U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-09-2019, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Middle of the ocean
32,781 posts, read 20,733,004 times
Reputation: 47357

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
For the same reason men supported deadbeat wives for millennia perhaps?

I think I was a deadbeat wife!!!! My husband loved it. All he had to do was go to work and groom himself. Everything else was always taken care of (oops, he still had to mow).

But in my defense I have a pretty good net worth.
__________________
____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs

 
Old 09-09-2019, 12:56 PM
 
5,328 posts, read 5,188,418 times
Reputation: 6436
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares View Post
No it didnt. the study said marriage rates did not increase. It did not say the boom was driven by unmarried women. The was no difference in change in the birth rate between married and unmarried women. That out of wedlock births are high ~40% overall has nothing to do with fracking booms and increased births.

From the paper:

There has been a well-documented retreat from marriage among less educated individuals in the U.S. and non-marital childbearing has become the norm among young mothers and mothers with low levels of education. One hypothesis is that the declining economic position of men in these populations is at least partially responsible for these trends. That leads to the reverse hypothesis that an increase in potential earnings of less-educated men would correspondingly lead to an increase in marriage and a reduction in non-marital births. To investigate this possibility, we empirically exploit the positive economic shock associated with localized “fracking booms” throughout the U.S. in recent decades. We confirm that these localized fracking booms led to increased wages for non-college-educated men. A reduced form analysis reveals that in response to local-area fracking production, both marital and non-marital births increase and there is no evidence of an increase in marriage rates. The pattern of results is consistent with positive income effects on births, but no associated increase in marriage. We compare our findings to the family formation response to the Appalachian coal boom experience of the 1970s and 1980s, when it appears that marital births and marriage rates increased, but non-marital births did not. This contrast potentially suggests important interactions between economic forces and social context.
You are right marriage rates did not respond to higher incomes but marital and non marital births increased. I do not believe I've made any claims as far as differences in birth rates for married and unmarried women. All I said that women are quite happy to get a personal child support mule with no marriage strings attached, because that mule is not upwardly mobile enough and he can break his back or lose his job anytime. This behavior is result of state enabled hypergamy. Single women are confident that state will shake up the roughnecks for cash while they are looking for better options or just enjoying life.
 
Old 09-09-2019, 12:57 PM
 
6,835 posts, read 4,724,531 times
Reputation: 13544
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
For the same reason men supported deadbeat wives for millennia perhaps?
Since millennia, men (for the most part) wanted women at home tending to women’s work. Educating women past the feminine “arts” of cooking, sewing, childcare and cleaning was considered a waste of time. In fact, men (for the most part) believed women were incapable of learning anything more. Not to mention men passed laws that kept women from owning property or having any money of her own. Men (for the most part) were happy with this arrangement where all the power in society and marriage was theirs.

Repressing someone to the point where they have little to no choice and then complaining they’re deadbeats” when they can’t earn a living. Classic.

Last edited by UNC4Me; 09-09-2019 at 01:08 PM..
 
Old 09-09-2019, 01:00 PM
 
Location: Old Hippie Heaven
18,823 posts, read 8,573,152 times
Reputation: 11176
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
For the same reason men supported deadbeat wives for millennia perhaps?
I have no idea why a man would financially support a deadbeat wife. Big boobs?

BTW, going back millennia, most wives worked, and worked HARD. They just didn’t get to control the fruits of their labor. If you’re working hard, you’re not a deadbeat. A domestic slave perhaps, but not a deadbeat.
 
Old 09-09-2019, 01:01 PM
 
324 posts, read 69,596 times
Reputation: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
True but only males with exceptional looks and youth have success with things like Tinder. In fact they have all the success and monopolize all the women because even undesirable and ugly women view any male who isn't exceptionally attractive as a non-person of no more value than an earth worm.
incel spotted.
 
Old 09-09-2019, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Cumberland Co., TN
22,589 posts, read 22,127,173 times
Reputation: 21876
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Yep, there are lots of repressed males. Men will sleep with a promiscuous woman but few want to marry or associate with one, even repressed ones do not want that, it is rooted in ancient biology way before the age of property and inheritance. Mammals are really brutal in that regard. Male mammals kill other male' progeny. I know many wives and women, compared to women of the past ages they do not do much at home, sorry. Especially rural women. Men give up expectations, women build up expectations. At the end we'll end up more like chimps.
One we are not lower animals and you can not compare any particular lower animals behavior to human behavior. How many human men you know that killed their step children. How many women eat their babies?

if men will not marry promiscuous women explain why very few women are virgins when they marry.
While your at it explain basis of why you believe there is a biological component that drives men to have sex with virgins. Prostitution is as old as the bible. Men have never, generally, given a rip that a woman has had multiple sexual partners. To the contrary sexual urges are driven by hormones. We all know those aren't discriminating.

Marriage was to unite families and strengthen those bonds to increase wealth and virgin test was to insure paternity for inheritance. This goes back to the middle ages.

And while you may know women who dont do as much house work as women "in past ages" that does not change the fact that all studies/interviews show women do most of the housework and childcare as well as work outside the home, or that actual data shows women are the ones drop out of the workforce to care for children or that the fact that studies show inequality in domestic responsibilities is a contributing factor to divorce.
 
Old 09-09-2019, 01:08 PM
 
5,328 posts, read 5,188,418 times
Reputation: 6436
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
I have no idea why a man would financially support a deadbeat wife. Big boobs?

BTW, going back millennia, most wives worked, and worked HARD. They just didn’t get to control the fruits of their labor. If you’re working hard, you’re not a deadbeat.
they do. It is not that uncommon. Of course higher grade of deadbeat "trophy" wives has good looks etc., but some average looking gals pushing 300 lbs also enjoy full financial etc. support. I guess men still have rudiments of obligation towards their deadbeat wives or she'll take them to cleaners in a divorce court so it is cheaper to keep her.
 
Old 09-09-2019, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Cumberland Co., TN
22,589 posts, read 22,127,173 times
Reputation: 21876
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
For the same reason men supported deadbeat wives for millennia perhaps?
Because men are are not permitted to work, or have limited job opportunities with half the pay?
 
Old 09-09-2019, 01:18 PM
 
825 posts, read 530,931 times
Reputation: 253
The feminist movement is converging with our current economic climate. Women are much more empowered these days and "old" roles have been vacated naturally.

As jobs become more scarce the old roles women used to take on will be more available and more attractive imo. In my belief this is where a big percentage of women belong (not everyone). More care in raising kids needs to emphasized. Kids don't need to be raised by overflowing day care centers and schools. This is why Andrew Yang as president appeals to me.

If women don't want to accept this evolution then men can raise the kids and women can go be the bread winners. It doesn't matter as long as someone is raising our kids. The importance of it all is defining each others roles, something that is lost in todays society. Far too many distractions and self loathing happening.
 
Old 09-09-2019, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Cumberland Co., TN
22,589 posts, read 22,127,173 times
Reputation: 21876
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
You are right marriage rates did not respond to higher incomes but marital and non marital births increased. I do not believe I've made any claims as far as differences in birth rates for married and unmarried women. All I said that women are quite happy to get a personal child support mule with no marriage strings attached, because that mule is not upwardly mobile enough and he can break his back or lose his job anytime. This behavior is result of state enabled hypergamy. Single women are confident that state will shake up the roughnecks for cash while they are looking for better options or just enjoying life.
Really?
You: Recent study of North Dakota oil boom showed that a spike in male' income lead to a spite of out of wedlock births and marriage stagnation or decline.
You: Study shows that baby boom was driven by unmarried women.

Twice there you claimed the spike in male's income led to a spike in out of wedlock births.

Need reminded that average child support is ~$400/month. A woman is better off working and earning 2500/month and enjoying life than getting that 400$, food stamps and being responsible for a child 24/7, diapers, puke, snot, crying, etc. for 18+ years.
There is no data on the relationship status of those unmarried births either. Stats do show young people are forgoing legal marriage but are cohabiting as a married couple.
And what better options would a unemployed single mother have if men are biologically repelled by non virgins and other men's progeny?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top