Today noted Bollywood lyricist Javed Akhtar in a tweet claimed that as per Census 2011, the divorce rate amongst Hindus was 0.76% and that of Muslims was only 0.53%.
A little search on Google reveals that the All India Muslim Personal Law Board is also making similar claims about divorce rates being lower than Hindus, especially in the context of the Triple Talaq matter being heard in the Supreme Court.
The National Herald website is also doing its bit to peddle this claim further. It says divorce rates amongst Hindus is 0.76% while the same for Muslims is 0.56%.
Secular newspapers such as Times Of India and The Hindu have also added their bit to this issue.
Now, let us look at the reality.
Source: Census 2011 – C-3 Marital Status By Religious Community And Sex – 2011
Table 1: Data for Total Population
Marital Status | Total Persons | Males | Females
Total | 1210854977 | 623270258 | 587584719
Never married | 570833969 | 322870527 | 247963442
Excluding never married | 640021008 | 300399731 | 339621277
Divorced | 1362316 | 452743 | 909573
Divorced + Separated | 4897518 | 1615191 | 3282327
Divorce ratio | 0.002128549 | 0.001507135 | 0.002678198
Divorced + Separated ratio | 0.007652121 | 0.005376806 | 0.009664668
Percentage Divorced | 0.21 | 0.15 | 0.26
Percentage D + S | 0.76 | 0.53 | 0.96
Table 2: Data for Hindus
Marital Status | Hindu Total | Hindu Males | Hindu Females
Total | 966257353 | 498306968 | 467950385
Never married | 444973597 | 253100795 | 191872802
Excluding never married | 521283756 | 245206173 | 276077583
Divorced | 962810 | 344281 | 618529
Divorced + Separated | 3833495 | 1310576 | 2522919
Divorce ratio | 0.001846998 | 0.001404047 | 0.002240417
Divorced + Separated ratio | 0.007353951 | 0.005344792 | 0.009138442
Percentage Divorced | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.22
Percentage D + S | 0.73 | 0.53 | 0.91
Table 3: Data for Muslims
Marital Status | Muslim Total | Muslim Males | Muslim Females
Total | 172245158 | 88273945 | 83971213
Never married | 92081730 | 50970832 | 41110898
Excluding never married | 80163428 | 37303113 | 42860315
Divorced | 269609 | 57535 | 212074
Divorced + Separated | 654347 | 154655 | 499692
Divorce ratio | 0.003363242 | 0.001542365 | 0.004948027
Divorced + Separated ratio | 0.008162662 | 0.004145901 | 0.011658617
Percentage Divorced | 0.33 | 0.15 | 0.49
Percentage D + S | 0.82 | 0.41 | 1.2
Comparison table:
Status | Total H | Total M | Females H | Females M
Separated | 0.55 | 0.48 | 0.69 | 0.67
Divorced | 0.18 | 0.34 | 0.22 | 0.49
D+S | 0.74 | 0.82 | 0.91 | 1.17
Observations:
The percentage of divorced amongst Hindus is 0.18 while it is 0.33 for Muslims.
Percentage of divorced + separated amongst Hindus is 0.73 while it is 0.81 for Muslims.
The divorced and separated percentages are extremely high for Muslim women, with the latter crossing the 1 percentage mark.
If you look at only the divorce rate then it is more than double among Muslims as compared to Hindus.
Conclusions:
Mainstream media, once again, has picked up random numbers and stitched together a narrative.
Some of the other numbers quoted in the above referenced articles are all based on random surveys done in a few select districts.
The problem of divorce is much more amongst Muslims than Hindus. It is especially so amongst Muslim women.
Brothelwood has always taken upon itself to promote degeneracy and the open promotion of promiscuity and one night stands is the natural step forward for such an organization. The new movie Befikre will be just another addition to the long list of movies made to hollow out the remaining cultural norms of an already decaying civilization.
So what made premarital sex such a taboo in the civilized world?
Premarital sex is very harmful in pair bonding and leads to unhappiness and divorce. It does affect men and women differently though. The divorce risk goes up for every partner that a women has ever had. The below figure is reported from a survey on American women and it can be easily seen that divorce rate goes up from around 5/7% for women with zero partners before marriage to almost 35% as they reach 10+ partners. (Funny part- The study is named counter intuitive trends in the link between pre-marital sex and divorce rate! Well it was never counter intuitive for civilizations of the past.)
The above trend also holds true for happiness and not just for marriage. Women with more number of sexual partners also report lower happiness. Similar studies are well documented around the internet and are frequent point of talk among the western red pilled men. While the men do not show similar decrease in happiness or increased divorce risk as compared to women, there are negative impacts on men as well. The negative impact on men usually comes in the form of handling breakups. Men often seem stoic and indifferent but relationship breakup hits them harder. So, the consequences for men appear more devastative in the short term, which are nevertheless important and should not be ignored. Actually men face higher chance of falling into depression and substance abuse post divorce as reported here and here. Let us add the third fact here- Women initiate almost 70% of all divorces.
Although the psychologists can give varied answers (or non answers) to the above, but digging into evolutionary biology can give insight into all these puzzles. Lets highlight some evolutionary facts-
1. 20% of men ever passed their genes compared to 80% women, so average female have been biologically more successful than average male. See here and here.
Recent evidence for male deaths in different tribes
At the end of wars, while adult males were killed, women were taken as prisoners of war
Women’s sexual market value decrease as they age (decreased beauty, reproductive value), while it is reverse for men as they get richer and powerful
So, how does it all fit together to cause decreased happiness for women (with large number of sexual partners) in the long run? While at the same time causing depression among men after breakups and divorces. Point 1, goes towards showing that women are the more valuable of the two sexes due to their contribution to the formation of next generation. So a few top tier men are sufficient for mating with most of the women. This had been true for most of human history before society became more egalitarian and monogamy was enforced in one way or the other. But this imbalance still shows up in modern law and social sciences, as otherwise there is no reason to fund very few studies on problems faced by divorced men. To give example from Bharat, there is almost no media coverage on abuse of laws like 498a against men, further enforcing the viewpoint that eggs are expensive while sperms are cheap.
Point 2 is important to understand the docile nature of women as compared to men. Since women were often captured in wars due to their reproductive value for the invading tribe, they escaped the fate of men from the losing tribe as the latter were almost always killed. The women who easily forgot their native tribe and surrendered to the dominance of new tribe had an easy time surviving while those who were steadfast in defending their native tribe would have had difficult time in surviving. Either they would have been killed for making too much nuisance or they might have killed themselves due to emotional pressure. This essentially means that current females are selected from the set of docile females, who were able to switch their loyalty. Men on the other hand survived only if they fought well and dominated their enemies.
Point 3 is very difficult to swallow for many people and they would come up with all kinds of explanations to refute it. There are other qualities in women that men would look up before marrying but youthfulness is one of the most important ones. This can be seen in the study done on data from the dating website called OKCupid. Read here.
a1
Men’s age is on the vertical axis, while women on horizontal. The pink numbers represent preferred age of women.
Results from this study show that 20 or 21 old girls are preferred by men of all ages. The above graph also overlays the top two quartiles (25%) of ratings given by men, shown in dark and light pink i.e. the top 50% of ratings. You can see young women (below 27) capture the top 25% ratings. To quote the author-
the male pattern runs much deeper than just a preference for 20-year-olds. And after he hits thirty, the latter half of our age range (that is, women over 35) might as well not exist. Younger is better, and youngest is best of all, and if “over the hill” means the beginning of a person’s decline, a straight woman is over the hill as soon as she’s old enough to drink.
Of course, one can come up with few counter examples here and there but that do not change evolutionary facts that reproductive value drive male choice for younger females. On the other hand women almost prefer men of their own age.
Now let’s put together these evolutionary facts together to explain the unhappiness of women, stress in divorced men and high divorce rate initiated by women. The unhappiness of women and divorce are closely related. Since women lose their sexual market value over time, it means over time the quality of males they attract goes down due to competition from younger females. Since premarital sex is no longer a taboo and marriages are often delayed, this essentially means that girls start having sexual encounters from an early age up until they get married. Somewhere around 24-25 years a girl might have best chance of getting married given optimal financial stability and fertility at this age, but from 25 onwards increased financial ability cannot compensate for ageing.
So as a woman ages, she has to increasingly settle down for a lower quality mate than her previous encounters. This results in unhappiness later in life due to previous experiments (mistakes) and lost chances of settling down. The disenchantment naturally goes up with the number of sexual partners as it further delays the marriage as well as increase the baseline expectation of mate value (due to more experiment) to compare the present mate with. This is nothing but reflection of The Paradox of Choice, arising due to negative emotions arising from missed opportunities.
Men on the other hand do not face similar problem as women. Men’s attractiveness to women comes primarily from their status as a provider, which essentially means how rich and powerful they are. Although, there are other factors but a 30 year old male is usually richer and does not lose mate value as fast as women. So, large number of sexual encounters for men do not translate directly into negative emotions from missed opportunities later in life as there are no missed opportunities since the quality of mates they attract actually goes up as they age. But there is another significant factor at play here. Go back to point 1 in evolutionary facts i.e. only 20% of males ever passed on their genes. In a free sexual market, it is the top males (alpha) who corner a large and significant part of this market. This can be seen from the study on American individuals as reported in the table below.
a1
While a lot of women lie in the middle range, it is top 33% men who have large number of sexual encounters which accounts for more sexual partners than the bottom 67% together. So, in a free sexual market, a large percentage of men would not have any experience to look back upon and face the same missed opportunity conundrum as faced by an average women or if they have experience it would improve over time before their sexual market value slowly fades away.
But what explains the presence of post divorce/breakup stress among men? Go back to point 2 and culling of men during wars. Evolutionarily, men hardly ever survived the loss of their female partners. It was men who were sent to die in wars or engaged in hazardous activities. This is reflected even today by lower life expectancy for males due to their engagement in hard labour industries. Add to it the above point 2 on survival of women after being captured by enemy. While today’s females are descendants of the survivors of past females, who learnt to suppress their emotions of death of kith and kin and accepted dominance of new tribe, men were almost always killed or failed to pass on their genes. So, men did not learn to suppress their emotion that arises from loss of a partner. While men did grow out of love of an old partner but it was never about snapping of ties at the drop of a hat. This explains why so many men take to substance abuse or contemplate suicides post failed relationships. The same stress can be spotted even among men who lose their wives and are less able to deal with the loss of spouse. This lack of evolutionary experience in dealing with spouse loss also explains how stable marriages help men.
This brings us to the last part of the puzzle- why women initiate more divorce than men? The same reason which explain post divorce stress among men, also explains why men file substantially lesser number of divorces than women. Looking again at points 2 and 3 of our evolutionary facts explains choice of women. Since women have been selected for bearing emotional loss of their mate, they are better prepared evolutionarily to handle post breakup problems and deal with their emotions. Coupled with the explanation for large sexual number of partners leading to unhappiness due to The Paradox of Choice, modern women are unhappy in their marriages. Since, they are unhappy and are better adapt at handling fallout of emotional stress post divorce, they go ahead with the decision. But since their Sexual market value keeps falling with age, they fail to attract higher value mate and get caught in the vicious cycle of regret spell due to missed opportunities.
A smart society with strong cultural norms understands how evolutionary algorithms can ruin the happiness of men and women unless society puts some checks and balances on the lizard brain. The decay of west should be a wake up call to all sane societies. Question is- will Bharat rise to this challenge and stop the spread of degeneracy being served right into their living rooms under the grab of liberalism and modernity by Bollywood?
The following discussion looks at the institution of marriage from Hindu perspective and what each party gains from the institution. Since this institution developed independently across all societies, marriage should serve some teleological function.
D:
Regarding this modern woman problem, the issue is the halo attached to this thing called ‘career’. This is originally a Protestant idea where routine work came to be seen as service to god. In the ancient texts we read that duty of men was to bring wealth and glory to the family. Women were care-givers for the family. Both worked for the family in their different capacities. But ‘career’ is for oneself. Once men get hooked on it, it is unfair to expect women to remain care-givers for the family. If salvation for men lies in building careers for themselves, the same will be demanded by women as well. I see men as the root of the problem here. They have switched from being ‘settler’ to ‘hunter’. Women merely emulate men in whatever they do.
DF:
So much of the modern world can be traced back to Protestantism.
PT:
DF the primary motivations under Protestantism is also the same, but protestantism spins it into work is worship. That’s the point. The primary motivation is always the same because humans are all the same animals fundamentally. The religions shape our baser instincts into something greater. Counter religions just do a shoddy job of it IMHO.
AS:
Within the confines of religion, counter religions sacralize primal instincts of man. For example, Islam grants four wives to men along with infinite number of sex slaves. It incentivizes aggression against a perceived ‘enemy’. So naturally, anyone choosing Islam is not maladaptive as far as base instincts are considered evolutionarily. The women on the other hand have a steady supply of good number of alpha men. Men who are polygamous and ever ready for war. Where Counter-religions fail is at building civilization. The costs of polygamy and being in war always within or without makes them incapable of building civilization.
Also as far as women participation in the industrialized work force is concerned I would blame that on not only ‘feminism’ but also viewing women as primarily economic beings. This erodes the inherent value they come with- which is giving birth. Consequently, the relation between working women of today and their low TFR makes eminent sense.
About ‘Sex’ being the primary motivation for men to marry. I think this whole approach is wrong from a Hindu perspective. Creating dichotomies between sex, procreation, filial piety, etc. is wrong. I have seen numerous Hindu couples who have got married without consummating the marriage.
YP:
Good point AS. Islam is a war machine and is used to gain new territory, but once in peace it cannot build civilization unless it gives up its Islamic core.
AS:
Their aim is not to bring order which civilization brings and with that progress. That is why they are unmattas.
DF:
Procreation and sex being divorced is very much a post-contraceptive development.
AS:
Due to degeneracy or for that even the way marriage was conceptualized in the Judeo-Abrahamic traditions. Sex is often seen as the primary motivation of marriage. It is a very good incentive, no doubt. And biologically perhaps the single biggest motivation for men to marry. Women of course have their own motivations to marry. But we are I feel not analysing the role of Religion and culture in bringing about marriages. Religion as PT pointed out curbs the primal urges to bring about a modicum of order. And we cannot discount that. DF, contraception is just an excuse. The larger forces at play is progressivism. Islamic societies still do allow free sex.
YP:
Successful easily available contraception is not an excuse. But you can say putting condom machine at every corner is definitely a choice by state.
DF:
Of course, but contraception is a dysgenic technology which has altered our understanding of sex/reproduction/marriage.
AS:
Granted. But who or what incentivizes the use of contraceptives? What I am trying to say is contraception is just a tool.
DF:
Liberal democratic state 🙂
AS:
Yes.
DF:
I’m making an entirely different point though.
AS:
Yes DF I got your point.
PT:
My point in saying sex is the primary motivation of men to marry is the base instinct. Why else marry, if you can simply sleep with whoever you want? And we can see that once women started sleeping around in the West and there was easy access to sex through these women plus porn, men have stopped marrying. It has nothing to do with the Hindu perspective, rather I’m hypothesizing about the fundamental reason marriage existed at all in all societies everywhere.
YP:
Historically speaking marriage was a way to get alliance and resources as well. But yes, in the end resource acquisition too boils down to value in sexual market. Cannot close eyes to its primacy.
PT:
Well let’s say there’s no marriage at all, then no one inherits any property right? Along with the institution of marriage Svetaketu also instituted property rights. So inheritance/alliance/resources pre-Svetaketu didn’t exist?
YP:
They must have existed in some form.
PT:
Well not property rights but inheritance laws. See here’s what I’m trying to figure out. Why marriage? What does a man gain out of marriage, similarly what does a woman?
AS:
PT- why would men marry if they get free sex like in the West? It used to be the case pre-Svetaketu. Of course, no one here is saying that sex is not one of the motivations of marriage. But there are other elements to marriage which the elders and wise understood and hence imposed upon the philandering men and women. Religion/Culture played a crucial motivational role.
YP:
I did not say sex does not play a role. It is primary market. Even other resources help in the same market. So thinking that it does not matter is foolhardy for Hindus.
SV:
The primary beneficiary of marriage (or similar agreement as in animal) is female in keeping the male bound as female is the known parent and the one that knows the male parent of offspring. Male’s motivation is two-fold: its fiefdom without which its existence is meaningless, and its possession of female (which again is twofold, mating and ownership).
AS:
Yes, what I am saying is along what YP is saying I guess.
PT:
Fiefdom in what SV? Isn’t ownership of the female the same as mating rights? Else ownership in what sense? I know the motivation for women. It is to have a protector, resources. Men I still don’t fully grasp.
YP:
Beta men gain by marriage! Weaker men have fitness incentive to not sow the oats everywhere but use one partner and see that his genes get passed on.
AS:
SV- in keeping the male bound, does the Female also possess the man?
SV:
Not just mating – the region it owns and rules, the food that the female gets, the protection of offspring, holding the sense of unit (pride or clan or family) etc.
PT:
Yes, YP I know that. One way I look at marriage is that it exists only to restrain alphas and enable betas to lead fulfilling lives.
SV:
Female possesses the male too, but I guess it is not of the same nature. Say for instance Sita tells Hanuman she does not know whether Rama’s affection for her is more or his ego of owning her.
PT:
AS if you look at the data on how marriage causally reduces crime it’s because the woman controls the finances as well as persuades the man not to indulge in risk taking behaviour.
SV:
After all things of nature apply to both genders but to varying degrees.
PT:
The civilizing aspect of marriage is because women control men within marriage and because men have duty to women. Simply being married in itself restricts a man’s liberty.
AS:
PT, yes aware of that. SV, interesting.
SV:
Call it restriction of liberty or finding a means of fulfilment through family 🙂
PT:
All limiting of that kind of liberty is good according to me so I use it interchangeably.
AS:
In a marriage, therefore, the man gives away his liberty, in exchange of ‘fiefdom’. I get it now.
PT:
Men probably gain much more than women in marriage else women wouldn’t initiate divorces.
AS:
So we both understand the teleos of marriage and how it is beneficial from a man as well as women’s perspective.
YP:
Not true PT. Women now marry the social security. Women would have cheated even in the past or would have had dalliances but they would not get divorce, just because state would not fund them.
SV:
I guess women initiate divorces because they stop thinking like women (except in extreme cases of course).
YP:
The institution of marriage has changed over time, giving more power to women both in and outside the marriage. If you give progeny to the male, divorce would again fall. But in the west 80-90% times they get child custody.
AS:
Yes, laws are destroying civilization.
Good point YP.
YP:
Divorce is a function of incentives. So you can say modern marriage don’t offer much to the women (in the west). Not so much true in Asia yet.
AS:
Interesting to note how the institution of marriage has changed based on progressive legislations.
SV:
Modern marriage is no marriage at all. It is a joke – sleep around for years and get married just like that and then separate when you want.
AS:
I am with the classical liberals here when they say that the state should have no role in passing out marriage certificates. If you stop that much of the stresses on modern marriage would go.
PT:
Right that makes sense, YP.
AS:
Let the ownership of marriage return to the society.