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.
So, in spite of all the push for equality in this and other countries for many decades, the fact is that gender roles remain the reality for the vast majority of people.
As if they are an immutable law of human life.
Gender roles don't equate to equality. I can have equal legal rights and equal opportunities and still be a SAHM, or I can have a career. But yes gender roles are slow to change especially in religious areas. I would not say immutable law but deeply ingrained.
In my 50+ years I have seen high schools girls going from planning their hope chest to planning their education and career. I've seen fathers going from zero childcare to carrying baby in a baby carrier while grocery shopping to being a SAHD.
I laughed when I read men have less needs. My husband LOVES to spend money, and never met an electronic he didn't like. I'M the one who restricts the spending... or we would be broke.
This habit of my dearly departed grandfather is how I ended up with an ice cream maker, a huge TV (he thought it was too small and gave it to me when he replaced it after a year), and a mini pie press. My grandmother is still trying to get me to take the meat slicer that was used twice in a decade off of her hands.
He also convinced my grandmother she needed the souped up Prius with all the trimmings - sports package, high performance suspension, etc. She drove it a grand total of 6000 miles in 3 years before she gave it to me because the battery kept dying due to only driving about 20 minutes a week.
He could certainly afford it, but no one would ever accuse my grandmother of being the spender in that relationship.
Would displaying their peacock tail feathers not be mans own ego at work?
What is it you believe men's satisfy-able needs are compared to what women want more of.
Women tend to impress with looks. Dieting, clothes (girdles, wonder bras), hair, make-up. Men generally arent looking for a woman with possessions and earning potential. And there are historical reasons for the way each gender goes about attracting a mate.
People do marry within their socioeconomic group, generally. Income with in the same group is comparable, that is why it is a socio-ECONOMIC GROUP. Statistics also show unmarried men and unmarried women's incomes are comparable. So no there is no invisible hand paring higher socioeconomic men with lower socioeconomic women.
So what study because articles I read indicate that baby boom as well as previous fracking booms was among married couples. If your referring to Kearney's study it did NOT show any difference in marital and non marital births just an increase in overall births which is consistent when there is an income boom.
Study shows that baby boom was driven by unmarried women.
Given that the Times also finds that "the sharp rise in single-parent families has contributed to sky-high inequality," many economists have struggled to figure out how to induce working-class couples to marry. But if a steady income doesn't make a man marriageable anymore, what does?
Well, larger religious and cultural expectations can help. But education certainly seems to help most, possibly because it speaks to a person's long-term job prospects and earning potential.
Kearney and Wilson say as much in their intro, noting, "non-marital childbearing has become the norm among young mothers and mothers with low levels of education."
Economists: Men now need more than just money to be 'marriageable'
Lower income women enabled by state refuse to marry their social male peers (even much better paid peers) in full accordance with the laws of hypergamy but it no longer stimulates men to comply with woman' expectations, men just leave the game since openly hypergamous and promiscuous women of questionable loyalty and utility do not inspire men to work and sacrifice. Self feeding loop.
Ok.
What exact biological component drives a man to want a virgin. Historically men have sought out the company of prostitutes, slept with other men's wives, etc. Of course no one want a partner that disgusts them
Her progeny?
The need for assurance of paternity had to do with inheritance, not putting labor and life on the line for a female.
Your mistaken if you believe that wives are not doing the lions share of domestic duties and childcare on top of working outside the home. Look at any study, look around.
There mus be a lot of really repressed men then because penis size and measuring up in the bedroom have always been a big concern for men.
Wish I had a dollar for every time I have listened to men discussing/comparing their wankers or sexcapaids or been asked about previous sex partners.
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.
Because men and woman are supposed to be equal. Ask men if they care whether a woman has a stable job and income. It's not so important to them.
But if women can make money now why does it matter so much if the man doesn't? You would think in the past women wouldn't marry a deadbeat because he had to make all the money, but the opposite is happening now that women are making more money and getting more college degrees.
Why on earth would a successful woman - however you define success - want to marry a deadbeat? Who needs to be legally responsible for a guy who can’t pay his bills?
When I was growing up, 60+ years ago, men were the crackerjack prize, everyone wanted one and expected to get one, and getting one was cause for celebration. I can understand why some men are nostalgic for that, but it’s time to move on.
Just as I’ve never expected a man to financially support me, I’m not interested in a man who expects me to support him. He does not have to have more money than me, but he does have to make my life better emotionally and intellectually.
Well of course there are unequal opportunities and those in higher economic classes have greater opportunities than those in lower economic classes, those with political and legal pull often have greater opportunities than those that dont. That is not racism as it applies to all. How long should it take a group of people to overcome disadvantages of discrimination once there is equal opportunities and laws?
There is not unequal opportunity. If its an option....its an opportunity. I have the option and opportunity to become President of the United States. In other words, its POSSIBLE. Possibilities are open to all Americans.....and this is what people often call "Opportunity" and since there is no law limiting possibilities according to race, any longer,....things are said to be of "equal opportunity". Equal possibilities, however, are not equal probabilities. Just because its possible for me to run for president does not mean that its probable that I could ever become president......despite the "opportunity" to run for it.
How long does it take a leg to heal from a fracture? Does it vary by race with any significance? If black people have not recovered from the impact of centuries of racism yet, despite equal opportunity under the law, that means that it obviously takes more time than the time since equal opportunity under the law manifested. How would I know how long it should take? All I know is that it has not taken place and there is no group who has set the baseline of recovery in the same time and space, from racial oppression.
Study shows that baby boom was driven by unmarried women.
Given that the Times also finds that "the sharp rise in single-parent families has contributed to sky-high inequality," many economists have struggled to figure out how to induce working-class couples to marry. But if a steady income doesn't make a man marriageable anymore, what does?
Well, larger religious and cultural expectations can help. But education certainly seems to help most, possibly because it speaks to a person's long-term job prospects and earning potential.
Kearney and Wilson say as much in their intro, noting, "non-marital childbearing has become the norm among young mothers and mothers with low levels of education."
Economists: Men now need more than just money to be 'marriageable'
Lower income women enabled by state refuse to marry their social male peers (even much better paid peers) in full accordance with the laws of hypergamy but it no longer stimulates men to comply with woman' expectations, men just leave the game since openly hypergamous and promiscuous women of questionable loyalty and utility do not inspire men to work and sacrifice. Self feeding loop.
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.
Why on earth would a successful woman - however you define success - want to marry a deadbeat? Who needs to be legally responsible for a guy who can’t pay his bills?
When I was growing up, 60+ years ago, men were the crackerjack prize, everyone wanted one and expected to get one, and getting one was cause for celebration. I can understand why some men are nostalgic for that, but it’s time to move on.
Just as I’ve never expected a man to financially support me, I’m not interested in a man who expects me to support him. He does not have to have more money than me, but he does have to make my life better emotionally and intellectually.
For the same reason men supported deadbeat wives for millennia perhaps?
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.
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.
