Posted on 01/17/2007 6:29:11 AM PST by AT7Saluki
The Times got their numbers from the Census Bureau's new American Community Survey, which surveyed "117 million women over the age of 15." Wait a minute. "Over the age of 15"?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
News flash: 90% of ten year olds are living with no spouse.
I would imagine those over 90 are probably also sans spouse.
That's 75% of the women in my household. Two daughters (20 and 21) are attending college, the baby (17) is home attending high school. I've got a real crisis and demand government assistance. It's for the women!
For all intents and purposes, 100% of New York Times reporters are 'Living Without Brains'. This study includes New York Times reporters over the age of 0.
What's that in dog and cat years?
Probably poorly worded. Given the fact that in many jurisdictions an 16-year old can legally live alone, they should have been clear on who was included.
not in pakistan,
afterall, they can get divorced once they attain puberty!
If one calendar year is seven dog years, then a dog minute is about 8.6 seconds.
So, your dog is begging for food from you, and you tell him, "Wait a minute." After about eight or nine seconds . . . .
"Woof, woof!"
Not in eastern Tennessee.
uh oh!
you mean the numbers were skewed!
Oh well guys...don't let that get in the way of women bashing...please proceed anyway.
In 1950, the average age for marriage was 20, so a significant number of women were married in their teens. Today teen marriage is rare, but you are comparing marriage rate over time you have to use the same pool- women 15 and over.
It is obvious that the whole purpose of this study is to denigrate marriage, to portray it as a useless, outdated institution.
The MSM's relentless attack on marriage and the family continues.
No women of 15 got legally married in the 50's so a true rate over time would be legal marriages so, the study should be 18+.
The exception should not make the rule.
My 16 year old daughter is a High School Junior, and qualifies as not living with a man. If you exclude dad (me), that's correct, if wholly misleading.
Well remember, they want to accurately reflect the social customs of immigrants, illegal and otherwise, and marriage at 15 is very common among these communities.
Oh well guys...don't let that get in the way of women bashing...please proceed anyway.
When I saw those threads yesterday, my first inkling was something like skewed polls (not like the NY Slimes hasn't done that before) and did not reply to those. I do know some women living without spouses, but most of those are in college as is my 21 yr old daughter.
I do agree that the point of the article was to celebrate the single lifestyle. But I also think the fact that our attitude toward fifteen year olds being married supports the premise that our attitude toward marriage has drastically changed. One hundred years ago we wouldn't have batted an eye at a fifteen year old being married. Even in the 50s when Loretta Lynn married at 13 nobody thought anything about it. My uncle got married at 13 in 1930 to an 18 year old. That would probably bring criminal charges today, and they were married over 70 happy years!
So basically it cuts both ways--the story is somewhat anachronisitc in lumping teen wives into its mix, but the fact that we frown on such marriages today does support the notion that our attitudes have drastically changed.
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.