

Assortive:  denoting or involving the preferential mating of animals or the marriage of humans with similar characteristics

A Marginal Revolution Blog Post by Mercator Center Economics Professor Tyler Cowen, on 25 November 2017.

Professor Cowan has an abstract of a paper on unilateral (easy or no fault) divorce and its (adverse) impact on society.

Remember the 1921 song by Ray Egan and Gus Kahn and Richard Whiting, Ain't we Got Fun?

There's nothing sure
The rich get rich and the poor get poorer
In the meantime, in between time
Ain't we got fun?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Avoiding Marriage

TRIGGER WARNING:  In which I hint that you can't have it all.

For John, BLUF:  These new generations don't take marriage as seriously as we did, men and women.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Is Cheap Sex Making Men Give Up on Marriage?

The author of this 3 September 2017 short article from Pajama Media is forensic psychologist Dr Helen Smith.

The subject is a new book, by Sociologist Dr Mark Regnerus.  The title is Cheap Sex:  The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy. Dr Smith found this summation of the book in a New York Post article:

Thanks to cheap sex, marriage may be doomed.

The share of Americans ages 25-34 who are married dropped 13 percentage points from 2000 to 2014. A new book by sociologist Mark Regnerus blames this declining rate on how easy it is for men to get off.

Regnerus calls it “cheap sex,” an economic term meant to describe sex that has very little cost in terms of time or emotional investment, giving it little value.

Regnerus bases his ideas, in part, on the work of British social theorist Anthony Giddens, who argued that the pill isolated sex from marriage and children. Add online pornography and dating sites to the mix and you don’t even need relationships.

"Cheap" is an economic term, meaning that it isn't dear or expensive.  It can be had easily.  Guys don't have to work for it and don't have to make promises of life changing committal to get it.  Further, if there is a pregnancy involved they can easily back off without societal consequences, partly due to relatively more available abortion and partly because social peers and elders are willing to accept this not accepting of parental responsibility.♠

And, of course, everything is doomed, until we find some new level of normalcy.  That said, Dr Smith thinks there are additional factors at play:

Fair enough, but I think enough men have seen what marriage does to the older guys in their family and friend circles to know that the antiquated marriage laws (and new ones) that put the responsibility of the actual marriage legally more on men is also a factor.  Perhaps the discrepancy between the easier ability to get sex and the actual increased duties and responsibilities of men in marriage now are so much greater than in the past that it makes marriage unappealing to many.  Sure, a man can get sex more easily without being married but I wonder if women restricted sex more and porn was made illegal how many more men would marry? Maybe no more and maybe less.

Which raises the question of if men are asking less often or women are saying yes less often (or a combination thereof)?

What ever it is, we are sailing into unknown waters, and without a map.  If this is also happening in India and China then we are probsbly OK.  Otherwise we are probably, as a society, facing a crisis down the road.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Perhaps because they have seen a lack of commitment to marriage, resulting in too frequent divorces, thanks to the "no fault divorce" laws that we passed in the 1960s and beyond.

Seeking Perfection

For John, BLUF:  With humans here is no perfection.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Why You Will Marry the Wrong Person

This NYT item, by Mr Alain de Bottonmay, is from 28 May of last year, but showed up on the Old Gray Lady's website today.  It may be old, but it is evergreen.

Here is the lede plus one:

IT’S one of the things we are most afraid might happen to us. We go to great lengths to avoid it.  And yet we do it all the same: We marry the wrong person.

Partly, it’s because we have a bewildering array of problems that emerge when we try to get close to others.  We seem normal only to those who don’t know us very well.  In a wiser, more self-aware society than our own, a standard question on any early dinner date would be:  “And how are you crazy?”

And here is the last paragraph:

Romanticism has been unhelpful to us; it is a harsh philosophy.  It has made a lot of what we go through in marriage seem exceptional and appalling.  We end up lonely and convinced that our union, with its imperfections, is not “normal.”  We should learn to accommodate ourselves to “wrongness,” striving always to adopt a more forgiving, humorous and kindly perspective on its multiple examples in ourselves and in our partners.

Someone, a few decades back, convinced me that there is a difference between love and infatuation and that "Love is a decision".  Well, maybe commitment is a better word, but the fact is that one elects to love someone and dedicate oneself to that person and that person's well being.  They aren't perfect, but then neither am I.

Regards  —  Cliff

Alabama Leads the Way

For John, BLUF:  Fully agree.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

As noted by the InstaPundit.

CHANGE:  Alabama Moves To Separate Marriage And State.  “The legislation would abolish all requirements to obtain a marriage license in Alabama. Instead, probate judges would simply record civil contracts of marriage between two individuals based on signed affidavits. . . .  The proposed law would maintain a few state requirements governing marriage.  Minors between the ages of 16 and 18 would have to obtain parental permission before marrying, the state would not record a marriage if either party was already married, and the parties could not be related by blood or adoption as already stipulated in state law.”  How long until Alabama is called a cesspit of bigotry for refusing to recognize plural marriage?

I have been advocating this approach for over fifteen years.  Marriage should be a private contract between the parties, enforceable in court.  No need for a justice of the peace or anyone else from the Government to Officiate.  The Government can, however, enforce certain minimum requirements with regard to age, just like with alcohol.  If the parties wish a church wedding they can ask.  No Government enforced promises in that direction.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Same Sex Marriage Meets US Constitution, Again

For John, BLUF:  In a complex society there are bound to be differences of opinion.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I am sure that this is a test of the issues of assimilation, culture and cultural appropriation and a dominant culture imposing its will on a minority.  Straight from The Associated Press we have an article by Miss Felicia Fonseca, "GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL BUT NOT ON TRIBAL LANDS".

While there may be a small amount of humor in this predicament, I don't think it is really funny.  We are looking at people's lives here.  We are also looking at how our society judges and prioritizes rights and privileges.

Here is the lede plus one.

Cleo Pablo married her longtime partner when gay weddings became legal in Arizona and looked forward to the day when her wife and their children could move into her home in the small Native American community outside Phoenix where she grew up.

That day never came.  The Ak-Chin Indian Community doesn't recognize same-sex marriages and has a law that prohibits unmarried couples from living together.  So Pablo voluntarily gave up her tribal home and now is suing the tribe in tribal court to have her marriage validated.

We are talking arcane provisions of the US Constitution here.  Or, specifically, Native American tribes have sovereign lands, where the U.S. Constitution does not apply.  It is an interesting concept.

But this issue is bigger than the relationship of the US Government to Native American tribes.

When our society allows greater freedom to do as one wishes, we run the risk of offending more people.  When we don't have cultural assimilation we have the problem of groups of people not being happy with some of these new freedoms.  On the other hand, there are those who are against cultural assimilation.  Should Muslims of whatever stripe, coming from the Eastern Hemisphere, be treated as intolerant for being opposed to modern American sexual mores.♠  Or should they be expected to suck it up and live with it?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Heck, there are non-Muslims who think some of our sexual mores are in bad taste.

Oregon Cake Walk

For John, BLUF:  Are there that few bakers willing to bake cakes for same sex weddings, or is it we need to stamp out all resistance?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The story of the Oregon bakers who refused to make a cake for a same sex marriage is kind of squishy.  The bakers, who had previously made pastries for the couple, when they were still a couple, and not yet planning a wedding, did turn down the wedding job and got sued.  So far, so good.

Then came the accusation that there was a gag order from the state of Oregon.  The couple could not talk about the case.  Then it was suggested on the Internet that it wasn't so, but that the fines were for the fact that the bakers had published personal data (DOXXING) about the same sex wedding couple.

Now comes Law Professor Eugene Volokh, with a blog post in The Washington Post, saying "No, the Oregon bakers weren’t fined for publishing the complainant’s home address, or for otherwise publicizing the complaint against them".  That seems pretty definitive.

As for the bakers not being allowed to talk, that is a little more tricky.  Per Professor Volokh, what they may not say is that they will not bake cakes for same sex weddings (saying they would do something illegal).  They are free to say that they think same sex weddings are a wrong headed idea.

On the other hand, if the bakers and the couple had an already established commercial relationship, why did this come to pass?  Why didn't the couple politely say thank you and go elsewhere?  Why didn't the bakers say, "We think this is wrong, but for you we will make a cake."  I guess the couple and the bakers did not have that secure a relationship.  I have to admit that I think $135,000 is a lot of emotional distress.  I would guess it could have been discharged for $1,350, or maybe even $135.  The point would have been made.  Maybe the larger sum was needed to grab headlines so that other bakers would get the word.  And, I think, the couple should take its business elsewhere, in the future, for fear that the bakers will be spitting onto the pastries when their backs are turned to the couple.  I am not saying they should.  If they are the good Christian folks we think they are, they shouldn't.  But, $135,000 is a lot of animosity.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

SCOTUS Rules on Marriage

For John, BLUF:  .  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

We have a ruling from the US Supreme Court on same sex marriage, OBERGEFELL v. HODGES.

Held:  The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.

Justice Kennedy, who wrote the opinion, seemed to write with blinders on.♠  He writes:

(a) Before turning to the governing principles and precedents, it is appropriate to note the history of the subject now before the Court.

(1) The history of marriage as a union between two persons of the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases.  To the respondents, it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extended to same-sex couples.  But the petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities, as illustrated by the petitioners’ own experiences.

(2) The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change.
Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution.  Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.

Hello!  How many plural marriages exist, de facto, if not de jure, here in the United States?  Let alone across the globe.  Are we an immigrant nation that will not allow cultures to flow into our nation?  What about the degree of consanguinity issue?

We are not at the end of this issue.

Justice Kennedy was correct when he said, in his ruling,

Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Former Commonwealth Chief Justice M Marshall had the same problem.

A Right to Dignity?

For John, BLUF:  This could destroy civilization.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Atlantic Magazine has an article by Mr Jeffrey Rosen, "The Dangers of a Constitutional 'Right to Dignity'".  The sub-headline is "It may provide support for same-sex marriage, but it also empowers judges to decide whose 'dignity' they wish to prioritize."

Before even reading this I see problems.  If people have a right to dignity, must the police provide trousers for men in shorts?  What about women walking around in skimpy outfits?

Here is the lede:

If the Supreme Court strikes down same-sex marriage bans, it may well do so on the grounds that they violate the dignity of gay couples.  And although proponents of marriage equality may cheer a decision along these lines when it is delivered, the expansion of the constitutional right to dignity may produce far-reaching consequences that they will later have cause to regret.

Here is the concluding paragraph.

In suggesting that the expansion of the right to dignity is something that liberals may come to regret, I’m not arguing that same-sex marriage bans can or should easily be upheld in light of the Supreme Court precedents on the books.  In the same-sex marriage arguments, the liberal justices seemed drawn to the idea that marriage is a fundamental right that must be expanded to all citizens on equal terms.  A decision along those lines—although broader in some respects than a ruling based on dignity—might be easier to confine to cases involving marriage.  And given Justice Kennedy’s previous opinions for the Court ruling out of bounds moral disapproval and the preservation of tradition for its own sake, it’s hard to think of any other plausible reasons for upholding the marriage bans that don’t rely on what the Court has defined as animus.  Still, if the Court strikes down same-sex marriage bans on the grounds that they violate a right to dignity, liberals may have second thoughts about empowering judges to decide whose dignity trumps when the interests of citizens with very different conceptions of dignity clash.

I suspect Mr Rosen is confused about the difference between Liberals and Progressive, but that does not make him wrong about the possible consequences of a ruling based on "dignity".

If anyone cares, my view is that everyone gets a civil union, but marriage is left to those who have some religious affiliation, however tenuous, and it should be performed after the civil union.  Like they do in Europe.  Like Martha and I did, albeit first in Las Vegas and then later at MacDill AFB.  (Not everything that happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.)

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sex on Campus

For John, BLUF:  Do you think it will apply to Undertaker College?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

So, over at Mind the Campus we have "IS THE LEFT LOSING ITS MIND OVER CAMPUS SEX?", by K C Johnson.

The answer is Yes.

---

My question is, since my wife of 48 years and I are enrolled at UMass Lowell Continuing Education, are we subject to this Title IX Fascism?

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Women and Men

For John, BLUF:  Your theory is correct.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is something that Ms Renee Astee, from Christian Hill, might like.

The Washington Post has an article by W Bradford Wilcox and Robin Fretwell Wilson, "One way to end violence against women?  Married dads."  The second headline is "The data show that #yesallwomen would be safer with fewer boyfriends around their kids."

The dramatic social media response to the UC-Santa Barbara shooting, captured by the hashtag #YesAllWomen, underlined an important and unpleasant truth: across the United States, millions of girls and women have been abused, assaulted, or raped by men, and even more females fear that they will be subject to such an attack.  As Sarah Kliff wrote in Vox:  a “national survey of American women found that a slight majority (51.9 percent) reported experiencing physical violence at some point in their life.”

This social media outpouring makes it clear that some men pose a real threat to the physical and psychic welfare of women and girls.  But obscured in the public conversation about the violence against women is the fact that some other men are more likely to protect women, directly and indirectly, from the threat of male violence: married biological fathers.  The bottom line is this:  Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.

The point of all this is that our culture and our social welfare system are working against the institution of marriage, which tends to work to the advantage of women.  While it is probably sexist to say this, but when I was young people actually said that part of the job of marriage was to allow women to help tame men.

The charts at the article are interesting.  One thing they say is children with their natural parents are better off, but we knew that, did we not?

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

The Instapundit, in posting this, references a book by a Dr Helen Smith—Men on Strike:  Why Men are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood and the American Dream, and Why It Matters.

Regards  —  Cliff