28 April, 2008

The Myth of the Marriage-Phobe

The theme of the man who’s afraid of getting married has been told in an untold number of films, books, god-awful sitcoms, dating guides (never mention the “m” word on a date!!), and all other media. Two and a Half Men, Avenue Q, Tomcats (originally entitled Buying the Cow), and (infamously) The Tom Leykis Show. Having grown up on all this media, and, by extension, this fact of American culture, I reached my mid-twenties fully expecting to still be surrounded by eligible bachelors. The whole despairing over being unable to find Mr. Right was for 30-somethings, as in Bridget Jones’s Diary, Sex in the City, Friends, While You Were Sleeping, Must Love Dogs, etc. etc. etc—not for women MY age. As it turned out, however, I ended up seeing friend after friend get hitched, to the point where by the time I turned 25, nearly ALL of my peers are married, engaged, or living with their partners in serious relationships that had lasted at least a year. I discovered the hard way—although, really, I should’ve known better—that this cliche was no different from every other: without any basis in reality.

Now, I’m not blaming the media for my singledom. I know fully well that that's due to the fact that I’m ugly, obnoxious, and reclusive. But nonetheless, I can’t help but notice the discrepancy between cultural assumption and reality. Some of you may be saying, "Well, hold on a minute: that cliche does in fact have total basis in reality and I myself am, in fact, a bachelor deathly afraid of being pushed into marriage, as are all of my friends." And to that I ask: where the hell ARE you guys?? I do actually know one of your kind, but he's one out of god knows how many—a far lower percentage than what the cliche would have you believe. I know an “n” of 1 (i.e. me) is a pretty shitty group of samples for a survey, but am I really that unfortunate of a sample that I would be the ONE girl in the world whose group of male friends who are the only marriage-acceptant ones in the world??

So why does this cliche persist? The obvious reason is that a man afraid to get married provides a lot more conflict that a man totally happy to get married. I would posit that this is a much more obnoxious conflict that any other a writer could possibly imagine, let alone, as I’ve mentioned, a clearly unrealistic one, but it nevertheless does provide conflict.

The second most obvious explanation is that the hordes of men I know who have flung themselves into marriage did, in fact, go through an internal tussle over committment and giving up their swingin’ single days, but it just went completely unbeknownst to me. Perhaps this cultural perception is in fact accurate, but accurate to something that girls are completely unaware of in reality. Married (or otherwise committed) males will have to post their thoughts to validate or invalidate this.

What I’m going to suggest is MOST likely, however, is more complex than all of the above. I hypothesize that all those married men I know were not, in fact, petrified of and reluctant to and dragged into getting married, but that all their unmarried compatriots—that one guy out of the hundred or whatever I know—are, and that this is the percentage—small though it may be—that makes it to the big screen and that gives rise to the generalization that ALL men are afraid of getting married. As with any process of natural selection, by the time a male population reaches their 30s, the only ones left are, more than likely, the ones afraid of marriage. If they weren’t, they’d already BE married. And these are the ones that those sad-sack 30-something women in Sex and the City et al have to deal with. The ones I’M going to have to deal with.

So I don’t think this cliche is as pervasive as the media suggests. It’s not that 99% of 30-something men in toto are afraid of marriage; it’s that 99% of UNMARRIED 30-something men are afraid of marriage.

The most unfortunate repercussion of that statistic is that 99% of even late-20s men are already married. So that means that 1% of 1%--of one out of every TEN THOUSAND* (without even counting looks, compatibility, etc. that go into selecting a boyfriend)—is single and not obnoxiously dreading their girlfriend pleading with them to get married.

So, essentially, I just lost the musical chairs game of marriage without even knowing that the game had started.





*Statistics not the result of a comprehensive survey.

6 comments:

Aaron said...

Your facts are -completely- incorrect. 99% of guys in the late 20's are not married. You can look at the US census data:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S1201&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_

In 2006 Men 20-34 Never married 60%

I'm positive that the stats haven't changed much in a few years.

Also Tom Leykis is simply correct. Men in general do NOT want to get married. Although a lot of men have been convinced they need to or they should. But in the end most men do not want to and it's a disadvantage to the man to get married.

You aren't hanging around enough single people. Maybe get away from your married friends and find some single groups and/or activities. You are finding more married people because that is what you are looking for, look for single people and you will find them.

Carrick said...

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Well, I wasn't talking about ACTUAL statistics; I was talking about the statistics in my dark, pessimistic head. :)

The 60% statistic you cite is certainly heartening, although, as I mentioned in my article, it's rather unfortunate that of course I'd be the one person whose friends are all in serious relationships. You seem to suggest that this is due to some sort of "The Secret"-style perverse DESIRE to be surrounded by married people, but firstly, I don't believe in that crap, and secondly, hey, I don't have any control over the relationships the people at my job or my old childhood friends have.

Another thing about the 60% statistic: ok, so those are all the people who aren't MARRIED, but what about those in serious relationships? Including those, the percentage of unavailable men is surely in the 90th percentile (99th in my twisted imagination).

As for men not wanting to get married, is my suspicion that I'm not aware of this because even all my married friends kept such reservations secret from me? Or are you saying that it's just that 60% who are afraid of getting married, as I later hypothesize?

Interesting that you say, though, that it's disadvantageous for men to get married. I've heard statistics that suggest the opposite, actually: that married men are happier than their single brethren, and actually vice versa for married and single women. Interesting, cowhich demographic dreams about their wedding and which one doesn't. Not sure how to explain that one.

I should hasten to add here, now that the specter of Tom Leykis has arisen, that it's not like I find it so hard to believe that someone would be reluctant to get married. I'm more of an impartial observer here, really--as opposed to a girl who's been bitching to her boyfriend to marry her. I have commitment issues myself, as I've never had a boyfriend longer than 3 months.

I do agree that I don't hang around enough single people. I am, as I mention, a recluse, and the idea of going to "singles" events sounds especially revolting to me (ridiculous fake construct, too much expectation, etc. etc.) But yeah, it's one of those things that I "need" to do.....

Aaron said...

Oh I see. :)

I can't say for sure about the stats, I don't really know anything more than what I read.

Anyway I don't think that "singles" stuff is the way to go. I fully belive in the living your life and doing what makes you happy and the other person comes along and then you both have interests that you have in common, etc. Although I have yet to have this work for me so..I dunno. :)

I do highly respect Tom Leykis though. So maybe I'm just totally disillusioned regarding commitment and relationships.

LOL

A

Carrick said...

Thanks, I appreciate your comment, but, unfortunately, I'm going to have to address the respecting Tom Leykis thing. (I really, really did not expect that post to result in a Tom Leykis and I really really don't want it to, but I'm afraid I must speak on this...)

I'm not coming from a state of ignorance on him either, as he so often accuses his infuriated female callers of: as a teenager, I listened to him for a good two years or so. But now, even if I listen to him for just two seconds, I feel the slick trickling of vile hatred start making its way through my veins. I was a bit of a misogynist when I was a teenager, which is I think why I actually found him entertaining then.

Oh, and make no mistake about it--Tom Leykis is a misogynist. Think about it this way: imagine if he was saying all those things about black people: stupid, ignorant, lazy, only good for sex.... I don't think he'd be on the air for very long. He makes Imus's comment look like child's play compared to his tsunamis of vitriol. For those of you who are actually students of Leykis 101, I KNOW he says (imagine a whiny voice) "if you don't like me, you don't have to listen to me", but I already don't listen to him. What I'm pointing out is that he is a tragic testament to the level of misogyny that is still, unfortunately, accepted by this society.

I greatly, however, appreciate your honesty in your choice of words in your last comment: you respect him, SO you must be disillusioned with commitment. I totally buy that this must be the case. Because I can't imagine a guy who's in a relationship with an intelligent girl to tolerate Leykis for more than a second. It occurs to me--putting on my pop-psychology hat--that Leykis is coming from a place of immense hurt, and that this is his way of degrading and belittling the source of that hurt.

Anyway, I know what Tom would say to all of this, but I would hope that you or anyone else would sensibly reply in their own words using their own logic instead of regurgitating his.

Aaron said...

Well said. And you so know what Tom would say. I think the quality of people in general has declined with unfair laws. Both men and woman are generally on the look out their own intersts. And that being the state of things one is put into the position of looking out and making sure to not get screwed over. Hence Tom's point of view is valid. If people started to care more about other people then themselves this sort of thinking would probably change. And he doesn't hate woman, I listen to him all the time and he advises woman on financial and lykis 101 matters the same as guys. I've also heard him call out many a guy and tell him he's being a total dumb ass and making poor choices. I think he doesn't like stupid people, and doesn't want to be taken advantage of. Most of his teachings follow the same guidelines. Watch out for #1. I'm not saying it's the best way or culture, but it is how our society is going.

He is crude at times, and I don't agree with his comments about "human toilets" and so forth. However he makes many logical points and does give people a guideline to not screw up their lives.

Don't get commit until later in life (because most early relationships fail, and it takes longer to finish school, dreams, goals, etc)
Use protection (comdoms)
Figure out what you want to do with your life
Achieve your goals
Don't have kids (or wait until later in life)
Date and don't be taken advantage of.
and so forth.

A lot of what he says is a certain amount of shock value to keep the ratings up and keep people interested. But most of it is valid points. Heck even Dr. Laura makes similar points, if not almost exact parallels.

This is fun!

A

Carrick said...

Good god, where do I start...?? (Although you're right, this is fun--when I can ignore the blood boiling in my veins...) :)

First of all, Dr. Phil gives people guidelines as to how people screw up their lives, but I bet you don't listen to him. I would guess that that's because hearing someone moralizing about how to live your life is a lot less entertaining without a strong dose of misogyny of the kind good ol' Tom Leykis provides. (Or the tongue-lashing Dr. Laura provides--whom I don't like, either! I may be a girl, but I'm also an atheistic liberal, so I find Dr. Laura a harmful throwback for womankind--let alone just plain obnoxious.)

You're right; Leykis's underlying viewpoint really is this selfish, self-protective stance--one which I don't think is "real," as he insists. Instead, I find incredibly unhealthy--even reminiscent of a personality disorder (if you don't have empathy for others, you assume no one has empathy for anyone). And yes, of course everyone has to be selfish to SOME degree, but I think they do to the extreme Tom Leykis takes it to. Some parents, for instance (which I'm sure Tom has snide remarks about ready in his quiver), say that they would throw themselves in front of a bus to save their children (and I'm sure it's happened).

In the context of a relationship, you simply have an unhealthy relationship if you don't do nice things for the other person and they don't do nice things for you--or do in order to get something from you. That's manipulative which, again, is another symptom of a personality disorder. I do nice things for my family, for instance, all the time, just because I derive pleasure from their pleasure (which is NOT the same type of selfishness Tom suspects of everyone in the world), and I know I'm not the only one.

I know he has practical things to say like "wear a condom" and "get a pre-nup", but how many times do you have to hear it? And it's just as easy to get such "guidance" from non-sexist, non-vitriolic sources.

On a side note, have you noticed that his voice has gotten shredded as hell?? He used to have this lovely, growly, edgy voice, and now it just sounds like that of an old man. I can barely stand to listen to him just for that. So sad. As if his own hate crawled into and corroded his vocal chords...