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.
I was actually talking about the workplace, not necessarily divorce. I am aware of Reagan signing a no-fault divorce law as governor and the rapid spread of no-fault divorce to almost all states by the end of the '70s and to all states by the end of the 20th century. I am aware of how difficult it was to get a divorce before that (the divorce laws in South Carolina being unchanged from colonial days were especially ridiculous!) It's interesting to me how no-fault divorce spread so fast even to socially conservative states with little outcry (Alabama and Mississippi adapted no-fault divorce not long after California did). Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote before she was a SCOTUS justice that if not for Roe v. Wade abortion would have spread without controversy much like no fault divorce did, because it was not imposed by the SCOTUS but by the states themselves. Justice Ginsburg is a strong supporter of abortion rights and Roe, but she acknowledges that the way abortion was legalized helped fuel the pro-life movement. If SCOTUS had declared divorce laws unconstitutional as it did with not only abortion but also the death penalty in the '70s, no doubt no-fault would have been more controversial.
A large part of the reason for less divorce is less marriage and more illegitimacy.
I have to disagree with your reasoning as well as that of Justice Ginsberg comparing no-fault divorce with abortion. Even though social conservatives dislike both, no-fault divorce has nowhere near the same level of moral ramifications as abortion in their eyes. So whether abortion would have been decriminalized by the SCOTUS or declared a state issue, socially conservative states would never approve it.
My two cents but I notice this thread is becoming a discussion about the social environment of the post war era and the economic discussion is getting left behind.
A jihad against males? For decades women have been sexually harassed or abused and remained silent, now they come out and it's a jihad against males? Well, how about this, men should keep their hands to themselves and watch what they say to women and they won't have to worry. In part what's happened recently is an overreaction and in time it will settle down but I am 100% convinced that what brought this to a head is women having to look at the groper in chief POTUS every day and it brings back every bad memory of situations when men have acted inappropriately with them.
Except that marriage rates are up, not down. "Marriage rates, on the other hand, increased last year. In 2015, there were 32.2 marriages for every 1,000 unmarried women age 15 or older, according to the National Center for Family and Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University. This represents a jump from 31.9 in 2014 and is the highest number of marriages since 2009, which suggests that marriage rates may be stabilizing after decades of decline." Divorce Rate in U.S. Drops to Nearly 40-Year Low | Time
If one's most concerned with reducing sexual harrassment in the workplace, the most effective way to reduce it would be to have lower participation of women. Obviously it would not be eliminated - and same-sex harrassment not affected - but it would be heavily reduced. I not only do not support this but think it would be a major tragedy if female participation in the workplace was reduced, as more opportunity and representation for women is good for both sexes and for the economy and society in general. But I could easily see that coming, thanks to those women who thought that it was a good idea to target men for being men rather than merely fighting bullying and humiliation of all types at work.
I graduated high school in 66..blue collar jobs that you only needed a high school education and could support a family on were a dime a dozen..gone, gone, gone are those days..
Now you need a college degree to make $12 an hour with no benefits.
If one's most concerned with reducing sexual harrassment in the workplace, the most effective way to reduce it would be to have lower participation of women. Obviously it would not be eliminated - and same-sex harrassment not affected - but it would be heavily reduced. I not only do not support this but think it would be a major tragedy if female participation in the workplace was reduced, as more opportunity and representation for women is good for both sexes and for the economy and society in general. But I could easily see that coming, thanks to those women who thought that it was a good idea to target men for being men rather than merely fighting bullying and humiliation of all types at work.
How do you know that they are not? Do you have any evidence that this isn't about fighting bullying and harassment? It sounds like this is just your assumptions and opinions.
Do any of us really know what type of behavior has went on in industries and workplaces we are not a part of?
How do you know that they are not? Do you have any evidence that this isn't about fighting bullying and harassment? It sounds like this is just your assumptions and opinions.
Do any of us really know what type of behavior has went on in industries and workplaces we are not a part of?
This is all about getting back at men for injustices whether real, percieved, or imagined. It is not about wanting a better environment for men as well as women. Initially it was against straight white men, then it expanded to go after gay white men, then straight men of color, now all men. The "metoo" folks think men deserve being bullied and harrassed at work as "payback"
These sort of antics may be a contributing factor in why companies prefer to outsource jobs and hire foreigners less likely to complain than Americans (with illegals being the most docile of all)
This is all about getting back at men for injustices whether real, percieved, or imagined. It is not about wanting a better environment for men as well as women. Initially it was against straight white men, then it expanded to go after gay white men, then straight men of color, now all men. The "metoo" folks think men deserve being bullied and harrassed at work as "payback"
These sort of antics may be a contributing factor in why companies prefer to outsource jobs and hire foreigners less likely to complain than Americans (with illegals being the most docile of all)
The more you simply offer up opinions without anything to back up the less legs you have to stand on. Unless you have something to back up your claims this discussion you want to rant about is pointless.
My two cents but I notice this thread is becoming a discussion about the social environment of the post war era and the economic discussion is getting left behind.
Since the economic progress has left 99% of us behind in the last 40 years, we have to look for other signs of improvement.
I like this chart, but it's important to read it correctly. Real GDP/capita has increased ~1.9%/yr since the mid 1800s. A consistent yearly % increase will take the form of an exponential rise (consistently steeper slope). Over long time periods you'd expect wages to keep pace with per capita GDP, and this was the case from 1860 to the mid 1970s. Prior to 1930 wages lagged a bit (~1.6%/yr rise), but the imbalance was corrected in the following 45 years when wages increased at a ~3%/yr rate. And then the bottom fell out. Since then the yearly increase has been 0.0%.
If one's most concerned with reducing sexual harrassment in the workplace, the most effective way to reduce it would be to have lower participation of women.
No, the most effective way to reduce sexual harassment in the workplace would be for men to act like adults rather than 15 year old boys, but given your line of reasoning maybe women should all wear burkas so the guys don't get too excited?
No, the most effective way to reduce sexual harassment in the workplace would be for men to act like adults rather than 15 year old boys, but given your line of reasoning maybe women should all wear burkas so the guys don't get too excited?
I was talking about what is actually possible
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.
