The Marriage Strike Misnomer

Many in the men's rights movement have embraced the term "Marriage Strike" to describe American men's increased refusal to be duped into an arrangement that is socially, legally, and financially against their self-interests.

But the term is not a good one. A strike implies a refusal to work or perform for want of improved conditions. Implicit in the concept of strike is personal sacrifice on the part of the strikers who agree to do without the benefits of thing they are striking against. This is the fatal flaw of the term marriage strike.

American men are not sacrificing anything by forgoing marriage, although some think they are. To reject marriage is to insulate yourself from state-sponsored wealth transfer, lower standards of living due to higher expenses, and social emasculation due to women having more comparative power in a marriage.

Some cite the benefits of marriage to be companionship, sex, and the ability to raise children. All of these can be had as a bachelor, potentially in better quality. Marriage dooms you to an aging, waist-growing, individual female. Being unmarried permits you the freedom to seek sex and companionship from any woman you choose while having the resources to attract them.

I do concede that children ought to be raised with a mother and father present, but one can still do this in a live-in partnership arrangement without the oppressive collar of marriage around one's neck. Men can also choose to adopt or take in foster children if the feel the pangs of paternal instinct. So don't feel compelled to marry just because you want to have children.

Words have power, and the words marriage strike imply to women that wives are valuable when they are actually a detriment. It is better to calmly and passively proclaim that you choose to be a free, affluent, and happy real man unfazed by the beneficial marriage myth.