The American Spectator

Melvin| 10.1.10 @ 8:12AM

I may get a few arguments here, but it would just plain would suck to go through life being alone. After being married for many years and suddenly being without your significant other, it is in a way like a self-imposed prison sentence.
My father lost my mother after 47 years of marriage, and after mom had past, he was alive but not living. While in the Marine Corps I took an entire 30 days to go and see him, and one day while sitting on one of his dogs Lazy Boy recliners, (yes, Dad bought his dogs their own Lazy Boy) we were watching Matlock and completely out of the blue, he made the comment of, "You know son, there isn't a day, that I don't think of your mother." And then he became silent again.
A number of years ago my wife went on a trip for three months, heck, she finally had to shove me away from the departure gate, like a lost puppy I went home, and I kid you not, when I closed the front door, it had the same sound of a cell door closing. At that point in time I knew exactly what my father meant when he made that comment about mom years earlier.
I knew I was close to my wife, but I suppose being together all the time we sometimes develop the habit of taken each other for granted because we we're always together. Being gone in the military the emotions were much different because we both knew it was part of my job being gone all the time, but being retired, emotionally it is a whole new ball game.
I know I have gone on a bit of a tangent here, but sharing a life with someone and growing old together cannot be described with mere mortal words. My wife told my children when they began their marriages, always remember, " Some marriages are meant to be, and there are some not meant to be, its all up to you."
Majito made a comment yesterday about a comment that Appleby made, and there is so much truth to it, "what did Appleby missed? Girl the universe, that what you missed."

Kyrie Eleison| 10.1.10 @ 9:01AM

Melvin, both your wife and father and blessed to have you. Thanks for the touching comment.

Melvin| 10.1.10 @ 11:25AM

Thank you, As we get older, the little petty things don't matter as much as they used to. I just wish as a younger man, I wasn't quite so quick to rise to an argument, I could have saved myself a lot of anger and discontent.
I relay this information to my kids, "Don't sweat the small stuff in a marriage, address it so it doesn't become a bigger issue, but don't let it divide and conquer the relationship."
Me and my wife still get into disagreements but it is not the go for the juggler type of disagreements.
Jeez, as a young man, I must have been a real pain in the backside.

KyMouse| 10.1.10 @ 12:42PM

There are many women who go through life unmarried because no man has proposed to them. In our society, it is still the man who does the proposing, in almost all cases. I know plenty of women who would dearly love to be asked, and telling them that they've "missed the universe" just rubs salt in their wounds.

Patrick| 10.1.10 @ 3:08PM

Oh so very true.

Once again, radical feminism is to blame.

Why, would a man get married today, if not for moral obligation? First, the man usually gets what he wants after the third date, unless he's looking for a one night stand. Of course, since the majority of men are looking for immediate satisfaction, the majority of women are pressured to give in, or face the likely prospect of getting dumped again. Of course, once a man gets bored, there is no obligation on his part from just moving on, and so the cycle goes on, until both realize their better years are long past.

Second, since women are constantly barraged by the message that they are to be "independent" and "empowered". If they are not "self actuated" within their marriages, which is another way of saying bored, it's time for the no fault divorce. She takes half (after the lawyers) and gets child support, gets full custody, government paid daycare, housing subsidies, etc. He gets papers, sometimes unexpectedly, gets to keep half after the lawyers, has to pay child support, only gets to see the children on alternating weekends and some holidays, and is made a byword amongst his friends and colleagues.

So, in this society of "Eat, Pray, Love", why would a man ever want to get married? There is a reason why liberalism attracts narcissists, because it is the formulation for societal narcissism. And just like Narcissus, liberals drown in their own reflection.

Patrick| 10.1.10 @ 3:12PM

Of course, the alternative is as follows:

Courtship, not dating.

Family must pray together, both at the same church and at home.

Sex is not a biological funhouse. It is a powerful gift of co-creation with the Lord. Treat it as such and throw away the Pill.

QuietPro| 10.2.10 @ 3:11AM

Who are you to say what sex should and should not be used for?

Patrick| 10.2.10 @ 5:45AM

Someone with a shred of self discipline for one. Even so, my argument is not one of any formal moral or legal authority over you, and yet you revolt. Neither was my argument based upon a call to authority, rather, of principle. Yet it is not mere authority that demands you revolt, but rather it is truth from which you revolt. This truth is demanding and difficult, and that I too can attest, yet it is no less truth.

I sincerely doubt that I could persuade you, QuietPro, to a perspective beyond the pleasure principle. Likewise I doubt that I could persuade even one other person who has seen what I have written here. That doesn't mean that I should be silent.

I have merely stated truth, the same truth that has crushed your divorced friends, and the same truth that will leave you to die alone and unmourned. Yet truth must be spoken, even if it is to be rejected for the sake of momentary release by a lie.

I did not write that I may mock, nor that I may gloat in the future, nor even for praise. This is merely testimony, and nothing else.

John II| 10.2.10 @ 11:56PM

Slam-dunk, Patrick--and thanks. I'm basically lazy, so I always cherish being rescued from the chore of responding.

QuietPro| 10.3.10 @ 11:59PM

@Patrick-
1.Self Discipline? Funny, I had no idea that you were so disciplined that you invented the very notion, or so the arrogance of your post says. Who says enjoying sex for pleasure was a lack of self discipline? The Bible? Is that the basis of your argument? You'll need more than that, I'm afraid.
2. Be silent? No I never said to be silent, nor should you. Arrogance has a tendancy not to remain silent, anyway....
3. Die unmourned? Does that mean I should tell all my friends not to show up at my funeral now? Or the rest of my family? Again- UTTER arrogance.
4. Stated the truth- Um, no sir. You stated an opinion. A rather arrogant one at that. But at this point, I would consider that par for the course with you......

Selah| 10.5.10 @ 6:19PM

You should write books. Please pray for me a husband.

Alan Brooks| 10.1.10 @ 8:20PM

"they promote and glamorize decisions about drugs and sex that ultimately scar the lives of those young people who follow their lead. "It's all good" is their mantra. But where does that attitude lead?"

If it isn't drugs and sex, it's alcohol and tobacco-- name your poison. Fact is, America has no authentic virtue and never will.

Patrick| 10.2.10 @ 5:47AM

Well, with that attitude, she never will.

Alan Brooks| 10.3.10 @ 7:03PM

"Well, with that attitude, she never will."

Only a marxist thinks human nature can be changed by politics or other manipulations. America is no different from other nations: it is merely more powerful. America's agriculture is the best-- but that's it. Deep down you know things will only improve materially-- you just can't admit it.
Doesn't matter how much you beat a corpse, it will only change color.

Tom near Boston| 10.3.10 @ 10:00PM

Hi Alan Brooks,
Do nations have "virtue?" Or do individuals? Thought: maybe America is different from other nations because, historically, she has allowed individuals to exercise true virtue by trusting and obeying their consciences more than other forms of government. Other nations have wheatfields, but few have invented self-limiting governments.

Another thought, regarding "if it isn't drugs and sex, it's alcohol and tobacco. How many posters recall men like my grandfathers -- who worked hard and did the best they could as heads of families for decades, but who also smoked and enjoyed a cocktail? To you, that's the same thing as the destruction of families and, as a direct result, a society?
By the way, name the nation with virtue, Comrade.

Chris| 10.17.10 @ 2:29PM

I beg to differ with you, regarding America's virtue. I don't know how old you are but I knowa lot of people of virtue, and we grew up in a country with virtue. But our Country is different today, because so many people in "Anything goes". That way they don't have to answer for their behavior or lifestyles. We are so far removed from the America we used to know, it will take alot of work to get it back. It will take the strong Christians in this country to take a stand for what's right for our country. We are the majority and need create a circle of faith that will be hard to break. I am a mother, grandmother, tax payer, wage earner, home owner and concerned Christian. That is why I created a website to bring Christians together to take a stand. Please go to: PatrioticChristiansToday.com to join me and other Christians across this country to have our voices heard. Thank you.

QuietPro| 10.2.10 @ 3:08AM

Melvin, you are totally wrong. Who said I need to be married to be a whole man? I've heard the tired mantra from you married folks that your lives are so much more full compared to singles. Hooey. These same people who told me that are DIVORCED today; every one of them. I've seen marriage and the inevitable divorce that follows it crush several people (emotionally and financially) that I've been close to in my life. It's arrogance to suggest, as you do in the opening lines of your post, that married people have bliss compared to singles. I assure you, you don't. I would rather go through life my own way -alone and content- than struggle through years of constant compromises only to be taken to the cleaners by my "Other Half" at the end. Kindly think before you submit things like this.

John II| 10.3.10 @ 12:08AM

Slight paraphrase of Hamlet, Act III, scene 2: The dude doth protest too much, methinks.

[Thank you, Willie. I just don't feel like writing much today. Reckon I'll mosey on now to the picture show for a re-run of the superior 1958 version of "I Married a Monster from Outer Space," starring the underrated Tom Tryon.]

Petronius| 10.1.10 @ 8:18AM

While this argument has surface credibility in reference to the stable disciplined life style a successful marriage requires, it does not necessarily point to the unmarried male's attitude towards work and his job simply as a means of fueling a sybaritic life style even if the first settlement he makes after cashing his paycheck is his bar tab. It seems the author cannot tolerate the idea, much less the reality that there exists one single solitary unfettered man who is solvent, independent, and determined to remain that way.
Almost nobody believes in Freedom any more because almost everybody wants the world to be as they would have it.
One day an altruistic 20 something called Rush and said point blank that "we must intervene in peoples lives for their own good." He ripped her a new one, telling her that unless another persons behavior harmed her directly she should mind her own damned business. My sentiments exactly.

spectator| 10.1.10 @ 8:26AM

"Almost nobody believes in Freedom any more because almost everybody wants the world to be as they would have it."

There are those.

Then again, there are others who just want their own little corner of the world to be as they would have it, as they have worked to construct it. Given our Constitution, Laissez-faire.

Petronius| 10.1.10 @ 3:33PM

Roger that.

Alan Brooks| 10.1.10 @ 8:29PM

"Constitution, Laissez-faire."

Libertopianism has no genuine ethics to inculcate on a mass scale, of course not; it is individualistic:
only idiosyncratic ethics in a little corner of one's little world. You can raise good children in good families, but there will be no shortage of criminals from bad families lurking outside our little corners of the world.
That's why you have to lock your doors, and pay the police and courts and prisons. There is no free lunch in law enforcement.

spectator| 10.1.10 @ 8:20AM

Love that photo of "The Lady Eve" Stanwyck manipulating Fonda. Just saw it on Netflix.

"It is unlikely that business managers looking to make it through tough times choose persons on the basis of whether they are married or not."

Married, of itself, perhaps not which would account for the percentage of those laid off who are married with children.

But perhaps it is the factor in question, as married people are likely more settled, "long term" and perhaps perceived to have a quality of "devotion" to something. Suppose that the employer transfers such characteristics from the employee's private life to the professional arena permeated with human relation interactions where "emotional maturity" benefits the workplace.

Possible.

John II| 10.3.10 @ 5:30PM

Yes--it's a terrific flick, with a touch of accidental retrospective irony so far as the performers go. Stanwyck was a lesbian, and Fonda was a serial womanizer who accumulated five wives over a period of 30-odd years. (He needed to reach the age of 60 before he was able to settle down in that respect.) Yet "The Lady Eve" celebrates true love with grace, humor, and wisdom--and with huge conviction on the part of the personally troubled performers.

Boy, those were the good ol' days, when vice paid genuine homage to virtue.

cat| 10.16.10 @ 11:53PM

John II, that could explain why his daughter Jane went 'off the handle' in Vietnam!! and became Hanoi Jane. I heard her mother committed suicide but the studios hushed it up as much as they could. Speaking of marriage becoming 'obsolete', if it did, the nex generations would become barbarians and there would be nothing to stop them

Anonymous| 10.1.10 @ 8:46AM

I am alone, but not necessarily lonely. Being unmarried feels like a prison sentence of my own making.

Melvin| 10.1.10 @ 11:38AM

It doesn't have to be. Sometimes we put so many preconditions and expectations upon ourselves, that we lose sight of finding our someone.
I don't know, when I met my someone, it was in the middle of a road, and it was monsoon season, raining like cats and dogs, with a sea of humanity swirling about me, and the first second when my eyes met hers, I knew she was the one.
A little voice inside my head said, "Melvin, don't screw this one up."
To this day, my wife tells me, "It was our destiny," and she always just leaves it at that.

Darragh| 10.1.10 @ 9:43AM

"Being unmarried may let you "have it your way," but a "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude doesn't pay off on the job, where the ability to compromise and get along are just as essential to smooth operations as they are in a marriage."

Uh, with all due respect, this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Has this woman ever had a real job? There are plenty of people, male and female who have this kind of bull in the china shop attitude, often in leadership positions. Plenty of, in fact MARRIED people of both genders. Often, compromising etc. is seen as a sign of weakness. Anyway, these attitudes have zero to do with one's marital status.

Robbie S. | 10.1.10 @ 9:43AM

As a recently married couple (age 29 and 27), we are already starting to see the finanical benefits of marriage. We had two cars, two apartments, two of everything. Combining our incomes allows for an extra $2,000 a month in savings.

I think the biggest hurdle to convincing young people to get married is geting past the ceremony. There is so much pressure, especially on the women, to have a big fancy wedding. Every girl dreams of this day, but the cost is outrageous. Even if you have a small wedding will set you back $8,000-10,000.

I finally convinced my wife on a weekend elopement. We had a great time and spent only $1,500. The money our families were going to spend on the wedding went into a savings account. We went to a friends wedding last weekend in Maryland. They spent around $28,000 on what amounted to a 4-hour event. The bride's father later told me that he would have much rather given them a check, but his little girl always wanted a big wedding. His little girl is 32 years old and her new husband has around $20,000 in credit card debt. Totally ridiculous!!

gearjammer| 10.1.10 @ 10:08AM

" 2000 a month savings", you say. plan on having children ?

Patrick| 10.2.10 @ 5:52AM

Well, with $2000 a month savings, children can be more easily afforded. That is, after all, the reason why marriage has been lauded since time immemorial.

QuietPro| 10.4.10 @ 12:01AM

Glad we have you here to tell us the only reasons why we should be married, Patrick.

Melvin| 10.1.10 @ 11:57AM

I had a small debt from former business that I used to own before I was married, and it sure as heck wasn't no $20,000, not even close, but is still was a sore spot in the beginning of the marriage.
The term that I also hear from young brides, "I want the perfect wedding," and I'll spend anything to make it happen
What is the perfect wedding/marriage? It doesn't exist and is only a figment in women's minds. Perfection isn't possible, because if man/woman were perfect and had the perfect relationship, there would be no need to improve upon themselves or the marriage. People are fallible and make mistakes and when this perceived perfection doesn't take place in a marriage, both view this fallibility as a sense of failure.
Robbie, you and your someone appear to be a the right track. And you know when you've had a successful marriage you'll receive a sign. Our sign was sitting at the front door at Walmart resting our legs watching people come and go, and my wife turned to me and said, " My God, is this what we are going to be doing when we get older?" I replied, "Yep, hey! look at that kid with the bright orange hair."

Texas Mom 2010| 10.1.10 @ 2:43PM

I think it is important that the marriage not the one time event of the wedding be a couple's focus. We have ours two days after Christmas in 1986. The church was already decorated, so our expenses were low. Church ladies did a modest reception for the cost in our church hall. It was nice and successful! So for less than $500 bucks (borrowed wedding gown) we had a nice event with our families and friends.
I have never regretted it, maybe if more kids in their twenties paid for their own wedding like we did, they would appreciate everyone taking the time to wish you well. It is our own responsibility to work more diligently on our marriage itself than the wedding.
That being said I have always felt that marriage is work that brings it's own reward. And that there is an element of luck or God's blessing for those whose marriages work. Looking forward to sitting on the porch with Hubby in our twilight.

Patrick| 10.2.10 @ 5:58AM

Love, true love, is not some fleeting feeling, but rather an act of the will. Congratulations.

Darragh| 10.1.10 @ 9:50AM

I also think the unemployment demographics related here probably have a lot more with the kind of jobs women have vs. men--lower pay and status, perhaps less affected by economy (helping and support professions). Men get laid off more because make more money etc. Unmarried men? Not sure, but could be because employers do take having a family into account, though they're not supposed to.

joli| 10.1.10 @ 8:17PM

She's not saying that employers take having a family into account. She simply says that certain men have better skills regarding interacting with other employees and customers and therefore have more value to the company, and those men tend to be married.

Majito| 10.1.10 @ 10:13AM

While I agree with being married as something very positive for us, the statement "Experienced personnel, however, are a valuable asset to a company, so managers try to hold on to their most productive workers where possible;" is not true. At least in my field (IT). Managers hold on to the cheapest talent in a downturn. That's why today we see the US as a wasteland of nomad south central mediocre IT workers taken positions from talented US citizens. All at the altar of lowering costs. Damn be quality and productivity...check out the movie 'Disclosure' the big testosterone laden bad witch reduced her costs how? lowering quality of work, producing a sub-standard product and planned on firing the chief engineer...only to show how she could reduce expenses and thus increase the bottom line...is this not happening across the spectrum today? that's why the greedy merchant is in love with China and ignores the deplorable conditions of the workers there (which he himself is enabling the chinese to do)...lead in toys, poison in dog food, contamination in frozen foods, dry wall with quality so bad it promotes mold, corrodes copper pipes and falls apart like a sand castle...no manager don't hold on to the most talented because they cost $$...they're looking at bottom line and in this scenario, the ones costing the more are the first ones out of the door...

PolishKnight| 10.1.10 @ 11:11AM

Although I have a great distrust of communism/socialism, I have to admit that they have points sometimes (otherwise why would it be the most popular form of religion in the world?)

It's statements such as this that I find amusing (in the classical sense) "Experienced personnel, however, are a valuable asset to a company, so managers try to hold on to their most productive workers where possible; often this is done by giving them maintenance work to do that has been deferred during boom periods. And who gets the pink slip? Obviously, the least productive and/or the most difficult to manage get weeded out."

Majito got to it before I did (good going Majito) but I'll also add that management often lays people off/fires/and even promotes based upon political concerns and not just cultural politics. I've seen up to half the workforce being basically bodies that were hired because the manager liked them (and passed on good reviews to later ones) good ol' boy/girl protectionism, or just plain laying off people and cutting costs thinking that the remaining employees will just work overtime or pick up the mess out of fear of losing their jobs.

CEO's especially are picked because they went to an Ivy league school and are part of the Establishment. Rush Limbaugh compares high paid CEO's to professional athletes (except even professional athletes aren't paid that much). This is a bad comparison since professional athletes may do something silly and useless (like throw a ball) but at least they produce business results (get people to buy tickets or increase TV ratings.) Carly Fiorina ran HP into the ground and walked out with a bag of money on a private jet. What do CEOs do? The tough job of arranging organizational charts, hiring cronies, and writing "mission statements". Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Such tough work!

The real mystery is how they get away with it. At least old crony capitalism recognized the basic worker and did provide some job security because they knew it would impact the bottom line as Majito points out where we get Chinese drywall and baby formula killing houses and babies respectively. And this is where socialism comes in:

We have Sorbaines Oxley where the stock market is "protected" by freezing out newer, better, smaller companies that reward their employees with massive regulations that only the big boys can comply with. They spend billions ensuring that two forms are used for the same task instead of one (and then the CEO's make bad decisions anyway) but since the fortune 500 has the same companies in it year after year and nobody can put their money in the stock market without going through SOX, it appears to work. If you are forced to either bury your money in the backyard or put in into junk that seems to be going up, you put it into junk.

joliz| 10.1.10 @ 8:25PM

Sadly, Carly is the only option in our senate race, unless we want to re-up on Barbara Boxer.

Cylar| 10.3.10 @ 2:35AM

I'm surprised a guy calling himself Polish anything, would have a single kind word to say about communism. After what it did to your country, you ought to be cursing Marx's name (and Lenin's, and Stalin's, and....). Especially considering that Poland was one of the most enthusiastic in throwing off European communism in its later years.

Roy| 10.1.10 @ 12:22PM

Well, the thing is, an American programmer may be twice as good as an Indian, but to justify the salary they have to be five times as good, and that's not worth it in a lot of cases.

Doesn't mean American programmers can't get jobs - in a lot of cases there is no substitute for proximity and shared background.

Whining that other people get jobs because they are willing to do them as well or better for far less - is for the Left.

Patrick| 10.2.10 @ 6:05AM

Well, there is something to be said about what a dollar can buy, and where. Of course, much of that is the fault of the Left as well.

Appleby| 10.1.10 @ 3:21PM

I am a spinster and happily so. My sisters have had eight divorces among them, the last (or anyway the latest) just concluded, and I have not noticed that they are happier than I am, nor are they more successful in any particular way. They have had lots of husbands and children. I stood on all seven continents before I was 22 and have spent my life travelling, learning, moving from place to place, and incidentally being the go-to person because I was not busy fighting spouses and ex-spouses.

I am of an age from which I can remember Girls considered to be worthless if we reached age 25 without husbands, and a brief tenure with the Mormon Church in which I was told that unmarried women would spent eternity as slaves to the harems of the married, as we were not fit for the highest level of heaven. I have known women friends who have attempted suicide and entered marriages that were living hells because it was better to be dead or as good as dead Mrs. Nobody than being Miss Somebody.

Marriage is just like any other career, it is for those who have the vocation for it and I highly respect them and wish them well. HOWEVER, I do not consider it necessary nor desirable that all women be forced into the same Procrustean Bed simply because men say its really the only thing we are, in the end, fit for.

And trust me, the single women are being kept on staff because we show up every day and work while we are here. We are not on the phone to the Nanny every five minutes or refereeing fights between our kiddies while the work piles up.

Marriage is a good idea, but it is not the law.

Melvin| 10.1.10 @ 4:20PM

You give a very good argument Appleby. Many points that you give are valid. My wife tried the work route because it did bring in extra funds, but the down side of it was that the little buggers started to run wild, taking advantage if you will.
So with me being gone all the time, the burden more or less fell upon my wife's shoulders. I must give her kudos for this, in which she did the job admirably. Did she sacrifice things that she wanted to accomplish? Maybe, that is something that we never really discussed. But personally I would say yes to a certain degree.
This sacrifice from her is something that I am trying to make up to her as we age. Like her wanting to chart her family tree, and will be gone for six months. I would sincerely hope that this is in some small measure of repayment for her time being dad and mom while I was traipsing all over the world.
Plus many younger parents today are solidly awful parents, that require them to be in constant touch with nanny, babysitter, or daycare.
But if your truly happy Appleby at this stage of your life, then you go for it girl.
Just sometimes it is really nice to share life with someone other than family. Like I told my wife that if she should pass before I do, if I want companionship, I'll get another dog to keep me company.

PJ| 10.1.10 @ 6:53PM

Don't call yourself a spinster. A spinster is an unmarried, miserable old hag, just like Mrs Danvers in the movie and novel called Rebecca. Or worst like the wretched, middle aged witch living next door from me!

PJ| 10.1.10 @ 6:59PM

Opps! I assumed Mrs Danvers is a widow; she never went home.

John II| 10.3.10 @ 12:25AM

"I do not consider it necessary nor desirable that all women be forced into the same Procrustean Bed . . ."

Necessary OR desirable, Appleby--and it's not like you to slip into double-negatives. Nor is it like you to wax so longwinded, except on this topic.

What on earth can account for this intermittent lapse in your prose? You don't protest too much, doth you?

Admit it, Appleby: If the right dude ever came along, you'd rope him and hog-tie him. And he'd be the better man for it, I reckon.

And now back to "I Married a Monster from Outer Space" (1958)--rather an intelligent flick, by the way, notwithstanding the title.

Cylar| 10.3.10 @ 2:39AM

I'm frustrated by this attitude that I hear again and again from singles: I'm cynical about marriage as an institution, because I know all these people who had miserable marriages and got divorced a bunch of times and got screwed on the legal settlements.

Maybe if you took a look around and started noticing people who were happy with their wives and husbands, you'd not only see the other side of the coin - but also gain some idea of what it takes to make the institution work the way it's supposed to. The high divorce rate is a direct result of this cynical kind of selfishness and refusal to compromise...and I'm not singling-out (pardon the pun) either gender here.

Rebecca Callahan| 10.23.10 @ 3:32PM

First, regarding this: "and a brief tenure with the Mormon Church in which I was told that unmarried women would spent eternity as slaves to the harems of the married, as we were not fit for the highest level of heaven."

I don't know whether you just misunderstood, or were told this by someone who didn't know what they were talking about, but this is NOT the doctrine of the Mormon church regarding women who never get married. It is a little offensive to members of the LDS church(like myself) to hear our beliefs misrepresented in this way.

Second, you have obviously witnessed some really bad marriages and known some very bad men. But just remember that there are many, many couples who enjoy a wonderful, fulfilling married relationship as well as men who love, respect and honor their wives. Obviously, it is these marriages that are beneficial to the people involved, not the ones that contain constant fighting, mistrust, etc., and utlimately end in divorce. And after being married for a little over 15 years, I have come to the conclusion that a happy marriage is really about choosing to be a loving spouse rather than some magical element of true love or luck.

Randall| 10.1.10 @ 11:09AM

The writer merely is stating the facts that Managers are choosing (based on the statistics of those being let go) to retain employees who are married over those that are not. I am sure that their marriage status is not factored in to the equation. Employers typically look for those employees that are less productive when it comes time to lay off from their pool because those that are left will be expected to produce the same amount of work with less coworkers. Bottom line is that married employees are more stable generally have less absences, are generally more serious about their jobs and more dedicated to their place of employment. Those that are single have only their self to support and are less responsible employees. Plain and simple. This article is not attempting to paint single people as less worthy but the facts are that business seem to appreciate them less and business deem them are not worth keeping when the time comes to separate the wheat from the chaff.

matt jones| 10.1.10 @ 12:17PM

attempting to link marriage to employment is not only dubious it is disrespectful to the idea of marriage itself. first things first. the author attempts to classify the 'friends' and 'sex in the city lifestlyes' as yuppie and far removed from the truth. by the end of the series 'Friends' the enture character cast minus one was married. one couple adopted children even. certaintly not deserving of the criticism the author lobs without any seeming understanding. further more sex in the city was mainly about finding Mr. Right, and about ther temprtations of one night stands, the gaps in the lives of those who live only in the moment. consider: the element of scandal and sensuality inbued in a television show about twenty somethings who engage in decadent behaviors is limited in appeal: people like to see characters develop and grow and fight for something, namely that sibngle individual one cannot live without. it stands to reason that there is no program that is not affected by the need to plot out a complex story arc in which a character or characters trancend their selves for another. this is because such dedication and character development makes for good story telling. there is no bias in the world of academia against marriage. the author attempts to compare criticism against the view that marriage is a simple demograhpic with a view of marriage as a social norm and claim that one is the other. this is simply misleading, aklthough subtly so. again and again there is an attempt to disregard the fact that marriage is the end result of a difficult and selective process, or at least should be. especially in this day and age, in which individuals take so long to find themselves, is it needed that people not take this decision lightly. there are no traits that make people more suitable in work if in marriage because marriage is the combining of two in to one, at least by modern societal standards. people consider marriage many different things in many different ways. further more it is possible that managers or employers in general want those individuals who present a 'wholesome family' image and hire accordingly. it also does not stand to reason that the best of the best are maintained: the best arwe sometimes let go in order to allow those individuals to seek better employment or to preemptivly prepare for when those employess, valued higher in a market that requires there skills and beluieves that these individuals because of the recession attempt to take any work they find thus resulting in a cumnination of desire to hire with a way of the employee being valued where selection is most picky. and small companies especially are staffed by workers who are known to them, exist in places where high familial standards exist culturally, and tend to reflect the notion of the single individual as passing through only workuing temporarily. however the idea, irregardless of the aforementioned reasons, highly insulting to those who do not view marriage as a societal tool. the notion that singles have a duty to marry is abhorent and evidence of the arrogance set up in the Tea Party culture that exists today. again and afgain the notion orf the working class family oriented individual is pitted against the driven, academically positioned individual, and the contribution viewed greatest is not the fruits of labor but the culture of social development. the great American is the parent, the middle class worker. no more the creative, driven, willing to take a chance personality that won over so many triumphs in American history. now the present, the practical, the individual whose ambituion has been met. the search is over, in process is in effect and the one against the world- the premise, mindful; that creates the type of people best suited for marriage if there was such a thing- is gone, because they are greedy, or selfish or hedonistic. marruiage is a goal not a prerequisite. it is the bane of its own existence because now marriage as it stands not only in this article but in culture, in societal standards, in morality, marriage is above the person. no longer seperate but compared and mariage has one out. the person is not material, or part of a formula but a huindrince to a voting demographic that can not see that beyond there own generation. in attempting to mimic the policies and actions of the greatest generation, who understood that the person leads to marriage not the other way around, the creation as a result is a selfish, egotistical individual with no understanding of the history of acomplishment but when it serves them. as such as the people become diluted in character so does marriage.

PolishKnight| 10.1.10 @ 12:48PM

"Bottom line is that married employees are more stable generally have less absences, are generally more serious about their jobs and more dedicated to their place of employment. Those that are single have only their self to support and are less responsible employees. Plain and simple. "

But... single employees also may be willing to work longer hours and get paid less because they have less familial responsbilities.

Randall| 10.1.10 @ 1:12PM

But... single employees also may be willing to work longer hours and get paid less because they have less familial responsibilities.

This is very true. there are many of my coworkers who are able to put in more hours to get the promotion or to get the raise, I have seen it many times but those employees are also more apt to find a better position out side of the company and are therefore more transient.
Being single gives one the option to decide tomorrow to pick up and move to NYC or San Francisco to get a better job. Married folks are less likely to be transient and are more grounded /stuck in their present location. This may not seem desirable to the persons career but in tough economic times that stability and longevity at a company pays off in the form of consideration of seniority when it comes to layoffs.

Petronius| 10.1.10 @ 3:57PM

Get real PK
Single employees who are fortunate enough to maintain full time work are always the company doormats for the married staff. The single guy never gets a Saturday off for anything because his most valuable function is to hold the fort weekends and evenings so the soccer moms and little league dads can attend the games, scouts, church activities and whatever else. Thanksgiving, Christmas, and all other holidays, he's the one who has to work on pain of death. Come to think of it, the only funeral he could make it to is his own.

Cylar| 10.3.10 @ 2:41AM

Some of those with families, have families that understand the need to go to work when called and put in the required workdays. Some of those families understand that without the job, there's no home or food on the table.

I'll refrain from the jokes about how stupid Polish people are supposed to be (only because I know better), but come on, man. Get a clue.

Gert| 10.1.10 @ 5:18PM

We ran of to Las Vegas, everyone said it wouldn't work b/c he was 15 years older than I (at 19). 45 years later, here we are, still kicking. Life's great, best bet I ever made. Fell head over heels and haven't landed yet.

Cylar| 10.3.10 @ 2:43AM

And there are 99 other couples in your age demographic who did the same thing (get married young) and for whom that proved to be a monumentally stupid idea. I don't think marriage licenses should be given to anyone under 25.

Kristi of Boulder| 10.1.10 @ 5:41PM

Great comments, even better than the article. Especially Melvin.

Chosing the right person to marry is the most important decision in most people's lives. Don't only look at love and passion but whether you truly like the person you're considering spending the rest of your life with.

It's even more important than employment.

joli| 10.1.10 @ 8:55PM

I married someone I truly liked (and loved) and have spent most of my marriage (21 years) being ignored. Take a good look at how your intended's parents treat each other. We learn our relational skills from our parents. If I had spent time with his parents before I married him, I might have reconsidered (but I doubt it--I wasn't that wise at the time). I have worked hard at trying to overcome the bad skills my parents taught me; unfortunately, my dh has not felt it necessary to learn better marriage skills than his parents. "Problem? What problem? Let me ignore you while I spend 3 days in my man-cave, and everything will be better."

We all have skill at making our beloved feel loved before the marriage, which is a very special kind of deceit. It builds the expectation that the object of our affections will continue to treat us with the same consideration after the wedding as they do before. But, as my husband said, now that he's got me, why should he have to work at it any more?

Kristi of Boulder| 10.2.10 @ 6:11PM

Yurk. But surely you don't like him anymore. (?)

Cylar| 10.3.10 @ 2:45AM

Because if he doesn't work at it, he might NOT have you any more. Try explaining that to him. Husbands and wives need to remember that while it's a covenant made in God's sight, it's not a prison sentence. Neglect and abuse, I think, could qualify as a form of infidelity.

Mistie| 10.3.10 @ 2:45PM

I waited until I was 27 to marry and planned on being married to him for the rest of my life. Sadly, after 21 years it ended in divorce - partially due to his alcoholism. I could no longer deal with his attempt at control nor his anger. I am now in a relationship with someone that I love and get along very well with - and really see no point in getting married again.

Stan Redmond| 10.1.10 @ 8:12PM

There is a rampant and completely legal discrimination against unmarried people. If indeed managers are chosing to lay off unmarried people they do so because it's the only 'group' that doesn't have a grievance industry backing them. And the reasoning of a lot of people here goes back to a discussion started by Apleby yesterday. So many of these arguments are made with the default condition a lot of people assume we MUST be to be happy. Default = married. Default = kids. Default = unmarried you MUST be unhappy and lonely. Default = unmarried you MUST be selfish and greedy.

Speaking for myself I won't tolerate a job I don't like. I don't have the wife and kids to worry about so I can CHOOSE a job I enjoy. That is a freedom married with children people don't have and will work jobs they hate for years because they are stuck.

Not an issue anymore for me since I started my own business years ago. I never looked back.

Cylar| 10.3.10 @ 2:46AM

Yeah, and how many small business owners lost their families because they were putting in 18 hours a day trying to get their little store or painting business off the ground? Them's the facts, bud...you don't start that unless your family is behind you on it.

Joe| 10.1.10 @ 8:40PM

This article is well written and raises some excellent points. But this:

"According to the feminist view, marriage only degrades and oppresses women."

Is not accurate. It's a hasty generalization. That is not how all feminists view marriage. You would do well to expand your already impressive knowledgebase by reading Sexual Personae by Camille Paglia. Highly recommended.

Patrick| 10.2.10 @ 6:11AM

I'm sure that Janice can be forgiven for not hearing furtive whispers in the back corner of a rock concert, so too with her alleged ignorance on the differing forms of feminism.

Cylar| 10.3.10 @ 2:49AM

Is damn right straight-on accurate. For fifty years the NAG gang and their allies have been telling American women that this timeless institution is nothing but a patriarchal prison sentence. Generalizations aren't made unless there is some truth to them.

If you don't share that view, then you have no business calling yourself a feminist. The Susan B Anthony archetype is long gone. Today the word is reserve for angry, man-hating bitches like the harpies running the National Organization for Women.

Rachel| 10.2.10 @ 2:15PM

This is all the more reason to promote gay marriage. Gay people too are a valuable part of the work force, so why not better their employability by exposing them to the character-shaping institution of marriage. Gay people obviously aren't going to marry the opposite gender -- they are gay -- but the same principles of cooperation, integrity, and getting along with another person by definition apply to married gay people the same as they do to married straight people.

And oh, by the way, that is quite possibly the most correlatively linked non-causal non-empirical and speculative article ever. There is zero actual proof that there is a causal connection between marriage and success in jobs. You've taken two pieces of data that coincide and said they are linked because it "makes sense" to you and therefore must be true.

John II| 10.3.10 @ 12:48AM

"And oh, by the way, that is quite possibly the most correlatively linked non-causal non-empirical and speculative article ever."

You're much too modest, Rachel. In the non-causal non-empirical and speculative sweepstakes, your response beats the article by a country mile.

And now back to "Francis the Talking Mule" (1949), the first in a seven-year film series of decreasing merit, starring Donald O'Connor, with Chill Wills as the voice of Francis.

Tyler S.| 10.3.10 @ 3:19PM

See? You clearly have no idea what any of those words mean, John Jr. Why are you all so dumb and so proud of it. If the whole of the human race embraced idiot ignorance the way the readers of this noxious rag do, the human race would've died out years ago. Fortunately for you short bus superstars, some of us still use our brains for thinking instead of getting messed up on meth and shouting about how much better we are than the rest of the world.

John II| 10.3.10 @ 4:04PM

No fair! What you're really saying, given your mode of expression, is that only lefty-liberals with angry bugs up their tushes are allowed to be correlatively linked non-empirical and speculative--and without commas too!

If you had even a pinch of respect for concrete evidence, the only possible conclusion you could draw from my posts is that I am the world's leading authority on old movies. Of course, it would be a stretch, like the rest of your smug conclusions, but at least you'd have some evidence.

A murrain on lefty stupidity! Nay--a curse, I say. Smite mine enemies, Lord!

There. You've just been put in your place, knave.

On the other hand, "short bus superstars" is an interesting expression. Did you make it up?

Cylar| 10.3.10 @ 2:51AM

I knew it was just a matter of time before someone brought up this gay-marriage shtick. Now you're going to claim that a couple of men sodomizing each other (with the state's blessing, no less) is going to be making the same contribution to emotional well-being as a man and woman joined in holy matrimony? Get bent.

Tyler S.| 10.3.10 @ 3:15PM

I thought about trying to explain the difference between "causation" and "correlation" here, as apparently the author lacks such knowledge, but I'm pretty sure American Spectator readers won't understand anyways (That's right, I'm saying I think you're all incredibly stupid).

John II| 10.3.10 @ 4:48PM

That's it! I've had it with your cheap insults, you bolshie bullshitter. I'm taking legal action against your slanderous persiflage.

You can expect to hear from my attorney as soon as she gets out of law school.

Fionnagh| 10.3.10 @ 6:45PM

Respectfully, I disagree with the author. I was widowed 13 years ago, as of November, and have not remarried. I work mega-overtime (for which I am paid), and am consistently counted upon to do so, or to cover for others who are out sick when in actuality their children are sick. ( Or they GET sick because their kids pick up something in school...) I'm 58 and at the top of my profession, in a small business which is thriving despite the abyssml economy. Please don't generalize about unmarried people and their seeming lack of "employability." If anything, we are more dedicated than those who are married with (minor) children, because we don't have to deal with the distractions of married life or parenting. And all of the above said, I'd give up my well-paying job in a heartbeat to have my husband back.

John II| 10.3.10 @ 7:58PM

But Fionnagh, look again at your lovely and loving (not to say heart-breaking) final sentence. You're still married. So your own case doesn't fit the objection you raise against that particular point of the article--which says only that married people, on average, tend to be more stable and reliable employees.

Anyhow, I've got a much more interesting statistic, which isn't at all contradicted by your dreadful loss: On average, married men live almost 15 years longer than do unmarried men.

Myself, I've held the same job for almost 40 years: i.e., about as long as I've been married. But I'm much more fascinated by the certainty that, had it not been for my wife's gentle nagging, I would have had to cash in my chips permanently at least 10 years ago, possibly earlier. She's the one who dragged me to a cardiologist when the ticker started going haywire.

Thomas| 10.3.10 @ 10:32PM

As a feminist, I rather resent this woman making an idiot of herself claiming to know the truth of an ideology that she knows nothing about. Feminism has never been opposed to marriage in and of itself. Rather, we are opposed the way Soc Cons pervert marriage into a method of enslaving both men and women.

John II| 10.3.10 @ 11:25PM

Ooops, you let the cat out, Tommy: the ignoramus appears to be yourself. You refer to feminism as "an ideology." In fact, "feminism" is a cover term for several rather distinct ideologies, including a rather nasty-tempered variety that does indeed reject marriage, particularly marriage conceived as a religious sacrament.

But there's something more revealingly flawed in your smug response. No ideology on earth has ever been up to, or exhibited much interest in, the human condition in all its stubborn complexity.

That's why there's a longstanding (roughly two hundred years now) distinction made between "ideologue" and "thinker." And you ain't no thinker, son. Nor is any one of the many, many, many, many "feminists" of my personal acquaintance.

And now back to "I Married a Witch" (1942), starring Veronica Lake, Fredric March, and the incomparable Cecil Kellaway. Ah, those were indeed the good ol' days, when women stood their ground without the pretensions of flatulent ideology.

topeka| 10.6.10 @ 12:12AM

Entertaining discussion: Yes, the author has not addressed the correlation/causality issue to everyone's satisfaction, but I doubt that issue substantively changes her conclusion. Her point is that marriage continues to be a valid relationship, and will likely continue to be a valid relationship. Almost all of our comments refer to her causation error, and then follow up with a statement of position based on our personal situation in a society which has highly politicized, criminalized, stigmatized and regulated marriage. A few of us make some really good points, to which I would add.

We are at the point where the "marriage" Janice refers to is not the "marriage" to which we are reacting.

As for "marriage" - the institution of culture rules recognizing and honoring the lifetime mating relationship between two individuals of the opposite sex: The Liberals can do all they want to discourage and dishonor it, Conservatives can fall in the traps so set, but "marriage" will win. The idea that any human society can exist for more than a few generations based on causal recreational sex is as feasible as leaving a bipolar manic-depressive in charge of the wet bar. (Excluding sci-fi scenarios a la Brave New World.)

Louis Vttion handbags| 12.9.10 @ 1:47AM

Hmm communism another delicate issue that causes dispute even between people that share the same opinion.
Loved the article and do agree with George's interpretation of it.
I come from a communist country so I guess my opinion is a bit blurred, but to be honest I believe that every social system has problems whereby the people suffer

Adult toys| 7.4.11 @ 3:40AM

three drunk friends made a bet whoever can make their wives scream the longest during sex win 1000.next day when they met.
　　first guy:I made love to my wife 2.5hours and she screaming for 1.5hours;
　　second guy:I licked my wife for 2hours and she was screaming whole time and even 1/2hour after I was done;
　　third guy:that’s nothing,I made love to my wife 10mins and I came twice,wipe my dick on the curtain and my wife still screming at me up to now!