What do you think?
Rate this book
Get Married: Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families, and Save Civilization
University of Virginia sociologist Brad Wilcox explains how our ruling class publicly disparages marriage – the institution most likely to deliver prosperity and happiness to ordinary Americans – while privately embracing it. America is in crisis. Happiness is falling, loneliness and despair are rising, too many schools are riddled by fights and failure, crime is unacceptably high, and the American Dream is out of reach for millions. The problems are visible to us all, but virtually no one is talking about the solution that matters Marriage. New research by University of Virginia sociologist Brad Wilcox shows that Americans who get married and have children today are leading happier and more prosperous lives, on average, than men and women who are single and childless. In fact, nothing predicts happiness in life better than a good marriage—not even a hefty bank account or a great career. And kids and communities—not to mention our civilization as a whole—are much more likely to flourish when the state of our unions is strong, according to Wilcox, who directs the National Marriage Project at U.Va. But our country is in crisis because record numbers of Americans are not succeeding at getting or staying married. In this hard-hitting book, Wilcox reveals the anti-family messages and policies that have weakened marriage coming out of Hollywood, Washington, the media, academia, and corporate America. The good news, however, is that millions of Americans are succeeding at marriage. Dr. Wilcox spotlights four groups—Asian, conservative, religious, and college-educated Americans—who are building strong and stable marriages by defying the me-first messages of our elites in favor of a family-first way of life. This is a book for anyone who wants to understand why, even as fewer men and women tie the knot, America’s most fundamental institution matters more than ever for our civilization. And for men and women looking to forge strong, stable, and happy unions for themselves and their children, Get Married reveals the road forward.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published February 13, 2024
115 people are currently reading
3488 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews
February 23, 2024
look Brad I'm trying
January 27, 2025
With the help of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, I brought Brad to speak at Regent University (Nov. 14, 2024).
Here's an interview with Collin Hansen at TGC and a review at CT. Shane Morris interviews Brad on Upstream and reviews the book for CBMW.
Here's a great article on singleness by Lyman Stone in Christianity Today: "The dispute [between Jovinian and Jerome] raged for decades, but the key point is this: In a massive church-wide debate, the only question being debated was whether marriage or monasticism was superior. At no point was singleness—as in, a long unmarried period for people who are not living ascetic lives of church service—even considered as an honorable estate to be mentioned."
The title of chapter 1 is "The Closing of the American Heart." It seems that a question Wilcox implicitly raises is that if marriage and having kids is natural, yet you're resistant to the idea of marriage and children, what's wrong with you? As Kevin DeYoung puts it, "This book is a needed wake-up call for the growing number of Americans who think marriage can be safely delayed for years or should be avoided altogether. It's not an overstatement to say that the fate of Western Civilization depends on men and women getting married, having children, raising those children, and staying married."
Here's what Wilcox says about George Gilder's Men and Marriage: "Our culture is deeply confused about the character and purpose of men and masculinity in the twenty-first century. George Gilder offers an incomparably incisive and thought-provoking meditation on men today, especially the ways in which marriage matters for men. This book deserves your attention, whether or not you agree with his vision."
Here's an interview with Collin Hansen at TGC and a review at CT. Shane Morris interviews Brad on Upstream and reviews the book for CBMW.
Here's a great article on singleness by Lyman Stone in Christianity Today: "The dispute [between Jovinian and Jerome] raged for decades, but the key point is this: In a massive church-wide debate, the only question being debated was whether marriage or monasticism was superior. At no point was singleness—as in, a long unmarried period for people who are not living ascetic lives of church service—even considered as an honorable estate to be mentioned."
The title of chapter 1 is "The Closing of the American Heart." It seems that a question Wilcox implicitly raises is that if marriage and having kids is natural, yet you're resistant to the idea of marriage and children, what's wrong with you? As Kevin DeYoung puts it, "This book is a needed wake-up call for the growing number of Americans who think marriage can be safely delayed for years or should be avoided altogether. It's not an overstatement to say that the fate of Western Civilization depends on men and women getting married, having children, raising those children, and staying married."
Here's what Wilcox says about George Gilder's Men and Marriage: "Our culture is deeply confused about the character and purpose of men and masculinity in the twenty-first century. George Gilder offers an incomparably incisive and thought-provoking meditation on men today, especially the ways in which marriage matters for men. This book deserves your attention, whether or not you agree with his vision."
March 30, 2024
Get married. Stay married. Be selfless in marriage. Incentivize marriage. Have kids. All the data says so.
October 18, 2024
This man cannot fathom that two things (people who do not want to be married or have children...and those who do...) can exist at the same time. Absolute garbage, hyper-conservative (that danced in misogyny throughout) rhetoric that blames the liberal left for destroying "good family values" and making marriage and family life look less idyllic.
I also loved how he fully explored (in developed countries) how not marrying and having kids was HARMING men/boys, but he spoke nothing about the inverse of how this choice harmed women/girls. Poor boys...not having someone to tether to OR having a life purpose OR some altruistic thing other than themselves. But what about women? On the opposite side of that same coin, the author NEVER explored income inequality, a huge lack of paid parental leave for mothers (or really any support for new moms), the rise in domestic violence against women (especially BIPOC women)...Instead, he chalked up a women's desire to defer marriage to "superfluous" things (like *gasp* a desire for autonomy, waiting to be established in one's career, general financial uncertainty, etc...) How dare women put themselves first? Ever...
I've wasted enough time with this author and this book.
If you're part of the public that wants to read a book about God and getting back to "traditional family values," (and the liberal left trying to compromise and take away those values) then have at it.
It'll confirm your bias.
I also loved how he fully explored (in developed countries) how not marrying and having kids was HARMING men/boys, but he spoke nothing about the inverse of how this choice harmed women/girls. Poor boys...not having someone to tether to OR having a life purpose OR some altruistic thing other than themselves. But what about women? On the opposite side of that same coin, the author NEVER explored income inequality, a huge lack of paid parental leave for mothers (or really any support for new moms), the rise in domestic violence against women (especially BIPOC women)...Instead, he chalked up a women's desire to defer marriage to "superfluous" things (like *gasp* a desire for autonomy, waiting to be established in one's career, general financial uncertainty, etc...) How dare women put themselves first? Ever...
I've wasted enough time with this author and this book.
If you're part of the public that wants to read a book about God and getting back to "traditional family values," (and the liberal left trying to compromise and take away those values) then have at it.
It'll confirm your bias.
April 25, 2025
3.5 stars.
It took me a while to sit down and write this review. I kept telling myself to avoid the urge to draft a rebuttal, a summary, or an emotional screed. The fact is any book titled Get Married is going to be a polemic. Like so many other institutions, marriage has become contested. In the twenty-first century cultural and political landscape, powered by hyperindividualism, debates over gender and race, the threat of authoritarianism, income inequality, sexual freedom and bodily autonomy, the topic of marriage has become a cultural battleground, and individuals of all faiths, ideologies, and political allegiances have staked entrenched positions. Brad Wilcox, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, takes a decidedly conservative stance on marriage—the book’s subtitle trumpets the right-wing rallying cry to “defy the elites”—and while his book certainly makes salient points about the individual and collective benefits of getting married, his blinkered vision of marriage will alienate readers who take a more broad-minded view of the institution.
Common ground is always a good place to start a review. Overall, I agree with many of the points Wilcox makes in this book. Marriage is a foundational relationship of Western society. It creates families, generates wealth, fosters civic engagement, and serves as a stabilizing force in many people’s lives. It is for these reasons and more that the LGBTQ community fought so hard for marriage equality and achieved it nationally in 2015. Yet it strikes me as rather hypocritical that a scholar who champions marriage as the bedrock of a strong and prosperous society purposely excludes same-sex married couples from his research, claiming that the sample size is much too small. Get Married argues that four groups have mastered marriage: Asian Americans, conservatives, the faithful, and strivers. One thing he fails to mention is that most Asian American women are married to non-Asian spouses.
Another claim Wilcox makes that I agree with is the influence marriage has over men. Wilcox gives a spot-on disquisition on the state of masculinity in modern America, rightly calling out the manosphere and its leaders for inculcating misogynistic and self-destructive tendencies into many young men. He extols the many benefits accorded to married men, including emotional stability, dedication to one’s profession, and ways marriage binds men to their children. But while marriage affords numerous benefits to men, Wilcox fails to recognize that marriage also poses many risks to women. Despite their professional gains, women still carry out most domestic functions, and women still risk all manner of abuse from men. As they age, men tend to become sedentary while the opposite is true of women, as evidenced by the growth in travel and leisure activities marketed directly to women. Roles and opportunities for women have increased over that last sixty years, but men, it seems, have either stagnated or fallen behind.
I would be able to give Get Married a more enthusiastic review if Wilcox hadn’t studiously turned a blind eye to the many different types of marriages that do, in fact, work. Same-sex marriages, childfree marriages, mixed-orientation marriages, nonreligious marriages, and open marriages, in Wilcox’s view, are not true marriages and do little to enhance the character of the nation. I understand that he wants to highlight the most successful types of marriages—at least those he encountered and researched—but success and happiness can also be found in these nontraditional marriages. For every statistic he provides about those groups he thinks have mastered marriage, another researcher could produce findings that proves the opposite. A stat is just a stat, and numbers alone don’t tell a full story. And while Wilcox does include interviews with various couples, it seems to me that his subjects are all located in and around the southeast. He really doesn’t broaden his sample size to include couples from big cities and different regions of the nation, to say nothing of the lack of responses from couples not of the Christian faith.
Other areas I staunchly disagree with Wilcox are his claims that married couple prefer traditional roles and his proscriptions against family diversity (e.g. families that consist of members who are not a part of the tradition husband-wife-child(ren) triad), adoption, and couples who keep their finances separate. I’m writing this review just two days after finding out my husband’s niece, part-time stay-at-home mother, is going through a bitter, painful divorce that she has kept hidden for several months. Out of nowhere her husband of eight years blindsided her with a divorce and summarily closed out their joint bank account and cut off all her credit. Revelations about his cheating and the thousands of dollars he has spent at strip clubs have left her reeling. This is precisely why women need their own source of income and why, as I stated earlier, women take much more risks in marriage than men.
Wilcox rightly calls out political, cultural, and economic systems that make it harder for men and women to justify getting married and staying married, taking particular aim at the politics of Nikki Haley and Joe Biden. Yet he fails to see the rigidity of evangelical Christianity, late capitalism, and toxic masculinity as contributors to the decline in marriage. And while he’s opposed to the form of traditional marriage that bound Americans in the mid-twentieth century, his suggestion of a neotraditional marriage ethic don’t hold water. To me, his view of marriage is still the same practice, just as Get Married is little more than a bundle of conservative nostrums wrapped up in stats.
Finally, since Brad Wilcox declined to give readers any statistical data on the 1.5 million same-sex married couples in the United States, I’ll offer some from the U.S. Department of Commerce (2021) and the Pew Research Center (2021):
• 31.6% of same-same couples are interracial opposed to 18.4% of opposite-sex couples.
• Same-sex married couples have a higher median income than opposite-sex couples:
$107, 000 compared to $96,930.
• Men in same-sex marriages have higher levels of education and a higher level of income than men who are married to opposite-sex partners.
• Lesbian married couples are three times more likely than gay male married couples to get divorced.
• Women in same-sex marriages (76%) are more likely to be employed than women in opposite-sex marriages (72%).
Each marriage is specific to the couples within it, and no one should ever presume to know what really goes on between two people in a relationship. Get Married makes many worthy points, yet Brad Wilcox and his ilk think their way to conduct marriage is the only way and that everyone should want what they have. The way he sneers are “liberal elites” and individuals who opt for a solo lifestyle is ridiculous and rather adolescent. No one is out to destroy marriage, and it’s not passe. What is needed now, I think, are customizations to marriage. If married couples agree to sleep in separate bedrooms, maintain separate bank accounts, have occasional sex with other people, or opt not to have children, they should be allowed to do those things without moralizing conservatives telling them they’re doing a disservice to themselves and the nation. Furthermore, no one should ever be smug about their own marriage or foist they’re views and practices on others. Trust me, no person knows their spouse as well as they think they do. Instead of Brad Wilcox and other conservatives expressing doom and declinist fears about marriage and categorizing married couples into good or bad boxes, I wish they would broaden their scope and report on how others are making marriage successful. We’re a part of this story too.
It took me a while to sit down and write this review. I kept telling myself to avoid the urge to draft a rebuttal, a summary, or an emotional screed. The fact is any book titled Get Married is going to be a polemic. Like so many other institutions, marriage has become contested. In the twenty-first century cultural and political landscape, powered by hyperindividualism, debates over gender and race, the threat of authoritarianism, income inequality, sexual freedom and bodily autonomy, the topic of marriage has become a cultural battleground, and individuals of all faiths, ideologies, and political allegiances have staked entrenched positions. Brad Wilcox, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, takes a decidedly conservative stance on marriage—the book’s subtitle trumpets the right-wing rallying cry to “defy the elites”—and while his book certainly makes salient points about the individual and collective benefits of getting married, his blinkered vision of marriage will alienate readers who take a more broad-minded view of the institution.
Common ground is always a good place to start a review. Overall, I agree with many of the points Wilcox makes in this book. Marriage is a foundational relationship of Western society. It creates families, generates wealth, fosters civic engagement, and serves as a stabilizing force in many people’s lives. It is for these reasons and more that the LGBTQ community fought so hard for marriage equality and achieved it nationally in 2015. Yet it strikes me as rather hypocritical that a scholar who champions marriage as the bedrock of a strong and prosperous society purposely excludes same-sex married couples from his research, claiming that the sample size is much too small. Get Married argues that four groups have mastered marriage: Asian Americans, conservatives, the faithful, and strivers. One thing he fails to mention is that most Asian American women are married to non-Asian spouses.
Another claim Wilcox makes that I agree with is the influence marriage has over men. Wilcox gives a spot-on disquisition on the state of masculinity in modern America, rightly calling out the manosphere and its leaders for inculcating misogynistic and self-destructive tendencies into many young men. He extols the many benefits accorded to married men, including emotional stability, dedication to one’s profession, and ways marriage binds men to their children. But while marriage affords numerous benefits to men, Wilcox fails to recognize that marriage also poses many risks to women. Despite their professional gains, women still carry out most domestic functions, and women still risk all manner of abuse from men. As they age, men tend to become sedentary while the opposite is true of women, as evidenced by the growth in travel and leisure activities marketed directly to women. Roles and opportunities for women have increased over that last sixty years, but men, it seems, have either stagnated or fallen behind.
I would be able to give Get Married a more enthusiastic review if Wilcox hadn’t studiously turned a blind eye to the many different types of marriages that do, in fact, work. Same-sex marriages, childfree marriages, mixed-orientation marriages, nonreligious marriages, and open marriages, in Wilcox’s view, are not true marriages and do little to enhance the character of the nation. I understand that he wants to highlight the most successful types of marriages—at least those he encountered and researched—but success and happiness can also be found in these nontraditional marriages. For every statistic he provides about those groups he thinks have mastered marriage, another researcher could produce findings that proves the opposite. A stat is just a stat, and numbers alone don’t tell a full story. And while Wilcox does include interviews with various couples, it seems to me that his subjects are all located in and around the southeast. He really doesn’t broaden his sample size to include couples from big cities and different regions of the nation, to say nothing of the lack of responses from couples not of the Christian faith.
Other areas I staunchly disagree with Wilcox are his claims that married couple prefer traditional roles and his proscriptions against family diversity (e.g. families that consist of members who are not a part of the tradition husband-wife-child(ren) triad), adoption, and couples who keep their finances separate. I’m writing this review just two days after finding out my husband’s niece, part-time stay-at-home mother, is going through a bitter, painful divorce that she has kept hidden for several months. Out of nowhere her husband of eight years blindsided her with a divorce and summarily closed out their joint bank account and cut off all her credit. Revelations about his cheating and the thousands of dollars he has spent at strip clubs have left her reeling. This is precisely why women need their own source of income and why, as I stated earlier, women take much more risks in marriage than men.
Wilcox rightly calls out political, cultural, and economic systems that make it harder for men and women to justify getting married and staying married, taking particular aim at the politics of Nikki Haley and Joe Biden. Yet he fails to see the rigidity of evangelical Christianity, late capitalism, and toxic masculinity as contributors to the decline in marriage. And while he’s opposed to the form of traditional marriage that bound Americans in the mid-twentieth century, his suggestion of a neotraditional marriage ethic don’t hold water. To me, his view of marriage is still the same practice, just as Get Married is little more than a bundle of conservative nostrums wrapped up in stats.
Finally, since Brad Wilcox declined to give readers any statistical data on the 1.5 million same-sex married couples in the United States, I’ll offer some from the U.S. Department of Commerce (2021) and the Pew Research Center (2021):
• 31.6% of same-same couples are interracial opposed to 18.4% of opposite-sex couples.
• Same-sex married couples have a higher median income than opposite-sex couples:
$107, 000 compared to $96,930.
• Men in same-sex marriages have higher levels of education and a higher level of income than men who are married to opposite-sex partners.
• Lesbian married couples are three times more likely than gay male married couples to get divorced.
• Women in same-sex marriages (76%) are more likely to be employed than women in opposite-sex marriages (72%).
Each marriage is specific to the couples within it, and no one should ever presume to know what really goes on between two people in a relationship. Get Married makes many worthy points, yet Brad Wilcox and his ilk think their way to conduct marriage is the only way and that everyone should want what they have. The way he sneers are “liberal elites” and individuals who opt for a solo lifestyle is ridiculous and rather adolescent. No one is out to destroy marriage, and it’s not passe. What is needed now, I think, are customizations to marriage. If married couples agree to sleep in separate bedrooms, maintain separate bank accounts, have occasional sex with other people, or opt not to have children, they should be allowed to do those things without moralizing conservatives telling them they’re doing a disservice to themselves and the nation. Furthermore, no one should ever be smug about their own marriage or foist they’re views and practices on others. Trust me, no person knows their spouse as well as they think they do. Instead of Brad Wilcox and other conservatives expressing doom and declinist fears about marriage and categorizing married couples into good or bad boxes, I wish they would broaden their scope and report on how others are making marriage successful. We’re a part of this story too.
January 17, 2025
Brad Wilcox came and spoke at our campus and I really liked his presentation so I was really excited to read his book. However, I felt like it was just propaganda to encourage people to become conservative and religious people. There was some really interesting data that was shown but at times I felt like he was comparing apples to oranges, not completely fair. I think he brings up some good points. Overall, I think my expectations were just a little let down.
June 7, 2024
Get Married provides a sincere and thoughtful apologia for an ancient social institution. Wilcox focuses on the sociocultural, technological, and economic changes that delayed age of marriage and reduced marital stability over the last half century. Apart from a close look at the relevant sociology and the personal and communal benefits of marriage, Wilcox has largely aimed his argument at elites who still live and benefit from bourgeois lifestyle but don't evangelize it rhetorically or incentivize it materially. In this way, it is essentially a plea for noblesse oblige on the marriage issue.
Wilcox's vision is certainly informed by his faith and part of his prescription for Americans includes increased participation in organized religion. However, he, like most of his audience, realizes that religion will not be able to deliver a country-wide solution. His more reasonable prescriptions concern cultural, economic, and legal changes. Some of these are more feasible than others. Some do not go far enough if Wilcox actually expects to reverse the state of marriage today. Personally, I am concerned that most of what's possible will only yield marginal improvements at best.
Although I think Wilcox has bought too much into narrative of economic disaffection subsequent to the liberalization of world markets, I do think we need to do something critical about the marriageability of non-college educated young men and I am not automatically opposed to the use of government to incentive and protect marriage. The current state of things (40% of children are born outside of marriage and largely raised by single mothers) is likely not tenable. The issues Wilcox raise are at the heart of the nascent political coalition between economic progressive and social conservatives. This emerging group is exemplified by publications like American Compass and Compact Magazine. Unfortunately, I think most of these ideas that are offered by these types are short-sighted or infeasible. Most of their economic agenda will either make American more European (Europe is much less dynamics and has a less bright future) or is crowded out by existing outlays (American social transfer are already quite generous to the poor and retired and this is constrained by the foreseeable debt burden and interest rate environment).
I agree with Wilcox insofar as we need to get all the different elite coalitions on board with being proponents of marriage. This is already a huge lift given the Progressive embrace and celebration of alternative sexual lifestyles and the removal of even the most palatable norm enforcement mechanisms. If the pro-marriage argument can actually be won in the discourse sphere, then I think we can be more optimistic about our ability to take the reins on pulling down the barrier to widespread marital stability. I won't hold my breath. In the meantime, I hope young people pick up this book and do the best they can to find the right partner and start families.
Wilcox's vision is certainly informed by his faith and part of his prescription for Americans includes increased participation in organized religion. However, he, like most of his audience, realizes that religion will not be able to deliver a country-wide solution. His more reasonable prescriptions concern cultural, economic, and legal changes. Some of these are more feasible than others. Some do not go far enough if Wilcox actually expects to reverse the state of marriage today. Personally, I am concerned that most of what's possible will only yield marginal improvements at best.
Although I think Wilcox has bought too much into narrative of economic disaffection subsequent to the liberalization of world markets, I do think we need to do something critical about the marriageability of non-college educated young men and I am not automatically opposed to the use of government to incentive and protect marriage. The current state of things (40% of children are born outside of marriage and largely raised by single mothers) is likely not tenable. The issues Wilcox raise are at the heart of the nascent political coalition between economic progressive and social conservatives. This emerging group is exemplified by publications like American Compass and Compact Magazine. Unfortunately, I think most of these ideas that are offered by these types are short-sighted or infeasible. Most of their economic agenda will either make American more European (Europe is much less dynamics and has a less bright future) or is crowded out by existing outlays (American social transfer are already quite generous to the poor and retired and this is constrained by the foreseeable debt burden and interest rate environment).
I agree with Wilcox insofar as we need to get all the different elite coalitions on board with being proponents of marriage. This is already a huge lift given the Progressive embrace and celebration of alternative sexual lifestyles and the removal of even the most palatable norm enforcement mechanisms. If the pro-marriage argument can actually be won in the discourse sphere, then I think we can be more optimistic about our ability to take the reins on pulling down the barrier to widespread marital stability. I won't hold my breath. In the meantime, I hope young people pick up this book and do the best they can to find the right partner and start families.
October 12, 2025
In a culture where influencers, politicians, and elites are all downplaying the importance of marriage, this book overwhelmingly shows that marriage is highly important, will make you economically more prosperous, will markedly increase your happiness, and that getting and staying married is the best thing you can do for yourself and society. Lots of fascinating data from a secular sociologist that backs up the biblical ethics of marriage. Highly recommend!!
March 29, 2025
I’ve never agreed with anything more. At the same time, this book is at the top of the list of hardest to finish. It was insanely repetitive, and very statistics heavy.
Which makes sense given Dr. Brad Wilcox is a data scientist. I got the chance to meet and talk to him because of the McDowell Institute. He is very intelligent, and I loved hearing him defend his ideas. I wish his book was more argumentative/philosophical, like he was in person!
I wouldn’t recommend. Just know you’re better off financially, mentally, physically, and physiologically by being married (bonus if you have children!). If you don’t believe me, you can just read this super stats heavy book and see for yourself!
Which makes sense given Dr. Brad Wilcox is a data scientist. I got the chance to meet and talk to him because of the McDowell Institute. He is very intelligent, and I loved hearing him defend his ideas. I wish his book was more argumentative/philosophical, like he was in person!
I wouldn’t recommend. Just know you’re better off financially, mentally, physically, and physiologically by being married (bonus if you have children!). If you don’t believe me, you can just read this super stats heavy book and see for yourself!
Read
May 12, 2025Look, there was some good stuff in this book, there really was. But I just kept coming back to … who is this book for?
I read this book as a married person. There was some interesting stuff about the qualities that make for lasting marriages (I should definitely get some kind of regular date night on the calendar), but mostly, it just made me feel really good about being married and being religious.
I’d summarize the thesis as follows: Strong marriages are good for individuals, good for kids, and good for society.
He makes this point compellingly! But I think tinkers very little with the complicating factors making marriage hard and less attractive for a lot of people. Much of this book focuses on the so called “masters of marriage,” the groups of people who are the most likely to get and stay married: conservative Americans, religious people, college educated elites, and Asian Americans. Which is kind of interesting, except most people won’t stop believing what they believe on universal healthcare or just start believing in God just to get married.
Andrew Tate came up in this book a lot. Brad does not like Andrew Tate. Brad fights Andrew Tate’s shtick with data: marriage is actually good for men! Married men are happier! Married men make more money! All of this is a case compellingly made but Brad, the Venn diagram of Andrew Tate consumers who would also read a book called “Get Married” has to be zero. Again … who is this book for?
Then we’re done with the red pillers, let’s mosey on over to the women in their 30s who are stressed about their biological clocks. Brad cites a couple successful professional women who decry that they didn’t focus enough on getting married when they were younger. Fun fact one cannot just “focus” on being married by one’s self and get the desired outcome (many have tried!), even if you “focus” on it in your 20s instead of your 30s. But again… who is this book for?
The policy stuff at the end was interesting enough, the marriage penalty tax stuff was made compellingly. The homeschool/voucher stuff seemed extremely thrown in and didn’t feel like it had anything to do with incentivizing marriage, more that it just was a pet cause of Brad’s.
Who is this book for? Based on the title and the aforementioned thesis, it’s for people who aren’t sure about marriage. But I actually think that’s not most people, even most unmarried people. Finding a soulmate when everyone’s face is glued to a screen, dating in a world where sexual norms mean that about half of all pregnancies are not planned, working in an economy that rewards living in huge expensive cities rather than close to grandparents who would support the marriage and the kids, all of these factors and a lot more contribute to a huge population of people who want to get married but just can’t make it happen. Even a lot of the Tate watchers probably do want to get married deep down. Most of the single professional women I know desire to be married. They don’t need a book telling them that being married is good. The few people on the margins that do would probably be very turned off by a book titled “Get Married.”
But hey, as a married person, I was like, hell yeah, being married rules.
I read this book as a married person. There was some interesting stuff about the qualities that make for lasting marriages (I should definitely get some kind of regular date night on the calendar), but mostly, it just made me feel really good about being married and being religious.
I’d summarize the thesis as follows: Strong marriages are good for individuals, good for kids, and good for society.
He makes this point compellingly! But I think tinkers very little with the complicating factors making marriage hard and less attractive for a lot of people. Much of this book focuses on the so called “masters of marriage,” the groups of people who are the most likely to get and stay married: conservative Americans, religious people, college educated elites, and Asian Americans. Which is kind of interesting, except most people won’t stop believing what they believe on universal healthcare or just start believing in God just to get married.
Andrew Tate came up in this book a lot. Brad does not like Andrew Tate. Brad fights Andrew Tate’s shtick with data: marriage is actually good for men! Married men are happier! Married men make more money! All of this is a case compellingly made but Brad, the Venn diagram of Andrew Tate consumers who would also read a book called “Get Married” has to be zero. Again … who is this book for?
Then we’re done with the red pillers, let’s mosey on over to the women in their 30s who are stressed about their biological clocks. Brad cites a couple successful professional women who decry that they didn’t focus enough on getting married when they were younger. Fun fact one cannot just “focus” on being married by one’s self and get the desired outcome (many have tried!), even if you “focus” on it in your 20s instead of your 30s. But again… who is this book for?
The policy stuff at the end was interesting enough, the marriage penalty tax stuff was made compellingly. The homeschool/voucher stuff seemed extremely thrown in and didn’t feel like it had anything to do with incentivizing marriage, more that it just was a pet cause of Brad’s.
Who is this book for? Based on the title and the aforementioned thesis, it’s for people who aren’t sure about marriage. But I actually think that’s not most people, even most unmarried people. Finding a soulmate when everyone’s face is glued to a screen, dating in a world where sexual norms mean that about half of all pregnancies are not planned, working in an economy that rewards living in huge expensive cities rather than close to grandparents who would support the marriage and the kids, all of these factors and a lot more contribute to a huge population of people who want to get married but just can’t make it happen. Even a lot of the Tate watchers probably do want to get married deep down. Most of the single professional women I know desire to be married. They don’t need a book telling them that being married is good. The few people on the margins that do would probably be very turned off by a book titled “Get Married.”
But hey, as a married person, I was like, hell yeah, being married rules.
August 16, 2024
I went into this book familiar with many of the ideas and nervous I would just be solidifying a conformation bias I already have towards promoting strong marriages. While that probably remains true, I was impressed how deeply Wilcox digs into very current data. (And yes, I know you can twist data to prove anything and no I didn’t agree with everything Wilcox proposed!) The book slogs a little with the deep data dives but I will say I never did fall asleep. Win for Wilcox! The summary of the 5 C’s in the last 10 minutes of the book were helpful (Communion “we before me,” Children, Commitment, Cash, Community “surrounding yourself by people who support marriage”), as well as the specific solutions he suggests throughout and especially policy solutions towards the end of the book. While I was aware of most of the data he shared, there were a few nuggets that were new (sharing a bank account, having your spouse in your social media profile picture). Mostly, good reminders that healthy (non-abusive, non-adulterous) marriage makes men, women, children and society happier, wealthier and we should do all we can to incentivize and support marriage. If you’d like a shorter read, Brad Wilcox of UoV (not to be confused with BYU’s Brad Wilcox—this Brad Wilcox is Catholic) gave a forum at BYU 11/28/23. I don’t think it’s popular to support traditional marriage (a point he makes throughout the book), so kudos to Wilcox for devoting his career to that end.
July 21, 2024
Wilcox seems well researched. His and other’s findings further confirm what most conservatives claim, that married people are happier, more economically stable, wealthier, raise happier, stabler children, etc. than non-married people. But this is the issue with most conservative perspectives on marriage (even “Christian” perspectives too). They tend to view marriage and its benefits solely in terms of personal fulfillment. The conversation generally goes something like, “Single, liberal people are unhappier than those in stable, conservative marriages.” It seems that the studies back that up and I don’t disagree. However, personal fulfillment at that point becomes the purpose of the marriage with a few nods to societal benefits. Those benefits are a part of God’s design in my opinion, that human flourishing would result from conformity to his design. The problem is that we are setting ourselves up for the same failure as the divorce culture if we see marriage serving our personal fulfillment rather than the gospel and sanctification. I think conservative Christians need to be careful to not use the same statistics in the same way when convincing people of the goodness of marriage.
A lot of the book was really good though! His points on the advantages of two vs. single parenting made sense in opposition to pro-divorce arguments. Like greater accountability for consistency in discipline, more opportunities to read, play with, help their kid with whatever. A single parent can’t read a picture book and cook dinner at the same time.
The strength of this one is in the research and statistics that point to the overwhelming personal and societal benefits of marriage vs. singleness and divorce.
A lot of the book was really good though! His points on the advantages of two vs. single parenting made sense in opposition to pro-divorce arguments. Like greater accountability for consistency in discipline, more opportunities to read, play with, help their kid with whatever. A single parent can’t read a picture book and cook dinner at the same time.
The strength of this one is in the research and statistics that point to the overwhelming personal and societal benefits of marriage vs. singleness and divorce.
March 2, 2024
I basically agree with every position Brad has on marriage and family and also agreed with his indictments of modern secular mainstream American culture and "workists." Having said that, I didn't really find this read to be all that enjoyable because I'm very far from the target audience. My close social circle is primarily comprised of socially traditional Muslims who value family and children. The target demographic for this is college educated middle to upper income white North Americans (and Europeans) who have embraced a secular ethos detached from family, children, and other traditional values. That ship has sailed, and their culture is in irreversible decline no matter who is in the White House and elected to Congress. A combination of AI, immigrants from cultures still rooted in faith and traditional values, and the importation of High T males to replace the gamers, incels, and nerds will keep the ship afloat for the immediate future.
June 23, 2025
Marriage is good for Americans and America. Brad gives the data to prove it. Not surprising since this institution was another one of God’s great ideas.
July 18, 2025
Fascinating data that every teenager, parent, or mentor- type figures should know and share. Not sure I agree with the conclusions related to specific political policy, but it’s pretty clear our policies have been anti-marriage/family for quite some time and I can agree we need to rectify the issue.
Read
July 12, 2025The book is thoroughly researched and well-written. However, due to my own political views, moral beliefs, and the fact that I’ve been fortunate to experience a fulfilling relationship and happy marriage, I didn’t find much new insight. Instead, it served as a reminder of how lucky I am.
September 4, 2025
the first of the many garbage conservative books i'm reading for my CMC gov class. ideologically dishonest, purposefully ignorant, weirdly paranoid, boringly written.
February 28, 2024
A well documented book, that gives insight into the financial, life satisfaction, and life happiness advantages marriage affords couples and their children. This should be required reading by anyone who makes policy in government and business.
April 3, 2024
(Just FYI, no, W. Bradford Wilcox---the author of this book---did not write The Continuous Atonement, etc. Goodreads needs to work on separating those two authors.)
Two years ago my husband had new coworkers arrive from India. We invited their families to our family Thanksgiving and my mom, who was studying family formation in her MS program, was absolutely fascinated to learn that they had what we would term an arranged marriage. As I've interacted more with them, I've been intrigued myself because their relationships are so different and yet so solid. I've been struggling to put my finger on why until reading this book and seeing Arthur Brooks' article "Why the Most Successful Marriages Are Start-Ups, Not Mergers." I'm pretty sure that's it. There's negotiation but it's not what's best for me, but what's best for the family as a whole. And it seems to be so built in to the culture that it stands out in a world of soul-mate wanting, selfish human beings. Obviously they're not perfect human beings, nor is the solution perfect (I've read enough of Uzma Jalaluddin to know that). But wow. It's so different, in good ways, than the myths we were told as children (I've also now read enough of Uzma Jalaluddin to know that).
This book was a quick read. I thought, for the most part, it was well done. He really does seem to have looked at this thing from every angle and I appreciate his engagement with opposing arguments. I appreciate his citations at the back(though footnotes would be better). I loved his indictment of heavy right-wingers. I don't agree with it all, but his astute observations, in line with Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times were, I think, spot on. Capitalism flourishes best in a certain type of society and, sadly, ours is not it. Again, is he touting the virtues of Communism? Nope. But he clearly, I thought, points out the valid issues that our country is dealing with today in regards to economic struggles. I did have a few concerns, though.
1) The title.
People.
If we want to fix a problem, we need to be unified. We need to invite people in. Not exclude. Titles do a large part of this. This one? Not so much. As he says, there is usually a do as I do, not as I say when it comes to the upper class mentality. That is hypocritical. But trying to push people out of your audience simply because they don't already think the way you do doesn't help people make statistically informed correct choices. The chapter on Conservatives was fine... especially because, if I kept track correctly, there was a good balance between liberal and conservative good couple examples in the text. I know at least 20 people who will ignore this because the title excludes them. Is he trying to get the strict-right on his side? Possibly. But then the book should have been written differently.
2) Confusion. There were several graphs where the explanations were worded confusingly. Easy fix.
3) He included Jordan B. Peterson as a conservative pundit who encourages men not to marry. I disagree with Peterson in lots of areas but he is definitely pro-marriage right now.
Small things. I still think that the book is worth some time.
Two years ago my husband had new coworkers arrive from India. We invited their families to our family Thanksgiving and my mom, who was studying family formation in her MS program, was absolutely fascinated to learn that they had what we would term an arranged marriage. As I've interacted more with them, I've been intrigued myself because their relationships are so different and yet so solid. I've been struggling to put my finger on why until reading this book and seeing Arthur Brooks' article "Why the Most Successful Marriages Are Start-Ups, Not Mergers." I'm pretty sure that's it. There's negotiation but it's not what's best for me, but what's best for the family as a whole. And it seems to be so built in to the culture that it stands out in a world of soul-mate wanting, selfish human beings. Obviously they're not perfect human beings, nor is the solution perfect (I've read enough of Uzma Jalaluddin to know that). But wow. It's so different, in good ways, than the myths we were told as children (I've also now read enough of Uzma Jalaluddin to know that).
This book was a quick read. I thought, for the most part, it was well done. He really does seem to have looked at this thing from every angle and I appreciate his engagement with opposing arguments. I appreciate his citations at the back(though footnotes would be better). I loved his indictment of heavy right-wingers. I don't agree with it all, but his astute observations, in line with Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times were, I think, spot on. Capitalism flourishes best in a certain type of society and, sadly, ours is not it. Again, is he touting the virtues of Communism? Nope. But he clearly, I thought, points out the valid issues that our country is dealing with today in regards to economic struggles. I did have a few concerns, though.
1) The title.
People.
If we want to fix a problem, we need to be unified. We need to invite people in. Not exclude. Titles do a large part of this. This one? Not so much. As he says, there is usually a do as I do, not as I say when it comes to the upper class mentality. That is hypocritical. But trying to push people out of your audience simply because they don't already think the way you do doesn't help people make statistically informed correct choices. The chapter on Conservatives was fine... especially because, if I kept track correctly, there was a good balance between liberal and conservative good couple examples in the text. I know at least 20 people who will ignore this because the title excludes them. Is he trying to get the strict-right on his side? Possibly. But then the book should have been written differently.
2) Confusion. There were several graphs where the explanations were worded confusingly. Easy fix.
3) He included Jordan B. Peterson as a conservative pundit who encourages men not to marry. I disagree with Peterson in lots of areas but he is definitely pro-marriage right now.
Small things. I still think that the book is worth some time.
October 27, 2024
I am not related to this author.
I’ve read plenty of books about how to find the right person to marry, but this was the first one I’ve read about *why* to marry and how to stay married. I liked it. I’ve never been a huge fan of reading a lot of statistics, and I know how easily they can be distorted, but I liked the anecdotal evidence the author used. My own life shows me that the most popular narratives are often far outside the everyday experiences of many people. It was refreshing to hear from a different side. When I saw citations of other marriage researchers I follow (the Gottmans and Scott Stanley, I knew I’d picked out the right book. I can’t say that I learned anything that will change my life, but I enjoyed reading and thinking through this book.
I’ve read plenty of books about how to find the right person to marry, but this was the first one I’ve read about *why* to marry and how to stay married. I liked it. I’ve never been a huge fan of reading a lot of statistics, and I know how easily they can be distorted, but I liked the anecdotal evidence the author used. My own life shows me that the most popular narratives are often far outside the everyday experiences of many people. It was refreshing to hear from a different side. When I saw citations of other marriage researchers I follow (the Gottmans and Scott Stanley, I knew I’d picked out the right book. I can’t say that I learned anything that will change my life, but I enjoyed reading and thinking through this book.
December 6, 2025
On the one hand, this book provides an overwhelmingly conclusive argument for the benefits of marriage, personally and socially . The data is truly impressive.
On the downside, the prose was a bit boring, often reading like, “as study xyz says, and study abc concludes”. This book is important and would no doubt recommend it, but it should be paired with other books to round out why our world needs healthy marriages.
On the downside, the prose was a bit boring, often reading like, “as study xyz says, and study abc concludes”. This book is important and would no doubt recommend it, but it should be paired with other books to round out why our world needs healthy marriages.
December 23, 2025
Wilcox does an excellent job of demonstrating why marriage is the cornerstone of civilization. Furthermore, he displays with data gathered in numerous studies and surveys, the benefits of being married, whether they be economic, emotional, spiritual, or sexual. The book is an excellent overview of why marriage between a man and a woman must be saved in our culture if society is to continue, and if our children are to live, in a way that breeds happiness for all.
March 14, 2025
Couldnt get through it. Most of the insights seem fairly obvious, and I wonder if the statistics he brings to the table are inherently compelling. I’m sure this would be more of an eye-opener to someone who experiencing the dissonance of a liberal/modern approach to marriage. Just wasnt that engaging.
I agree with the substance of the argument, just dont find the content engaging.
I agree with the substance of the argument, just dont find the content engaging.
July 4, 2024
A clear, thoroughly researched, bipartisan, and non-religious analysis on the significance of marriage on individuals, children, and as a essential institution in a functioning American society. None of his "controversial" policy proposals are outside worthy consideration in the light of Wilcox's research. Even if you cannot agree with his ideas, you can appreciate them.
May 12, 2025
Great and timely book! Informative heavy yet doesn’t read or feel that way. Highly recommend for those interested in the current culture and how to have defenses for what you believe in terms of pro-marriage.
May 8, 2024
Buy a copy and give it out to young people, whether they are newly married or single.
August 24, 2024
Excellent book.
November 1, 2024
Valuable push back to a “you do you” culture. Anecdotes were cringy on occasion, but the overall thesis was compelling: maintaining a selfless marriage is actually how societies thrive.
January 28, 2025
I appreciate the statistics and research this book provides; instead of just offering an anecdotal opinion on marriage, the statistics can speak for themselves.
April 30, 2024
I read this after hearing Brad Wilcox on ‘The Art of Manliness’ (twice) and thought this is a book I have to read as I found myself agreeing with Wilcox’s refreshing defence of marriage. Wilcox is unapologetically pro-marriage and identifies the benefits of family and marriage for people in a positive light. Wilcox acknowledges growing up fatherless and became part of a blended family (and he turned out OK), and then holds marriage to be an ideal. Wilcox is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, his Christianity is an underlying influence in the book. I have come to admire religious people and the way they are in the world, so this was not a barrier for me. I am aware religion can be triggering for some people. Over time I have come to be highly pro marriage (especially my own).
Wilcox begins by observing two groups who should have nothing in common share similar views about marriage. Andrew Tate is held as the representative of what may be called the MGTOW movement. He is depicted as anti marriage and Wilcox quotes Tate with examples of men not benefiting from marriage, and only risking losing. I feel Wilcox misrepresents Tate, but I have heard these sentiment expressed in the misoginistic MGTOW movement. At the other end of the spectrum he quotes Feminists who say women can be fulfilled and get economically further ahead without marriage. Both extremists, coming to the same conclusion against marriage as something to be avoided. Marriage is not for these people, and but their own admission they do not want it. Wilcox identifies both groups holding anit-natalist views (against pro-creating). I cannot see this argument becoming mainstream. The anti-natalists will not have children and if those of us who have children can do a good enough job, the anti-natalist movement should die from its inability to literally reproduce. The anti-natalists have to convince the people who have come from families, of their views that having a family is a bad idea and they should not do this. It is incumbent on those of us who have children to be good parents of those children. It is important to remember both sexes have angry traumatised people by the opposite sex.
Wilcox then identifies that “young adults really believed that fame and wealth and high achievement were what they needed to go after to have a good life” (p 25). Marriage is seldom an overt goal of the the young. Wilcos then provides evidence that “over and over our study has found that the people who fared best were the people who leaned into relationships with family, with friends, with community” (p 25). Wilcox provides evidence to support that marriage produces better happiness outcomes than career, education, or money. He states “older people who had good marriages back in their fifties also had the best physical and emotional outcomes in their seventies and eighties – being the most protected against problems like memory loss, chronic disease, and mental illness (p 25)”. Economist Raj Chetty work is quoted repeatedly of the economic benefits of marriage for both men and women. The contention is that people who are able to form long term and stable marriages end up significantly wealthier than those who are unable to form long term and stable marriages.
Wilcox may engage in the use of Strawman arguments in the use of journalists from popular media to provide examples, for him to use academic research to knock down and disprove. This leads to a number of questions: Is there no evidence to support the anti-marriage/family thesis other than journalistic anecdotes? If so, why has this been accepted in the culture without challenge (until now). If not, why was it not included.
Anyone who have been around the mental health industry will be aware of the work of John Gottman. Gottman ‘Lovelab’ researched the qualities of people that lead to long term marriages. Wilcox quoted Gottman’s ‘Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse’: Stonewalling; Defensiveness; Criticism and Contempt as examples of toxic behaviours within marriages. Wilcox acknowledges the work of Gottman in focusing on the micro aspects of health relationships and then looks at the broader marco factors within society that either support or do not support marriage. He identifies four groups that are doing marriage well in US society. They are Asian Americans, Conservatives, the Faithful, and Strivers.
Kerri and I have been married for close to 20 years now and I think we may make it. From my perspective I would say we are ‘very happy in their marriage’ if asked. We are outliers in this framework. We are not Asian (I am admire how I see my Asian friends go about their marriages and family life). I am becoming increasingly conservative as I age, and I started marriage as a far left socialist. Kerri remains left of centre. We are not religious, and I have great respect and admiration for the people I know who follow their faith. We most closely align to the Strivers. However, Wilcox repeatedly comments with Strivers they do not practice what they preach. They preach liberal views, whilst living conservative actions. I am as appalled by what Wilcox identifies as the hypocrisy of the Strivers as he is.
Wilcox identifies that society is becoming more individualistic and hedonistic whilst at the same time experiencing worse mental health outcomes. “Paradoxically, those who sacrifice their individualism to something ‘greater’ (aka Family) appear to experience superior mental health outcomes. Traditional choices in the long term lead to the happiness and fulfilment the hedonists claim to be seeking through individualism. People who can share bank account, date nights, and regular sex appear to have better outcomes that those who don’t share in intimate relationships” (p 94). I was reminded of the work of Scott Barry Kaufman in his work ‘Transcendence’.
Wilcox suggests that pre-nuptial agreements toxic for marriage. I agree when you are starting out in life and I would insist on one with any new partner. When you are starting out in life you are starting with often little to nothing together. You make sacrifices in different areas to ensure the health of your marriage and build a life and wealth together. If Kerri and I were to separate and split our assets 50/50. The thought of a new partner being entitled to half my wealth after 2 years would make me want to stay single, because that is my children’s inheritance. I would want a pre-nuptial agreement. Another reason to stay married as Kerri and I both share an interest in maintaining out children’s inheritance.
Wilcox states the best predictor of long term marriage is perceived commitment to marriage. This makes sense as if you do not trust your partners commitment, they cannot likely trust yours and you spend your marriage with a foot out the door to ensure you do not leave first. I would push back on this from my years of experience answering the crisis line of the people completely blind sided by their spouses leaving. They perceived great commitment to their marriage and failed to recognise their spouses deep unhappiness in the relationship. How much do we trust our perceptions?
Wilcox investigates the ‘soul mate myth’. “The paradox of marital happiness is that those who prioritize it the most are least likely to find it. It’s not that looking for happiness in marriage is bad, it’s that placing happy feelings front and center is usually a sign of unrealistic expectations and emotional immaturity. The happiness that devotees of the soulmate model are pursuing is usually not the same as contentment or stability. More often it’s highly transient state of euphoria” (p 94), I am beginning to understand the importance of transcendence for mental health. The power of meaningful suffering for something or someone. Nietzsche ("He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."), Frankl ('Those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'.), amongst others have identified this. Happiness is fleeting, where as meaning is eternal. No one person can be responsible for your happiness, but two imperfect souls can build a form of heaven.
“Sexual satisfaction, not surprisingly, is also a strong predictor of relationship quality and marital stability. Couples who have sex at least once a week are 22 percentage points more likely to be very happy in their marriages and 19 percentage points more likely to report that divorce is “not at all likely” for them. A large body of research indicates that regular sex predicts better health, more happiness, and stronger marriages. In our survey, regular marital sex predicted overall happiness about as strongly for women as it did for men. Good sex equals greater satisfaction with life, it would seem, for many men and women” (p 117). Again from answering the crisis line. I knew couples were in trouble when they stopped having sex. Sexless marriages are surprisingly more common than people care to admit. It is bad for both partners. Routine sex is better than no sex for the relationship. It takes work to create the intimacy for good sex. Seduction does not stop at ‘I do’.
“Couples who identified more with a ‘team’ mindset, who regularly sacrificed for one another, and, yes, who shared the same bank account and last name, were more likely to be satisfied with their sex. It turns out that putting ‘we before me’ doesn’t just boost yours odds of being happy in your marriage; it also seems to boost your odds of enjoying eros in a deeper and more profound way in your union” (p 118). Kerri and I have shared a bank account since we were living in London together in 2002. It was ‘our’ money. Kerri graciously offered to change her name without my asking. She has pushed herself to have sex for my happiness through out our marriage. We have been a team from the earliest days.
Wilcox offer some heuristic for developing social policy is that getting married does not disadvantage those that get married in any way. Wilcox has four suggestions for Government to promote family life for people who are not Strivers; Faithful; Conservatives; Asian: 1. Defund College, Refund Vocational Education. 2. Boost Families Financial Fortunes 3. Eliminate Marriage Penalties (Gives examples of how lower socio economic people are penalised for getting married). 4. Expand School Choice Beyond The Strivers.
Wilcox attacks both US Democrats and Republicans for not supporting families. Democrats for their obsession and being overly focused on minorities at the expense of the majority and Republicans with their obsession with policies that support corporate USA. “Too many on the right have blind faith in the market’s power to bring prosperity and so much more to all families if the state can simply get out of the way. Too many on the left have had a blind faith in the state’s ability to seize the core functions of families – like providership and childcare – without injury to the strength, stability, and solidarity of American family life” (p 217).
Wilcox leaves the reader with 4 areas of focus: 1 – Communion – We before me in marriage; 2 – Children – Prioritizing the welfare of you children; 3 – Commitment – Divorce being off the table and treating marriage as an eternal covenant; 4 – Cash – Allowing families to be provided for with one income.
This is not a perfect book, Wilcox could have avoided what seem to be the Strawmen he constantly uses in the book. This is a much needed book that could live on the strength of marriage. Too much of the culture is anti-marriage. I am pleased to read a book that give the case for marriage. I fully admit that I am bias. My life has been improved and enriched by my secular marriage. I am on the side of doing the hard work and remaining married. I do not believe that the depth of my vows are equal to a long term de-facto relationship. I urge young couples to put a ring on it and get married. I want marriage for my children. I agree with Brad Wilcox’s arguments on marriage and acknowledge I am as bias as he is. I wish their was a Political movement that was Pro Family, Pro Children, and Pro Marriage. It is a sensible centre I could get behind that built a society with marriage that supports families as an ideal.
Wilcox begins by observing two groups who should have nothing in common share similar views about marriage. Andrew Tate is held as the representative of what may be called the MGTOW movement. He is depicted as anti marriage and Wilcox quotes Tate with examples of men not benefiting from marriage, and only risking losing. I feel Wilcox misrepresents Tate, but I have heard these sentiment expressed in the misoginistic MGTOW movement. At the other end of the spectrum he quotes Feminists who say women can be fulfilled and get economically further ahead without marriage. Both extremists, coming to the same conclusion against marriage as something to be avoided. Marriage is not for these people, and but their own admission they do not want it. Wilcox identifies both groups holding anit-natalist views (against pro-creating). I cannot see this argument becoming mainstream. The anti-natalists will not have children and if those of us who have children can do a good enough job, the anti-natalist movement should die from its inability to literally reproduce. The anti-natalists have to convince the people who have come from families, of their views that having a family is a bad idea and they should not do this. It is incumbent on those of us who have children to be good parents of those children. It is important to remember both sexes have angry traumatised people by the opposite sex.
Wilcox then identifies that “young adults really believed that fame and wealth and high achievement were what they needed to go after to have a good life” (p 25). Marriage is seldom an overt goal of the the young. Wilcos then provides evidence that “over and over our study has found that the people who fared best were the people who leaned into relationships with family, with friends, with community” (p 25). Wilcox provides evidence to support that marriage produces better happiness outcomes than career, education, or money. He states “older people who had good marriages back in their fifties also had the best physical and emotional outcomes in their seventies and eighties – being the most protected against problems like memory loss, chronic disease, and mental illness (p 25)”. Economist Raj Chetty work is quoted repeatedly of the economic benefits of marriage for both men and women. The contention is that people who are able to form long term and stable marriages end up significantly wealthier than those who are unable to form long term and stable marriages.
Wilcox may engage in the use of Strawman arguments in the use of journalists from popular media to provide examples, for him to use academic research to knock down and disprove. This leads to a number of questions: Is there no evidence to support the anti-marriage/family thesis other than journalistic anecdotes? If so, why has this been accepted in the culture without challenge (until now). If not, why was it not included.
Anyone who have been around the mental health industry will be aware of the work of John Gottman. Gottman ‘Lovelab’ researched the qualities of people that lead to long term marriages. Wilcox quoted Gottman’s ‘Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse’: Stonewalling; Defensiveness; Criticism and Contempt as examples of toxic behaviours within marriages. Wilcox acknowledges the work of Gottman in focusing on the micro aspects of health relationships and then looks at the broader marco factors within society that either support or do not support marriage. He identifies four groups that are doing marriage well in US society. They are Asian Americans, Conservatives, the Faithful, and Strivers.
Kerri and I have been married for close to 20 years now and I think we may make it. From my perspective I would say we are ‘very happy in their marriage’ if asked. We are outliers in this framework. We are not Asian (I am admire how I see my Asian friends go about their marriages and family life). I am becoming increasingly conservative as I age, and I started marriage as a far left socialist. Kerri remains left of centre. We are not religious, and I have great respect and admiration for the people I know who follow their faith. We most closely align to the Strivers. However, Wilcox repeatedly comments with Strivers they do not practice what they preach. They preach liberal views, whilst living conservative actions. I am as appalled by what Wilcox identifies as the hypocrisy of the Strivers as he is.
Wilcox identifies that society is becoming more individualistic and hedonistic whilst at the same time experiencing worse mental health outcomes. “Paradoxically, those who sacrifice their individualism to something ‘greater’ (aka Family) appear to experience superior mental health outcomes. Traditional choices in the long term lead to the happiness and fulfilment the hedonists claim to be seeking through individualism. People who can share bank account, date nights, and regular sex appear to have better outcomes that those who don’t share in intimate relationships” (p 94). I was reminded of the work of Scott Barry Kaufman in his work ‘Transcendence’.
Wilcox suggests that pre-nuptial agreements toxic for marriage. I agree when you are starting out in life and I would insist on one with any new partner. When you are starting out in life you are starting with often little to nothing together. You make sacrifices in different areas to ensure the health of your marriage and build a life and wealth together. If Kerri and I were to separate and split our assets 50/50. The thought of a new partner being entitled to half my wealth after 2 years would make me want to stay single, because that is my children’s inheritance. I would want a pre-nuptial agreement. Another reason to stay married as Kerri and I both share an interest in maintaining out children’s inheritance.
Wilcox states the best predictor of long term marriage is perceived commitment to marriage. This makes sense as if you do not trust your partners commitment, they cannot likely trust yours and you spend your marriage with a foot out the door to ensure you do not leave first. I would push back on this from my years of experience answering the crisis line of the people completely blind sided by their spouses leaving. They perceived great commitment to their marriage and failed to recognise their spouses deep unhappiness in the relationship. How much do we trust our perceptions?
Wilcox investigates the ‘soul mate myth’. “The paradox of marital happiness is that those who prioritize it the most are least likely to find it. It’s not that looking for happiness in marriage is bad, it’s that placing happy feelings front and center is usually a sign of unrealistic expectations and emotional immaturity. The happiness that devotees of the soulmate model are pursuing is usually not the same as contentment or stability. More often it’s highly transient state of euphoria” (p 94), I am beginning to understand the importance of transcendence for mental health. The power of meaningful suffering for something or someone. Nietzsche ("He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."), Frankl ('Those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'.), amongst others have identified this. Happiness is fleeting, where as meaning is eternal. No one person can be responsible for your happiness, but two imperfect souls can build a form of heaven.
“Sexual satisfaction, not surprisingly, is also a strong predictor of relationship quality and marital stability. Couples who have sex at least once a week are 22 percentage points more likely to be very happy in their marriages and 19 percentage points more likely to report that divorce is “not at all likely” for them. A large body of research indicates that regular sex predicts better health, more happiness, and stronger marriages. In our survey, regular marital sex predicted overall happiness about as strongly for women as it did for men. Good sex equals greater satisfaction with life, it would seem, for many men and women” (p 117). Again from answering the crisis line. I knew couples were in trouble when they stopped having sex. Sexless marriages are surprisingly more common than people care to admit. It is bad for both partners. Routine sex is better than no sex for the relationship. It takes work to create the intimacy for good sex. Seduction does not stop at ‘I do’.
“Couples who identified more with a ‘team’ mindset, who regularly sacrificed for one another, and, yes, who shared the same bank account and last name, were more likely to be satisfied with their sex. It turns out that putting ‘we before me’ doesn’t just boost yours odds of being happy in your marriage; it also seems to boost your odds of enjoying eros in a deeper and more profound way in your union” (p 118). Kerri and I have shared a bank account since we were living in London together in 2002. It was ‘our’ money. Kerri graciously offered to change her name without my asking. She has pushed herself to have sex for my happiness through out our marriage. We have been a team from the earliest days.
Wilcox offer some heuristic for developing social policy is that getting married does not disadvantage those that get married in any way. Wilcox has four suggestions for Government to promote family life for people who are not Strivers; Faithful; Conservatives; Asian: 1. Defund College, Refund Vocational Education. 2. Boost Families Financial Fortunes 3. Eliminate Marriage Penalties (Gives examples of how lower socio economic people are penalised for getting married). 4. Expand School Choice Beyond The Strivers.
Wilcox attacks both US Democrats and Republicans for not supporting families. Democrats for their obsession and being overly focused on minorities at the expense of the majority and Republicans with their obsession with policies that support corporate USA. “Too many on the right have blind faith in the market’s power to bring prosperity and so much more to all families if the state can simply get out of the way. Too many on the left have had a blind faith in the state’s ability to seize the core functions of families – like providership and childcare – without injury to the strength, stability, and solidarity of American family life” (p 217).
Wilcox leaves the reader with 4 areas of focus: 1 – Communion – We before me in marriage; 2 – Children – Prioritizing the welfare of you children; 3 – Commitment – Divorce being off the table and treating marriage as an eternal covenant; 4 – Cash – Allowing families to be provided for with one income.
This is not a perfect book, Wilcox could have avoided what seem to be the Strawmen he constantly uses in the book. This is a much needed book that could live on the strength of marriage. Too much of the culture is anti-marriage. I am pleased to read a book that give the case for marriage. I fully admit that I am bias. My life has been improved and enriched by my secular marriage. I am on the side of doing the hard work and remaining married. I do not believe that the depth of my vows are equal to a long term de-facto relationship. I urge young couples to put a ring on it and get married. I want marriage for my children. I agree with Brad Wilcox’s arguments on marriage and acknowledge I am as bias as he is. I wish their was a Political movement that was Pro Family, Pro Children, and Pro Marriage. It is a sensible centre I could get behind that built a society with marriage that supports families as an ideal.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews