Posted on 01/16/2007 10:04:04 AM PST by shrinkermd
For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.
In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.
Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.
Several factors are driving the statistical shift. At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods. At the other end, women are living longer as widows and, after a divorce, are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom.
In addition, marriage rates among black women remain low. Only about 30 percent of black women are living with a spouse, according to the Census Bureau, compared with about 49 percent of Hispanic women, 55 percent of non-Hispanic white women and more than 60 percent of Asian women.
In a relatively small number of cases, the living arrangement is temporary, because the husbands are working out of town, are in the military or are institutionalized. But while most women eventually marry, the larger trend is unmistakable.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
But "Jesus is their boyfriend", so they aren't trying to find you. ;)
No it has to do with breaking the ice, and it has nothing to do with behaivor in a relationship. I see plenty of good-looking women out there who lead their men around grocery stores, and malls like puppy dogs, and boss them around. That seems to be the staus quo in this country these days.
Silly you!
Yes. And when you see that, there is one characteristic that is always true, even if it isn't immediately evident: on a very deep level, she despises him.
Well, I never actually looked for a woman in church, having come around 10 years into my marriage. However, I gotta be honest and call them like I seem them. From what I've gathered watching my friends run the gauntlet at the singles group at church, I still think a bar might be a safer bet.
I understand that the Christian view of dating is that it will hopefully lead to marriage, but what I'm seeing reeks of neediness. I'd avoid it.
She certainly doesn't love him if she has no respect for him.
I should have also offered Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin...face it...there are just some women who are too smart to put up with "guy stuff"...and Condi, Michelle and Ann are 3 that come to mind...I know there are tons of others.
Give me a break.
And if it's the other way around, I guess that means the man "controls" everything. And that that's just good and proper, of course, because heavens the man shouldn't have any control.
(Truth, anyway, is that men do not approach women - successfully - without getting her tacit approval 1st [and last], if only eye contact, a fleeting note of approval. Only rapists actually push the envelope even if the woman disapproves. It's true in nature, and it's true in humans.)
Don't ever try calling my men "wimpy". You may find a fist up your butt from any of them. Then we'll find out who's "shy".
Like I said, see if you can distinguish between "shy" and "wimpy". They are NOT synonyms.
Reading this made me think of something I saw while reading a Redbook magazine yesterday (I get a free subscription)..
The RedBOOK Club.
Editor's choice:
Emily Ross is married to her college sweetheart Kevin. He's reliable, dependable, steady-- in other words, boring. And his constant push for kids makes Emily want to run.
As she wrestles with relationship doubts and motherhood fears, Emily meets a handsome stranger who makes her feel things she's never felt for her husband....
This is what they want women to read.. pathetic huh?
From now on i'll only be looking at the recipes and then tossing it.
What a bunch of macho hogwash.
You guys obviously think it's better you always get to do YOUR thing - preferrably fun, useless stuff. Like "just the guys" for hunting, and golfing, and other "guys-only" separatist things where you leave the women alone with holding down the fort.
Heavens you should have to do useful things that aren't always fun. And things that aren't always "your call".
Men who can handle all those things are the real men. Sometimes, they know they have to do things that aren't fun or what they want to do. Just like women.
Of course it's not impossible to have a relationship with out having to deal with that "guy stuff."
Malkin is married.
I would have no problem doing women things if I had a woman to do them with. I was just commenting on the disrespectful attitude I see many women exhibiting toward men. He can only do the guy things if and when she approves.
I was actually saying that no human being can ever successfully control another - control is an illusion.
But if the man doesn't take the leadership role in a relationship from the first instant, it will not end well. And shy men can't do that. These are the exact guys who end up posting on the FR divorce threads about how rotten American women in general are. Of course women seem that way to them - their choices never respected them from day one, because they let her lead.
I'm sure your men can bench-press Volkswagens, but in this game they will lose every time to the guy with smaller muscles and more self-confidence.
Did you ever think maybe many men (still) act that way toward women?
Your kind of statements are typically, the only thing I ever hear. Men complaining and whining about how bad their women treat them. Or how bad women are period. Or how inferior women are.
As someone mentioned I think already, we do see that trend on FR, everytime anything remotely relating to women comes up. Not that it's all FR; it's just a microcosm of men at large to me, and disturbing and irritating.
Sounds like it would give the wives who file 80% of divorces an incentive to try to make the marriage work better
My favorit case is an obscure florida case where the court found the denial of sexual relations to be abuse and thus the wife could not use that against the husband for his obtaining a mistress.
I would regard chronic refusal of relations to be just as much a violation of the marriage vows as adultery
Don't even start. You don't know my men. They have PLENTY of "self-confidence".
How dare you suggest my father or my husband or cousins will wilt under a little pressure. You know nothing of them, but I was hoping I might get a point across. They are winners, not losers.
Too many of whom you obviously think are "self-confident" (which you obviously equate with macho, just like you equate shyness with cockolded wimp) men are just plain jackasses, too. I can play that game of simplistic synonyms, too.
Methinks you see things in too simple B&W, when there are most definitely shades of gray in personalities. You can't just label every person either "wimp" or "self-confident".
I did not post any such thing. "How dare you?" is the age-old cry of the control freak, so it sounds like you are used to shouting down your men. No wonder shyness appeals to you.
Since I now know what I am dealing with, there is no more to say.
Like you, I prefer my women with nothing at all on their skin
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.