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 ...
You wrote:
"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."
That directly insulted my men without you having any clue what you're talking about. That gets me incensed. Damn right.
In fact, it might surprise you to know that I am much more a shy person than "self-confident" - primarily thanks to "self-confident" "good-looking" peers in elementary school and so on who like to mercilessly beat on people who aren't "cute". I am definitely not any "control freak" (although there are certain things where I could be said to be so). Again, you know nothing about me, or my men.
PER ANOTHER FR THREAD
Turns out the NYT reporter counted ALL females from 15 on up.
How many 15 year olds are married in the USA?
I'll assume that getting into discussions of serial-killer techniques would bother you too much?
Poor Michelle...LOL!!!
You think wisely, Titan. Good luck to you. :-)
There is a whole industry (books, magazines, tv, radio, etc) and peer support network among women that constantly reinforces the concept that women's needs and wants are to be honored and indulged, but men's needs and wants are to be derided and dismissed.
It's incumbent on men - on a micro, not macro level - to firmly combat that mindset. Most appear not to. A shame. Sucks to be them.
Forget eharmony. If you answer the test with a solid set of values, you would be considered dangerous, a threat, maybe even a psycho criminal. I took the test a second time (using another e-mail address), spoofing as a spineless sensitive liberal Harvey Milquetoast. Passed with flying colors. According to that test, it tells me that according to eharmony.com's assessment women want doormats.
OTOH, some of us view a total stranger just waltzing in as intrusive and pushy and full of himself - even at a "meat market" (some of us actually want to dance more than anything). I know, it depends on the situation exactly, including his facade (real or fake).
Now, a more normal situation would be like at work. If you sort of get to know someone there over time, it might be aggravating if the "shy guy" doesn't "come on" to you. This would be a situation where the more confident guy has the advantage. Of course, the shy guy here also has the advantage that he has gotten to know you, and is not as likely to be afraid and might "get around to it". Not like a "total stranger" thing at all, on either side.
It doesn't have to be eHarmony. Just use a regular "dumb" service and check things out yourself. And give yourself a good description.
Match.com worked for me (eHarmony, BTW, was at the time extremely vexing as far as user-friendliness and just plain stupid hyperlinking). My husband - shy as he is ;-) - e-mailed me through it and well, here we are. And we lived 5 min from each other for 15 years. You see, just winging it through "real life" just doesn't net you all the possibilities.
Thanks. This has been an interesting thread, to say the least! :o)
LOL.
To each their own
Nobody's saying they should give up their standard of living...they're just saying it shouldn't come out of the ex's hide. Everyone should enjoy the standard of living they can support.
If a husband leaves a wife and family for a younger model, it should come out of his hide. Sorry.
I think women tend toward the social aspect of church more.
Now...that's not your friend...that's the plot from that movie City Slickers ;-)
As I recall, there was a statistic about the number of "kids" killed with guns. That story included "kids" up to age 25.
The left is pretty flexible about definitions, aren't they? Any statistic offered by a leftie should be met with skepticism bordering on cynicism.
Some gals like it when you hold the door, some don't. You can't generalize.
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.