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 ...
True That. Problem is, however, being a chameleon with my values strikes me as disingenuous at best, manipulative at worst.
Just gotta find a lady, as opposed to a woman. Optimism still reigns.
Like you said, chatting up women is not a big deal and is an easily learned skill.
...going back through this epiphanic blast of a thread.
Gotta admit, though, upon reflection, there IS one female "indulgence" that absolutely gets under my skin:
- leaving beverage cans around that are half-full. Finish it or dump it out! ;o)
Sorry, don't agree. I wasn't the one burning bras, or pushing for restraining-orders-on-demand...it was your "sisters."
Whether you wanted equality or not, you got it...deal with it. I'm amazed at the mindset of entitlement that women have...men will always be expected to be gentlemen, and responsible...women will be encouraged to "find themselves."
That would require parity in the population,and women outnumber men, so no, it would be statistically impossible for 51% of men to also be living without a spouse.
We're in rare disagreement here Jeeves. I'm 100% opposed to either partner assuming a leadership role. I'm certainly not the leader in this relationship, and I'm damned sure not subordinate. It just works better when you have two full independant adults in charge of their own lives.
I think that's the way a lot of us live. I know I like it. :)
Yes it does. Shyness is a weakness. Period.
Shyness is a fear of people, how could you ever spin that into anything other than a weakness? I'm afraid of snakes, do you think I'm going to pretend that's a virtue?
I think most women want it this way, despite all of those layers of feminist conditioning the popular culture has forced upon them. It in no way diminshes her independence or value, but the relationship must be a balance of yin/yang energy, and I believe one member must take the yang (male) role for it to work in the long run. And knowing your past posts, I suspect in your relationship that person is you...and also that she likes it that way. ;)
Women marry men because of who they are and divorce them because they dislike how they changed them.
Sometimes men divorce women, or haven't you heard? Nothing like a blanket statement to show depth of character, or lack thereof.
Gee, someone really did you wrong. I'm talking about the cases where a woman marries a man, puts him through school, has kids, stays home caring for the children and the home while the man builds his business. Then, when he reaches success, he kicks her over for a younger trophy wife. It happens, and it happens alot. And that goes for men as well. If the roles are reversed...as sometimes they are now, they deserve the alimony as well.
gotcha!
My 'problem' is living through the last 30 years as an adult, white male, trying to do the right and responsible thing, and realizing in hindsight that I was a chump. Feminism has driven much of the societal and legal change over the last 30 years, and in hindsight it's been about maximizing choices and empowerment for women, and minimizing consequences and responsibilities...accomplished, to some degree, by man bashing and making-it-up-as-you-go.
Sleep with the wrong person, and someone's preggers? If you're a woman, your choices are just starting...if you're a man, your responsibilities are just starting. That role isn't being reversed.
The rules are made up as they go...presumptive restraining orders, for example, have permanently changed family law. That means that a woman just has to say that she feels threatened by her spouse, and she has a restraining order, period...he's out of the house, he's enjoined from seeing his children. It's the legal and moral equivalent of bringing a nuclear bomb to a knife fight. That role isn't being reversed, either.
I think your example may have been married during, say, the late 1960s...the marriage contract has been rewritten since then. Yet, he's the one who's being held to the terms, not her...he still has responsibilities, but she has choices. I don't see that role being reversed, either.
Or...maybe I don't understand what you mean when you say that roles are being reversed...
All I can say to men is choose well and be a good husband. But I'm sorry that I don't agree with your men as victim argument all the way. As long as women carry the child, they hold the trump card. It's never been otherwise. Why would you think it would be?
If one is to believe the argument that it is a woman's body and she can do with it what she wants, then she has the greater responsibility for her becoming pregnant. A man can't get pregnant, can't have sex with a woman without her permission, but he doesn't have any say in whether or not she aborts the baby or keeps it.
I'm not saying that a man has no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. It usually takes two for a pregnancy to happen. But, if it is her body, her choice to have sex, her choice to use birth control or not, then his responsibility is much less than hers. Right or wrong, the courts do not see it this way with regard to pregnancy. He must pay.
I'm not saying a many shouldn't pay, only that a woman gets to have it both ways. It's both her body and she's not fully responsible for her choices with regard to her body.
I can't argue with those facts.
"I'll assume that getting into discussions of serial-killer techniques would bother you too much?"
?
I completed a profile on eharmony.com , and just got rejected as well. I agree, they obviously don't want real men, but problably spineless wimps w/o a hint of negative emotions.
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.