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.
Can this be good for the country? Studies have shown that raising a child without a father is usually detrimental to the child in the long run. I am a "Millennial" man who is engaged and we decided to not have kids until we get married and it seems that we are no longer the norm. Why is this happening?
Why is it happening? Poor parenting, and a deterioration of societal ethical and moral standards and expectations.
Of course it's not the norm anymore, how could it be in a society that encourages infidelity among other things?
I don't even know if I qualify as a millenial being born in the 80s but i'm not far off either way, and can definitely relate. The good news for you is that you are ahead of me, you have that special someone, and you have a plan, together. That's awesome and I hope you stick to your beliefs and goals, because we as a nation need families like yours.
It's absolutely true a child needs a father, as a child growing up without one until my teenage years, I know this both from education and real world experience.
I hope to be in your shoes one day, my challenge right now is finding that special someone that is willing to partake on that life jorney with me! If you can point me towards the town/city, whatever magical and mythical land of milk and honey where I could find such a significant other that shares our superior and sound values and ideas of an ideal family nucleus and upbringing for children, I am all ears!
But back to your comment. The final point you make is that it is 'heinous' for women to have children with different men. Do you still feel this way in cases where the woman is a widow? Or in cases of domestic abuse, if the woman finds love in a safer relationship?
I'm pretty sure you can safely arrive to the conclusion that the person you quoted didn't mean in an absolute sense without exception the fact that your best retort is "what about widows?" shows that you're truly reaching, pointing out an exception to a rule, or an outlier in a study doesn't refute the main point or conclusion, it's a pretty elementary attempt of a counter argument, and coming from someone who seems educated, it's apalling.
Absolutely not. Because we do not observe a preponderance of rationality in selecting mates and making correct life decisions, does not imply that we should accept irrationality in making these decisions. The failure to emphasize Reason as the cardinal factor of successful human life is a philosophical defect in our thinking that needs correction. Because we see stupidity is not a reason to accept stupidity.
Therefore, if we see single parenthood, a 50% divorce rate, and irrational behavior such as hook ups and shack ups, the correct procedure is point out the deficiencies inherent in the behaviors that cause these fails and suggest a rational alternative to prevent them.
Everyone is capable of being rational, but many have not been taught that it is not only within their capability, but vital to their successful survival. I don't accept throwing up our hands and adopting relativism that permits continued failing behavior that leads to single parents, divorces, and abandoned kids. Reason solves all of this quickly and efficiently, and almost everyone is capable of using it to live a better life.
"Everyone is capable of being rational". That sounds like Rousseau. Rose colored glasses. The existence of the potential does not imply the likelihood of it being the ruling force. The universe is essentially violent. We create mythology to try to put it under the rule of some god that contradicts its very nature. That's wishful thinking. You can demand rationality. But enforce it? Not the slightest chance. Where's the "court" to judge irrational behavior. All the courts we create are irrational, too. Adversarial systems which consist of a war of half-truths are more cultural than rational. And about anything but a "search for the truth". If they wanted truth, they wouldn't try to stack juries. They want emotion.
Again, a large percentage, even a majority, of people seeking parenthood are unqualified. You can marry them or have them "shacking up", but they just aren't qualified. And the product of whatever relationship they have is how we have rampant drug problems, gender reassignment, youth crime. In the end, no one is responsible at all. But the people wise enough to restrain their urge to procreate are innocent bystanders picking up the share of a cost they were too rational to cause.
"Everyone is capable of being rational". That sounds like Rousseau. Rose colored glasses. The existence of the potential does not imply the likelihood of it being the ruling force. The universe is essentially violent. We create mythology to try to put it under the rule of some god that contradicts its very nature. That's wishful thinking. You can demand rationality. But enforce it? Not the slightest chance. Where's the "court" to judge irrational behavior. All the courts we create are irrational, too. Adversarial systems which consist of a war of half-truths are more cultural than rational. And about anything but a "search for the truth". If they wanted truth, they wouldn't try to stack juries. They want emotion.
Again, a large percentage, even a majority, of people seeking parenthood are unqualified. You can marry them or have them "shacking up", but they just aren't qualified. And the product of whatever relationship they have is how we have rampant drug problems, gender reassignment, youth crime. In the end, no one is responsible at all. But the people wise enough to restrain their urge to procreate are innocent bystanders picking up the share of a cost they were too rational to cause.
There is an evolutionary reason for being careless on the issue of mate selection, of course...I sometimes wonder if everybody waited until they found the "right" person with no red flags, would the human species still even exist?
There is an evolutionary reason for being careless on the issue of mate selection, of course...I sometimes wonder if everybody waited until they found the "right" person with no red flags, would the human species still even exist?
LOL, I was just about to post something to that effect.... that would quickly solve any overpopulation issues.
Also, wrt spotting domestic abuser signs early on - many abusive partners are very skilled at hiding this part of their character at the beginning of a relationship. "How could that be, he was so charming?" They don't start out obviously abusive, they lure in their victims slowly until they find themselves trapped. Certainly there can be red flags, but they are often very subtle and we are still in the early stages of teaching people, particularly women, to recognize them.
On the original topic, in some ways marriage is a victim of its own success. It is so vaunted nowadays, with the expectation of grand over-the-top weddings and eternal bliss, that people often delay it until they think they can have that experience. Additionally, the self-righteous crowing about the superiority of the married condition has likely turned a lot of people off to the concept of marriage. But that doesn't stop people from having sex, and in a culture that is so dysfunctional about birth control and sex in general, it results in a lot of unplanned pregnancies (about half of all pregnancies are unplanned).
No, much more. We have a 50% divorce rate also. So in this hook-up, shack-up world that we live in, MOST people choose not to exercise much discretion or discrimination in picking partners. That needs to change.
Your right I meant to say 70% dont pick the right partner and only 25-30% do. (the divorce rate is not 50%).
And you believe that picking process is why there is and has always been much physical violence, mental abuse and infidelity in marriages leading to divorce and single parenthood?
And what of times when divorce was not an option? There was even more abuse and cheating.
The bottom line is your statement that abuse and cheating are rare in marriages is false.
Your declaration that the correct way is for marriage where the man works and the woman stays home is also false. The study you linked did not support that.
There is an evolutionary reason for being careless on the issue of mate selection, of course...I sometimes wonder if everybody waited until they found the "right" person with no red flags, would the human species still even exist?
Keep in mind that in our evolutionary past, human reproduction was -- like that of many modern apes and monkeys -- based on "sperm competition." Females regularly had intercourse with many males. At some point as socialization meandered its way along, we switched to "sperm competition avoidance" based on what amounts to ritual sexual exclusivity. All of it is irrational in the modern world. But that won't mean that it doesn't matter to some people.
It depends on what you actually measure and how (and how honestly) you measure it. Basically, divorce peaked in the early 70s after laws were liberalized. Rates have been going down ever since, though with an education bias to it. Current data suggest that 75% of marriages concluded in the past 10 years will ultimately be ended by the death of one of the partners. Things ain't what they used to be, but many are just not paying attention.
There is an evolutionary reason for being careless on the issue of mate selection, of course...I sometimes wonder if everybody waited until they found the "right" person with no red flags, would the human species still even exist?
Not only would it exist, but it would consist of fewer but much higher quality people with less mental illness and much higher character. The human race would be BETTER with less carelessness in mate selection.
Also, I think there is a presumption that high quality mates are rare. They are not. There are many good and honest and talented and focused people running around the planet with whom to form a family and plan a future.
It depends on what you actually measure and how (and how honestly) you measure it. Basically, divorce peaked in the early 70s after laws were liberalized. Rates have been going down ever since, though with an education bias to it. Current data suggest that 75% of marriages concluded in the past 10 years will ultimately be ended by the death of one of the partners. Things ain't what they used to be, but many are just not paying attention.
Right, like I said the divorce rate is not 50%.
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.
