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.
Why is this about men? I'd say it's equally true about women.
Back in the day, women felt that *had* to get married. For one, it was driven into your brain by society. I mean, if you weren't married, GASP, you could become a SPINSTER.
Two, women did not have the career opportunities that men had. If they did have jobs, they were at a fraction of the pay that men received. So, it was pretty much impossible to be independent.
Three, some women like children and want to have them. Children outside of marriage were stigmatized so, in order to have children, you needed a partner.
Those "rules" are changing.
It's not a big deal to be a "spinster" anymore. In fact, it's often times looking attractive. Who wants to spend their lives taking care of some big baby of man?
Career opportunities now (minus the horrible economy), are much better for women than there were, say, even in the 1960s and 1970s. We CAN get a job and support ourselves.
While I don't think single parenting is fun for anyone, if you really want a child and the right guy doesn't come along, I think you can be a great mom.
In order to get marriage rates back up, yes, elect Santorum, who will wage his war on women, set us back to the 1950s, where women will again be forced to be shackled to a man in adulthood. Then women will go back to the mindset of "you can't have any of THIS without a ring on it." Men will then be forced to marry if they want sex but don't care for prostitutes. Ah, the good old days.
Last edited by ChristineVA; 02-25-2012 at 05:57 AM..
Why is this about men? I'd say it's equally true about women.
Back in the day, women felt that *had* to get married. For one, it was driven into your brain by society. I mean, if you weren't married, GASP, you could become a SPINSTER.
Two, women did not have the career opportunities that men had. If they did have jobs, they were at a fraction of the pay that men received. So, it was pretty much impossible to be independent.
Three, some women like children and want to have them. Children outside of marriage were stigmatized so, in order to have children, you needed a partner.
Those "rules" are changing.
It's not a big deal to be a "spinster" anymore. In fact, it's often times looking attractive. Who wants to spend their lives taking care of some big baby of man?
Career opportunities now (minus the horrible economy), are much better for women than there were, say, even in the 1960s and 1970s. We CAN get a job and support ourselves.
While I don't single parenting is fun for anyone, if you really want a child and the right guy doesn't come along, I think you can be a great mom.
In order to get marriage rates back up, yes, elect Santorum, who will wage his war on women, set us back to the 1950s, where women will again be forced to be shackled to a man in adulthood. Then women will go back to the mindset of "you can't have any of THIS without a ring on in." Men will then be forced to marry if they want sex but don't care for prostitutes. Ah, the good old days.
There is no such thing as a war on women. You Obama worshipers made it up to keep Liberal women frantic.
Women can choose to be single Mom's but it's best to have a Mom and a Dad in that child's life. Oh, but it's all about you.
Realistically they could change divorce laws to not completely destroy men's lives. Any man who enters marriage without a prenup is an idiot, he will get taken to the cleaners, rich or poor. A lot of men are smart enough to realize that entering an unequal social contract is stupid and bad for them.
Marriage rates have been falling the US and across Europe. Why? I don't know. I'd say men no longer view marriage as a sign of maturity and wanted responsibility while women want as much "indepedence" and "power" as possible.
It seems like as a society we're becoming increasingly individualistic. We're """
"WE're" ??? Who is this "we're" ...speak for yourself!!!
"""afraid to become attached to someone lest we have to sacrifice our own happiness for someone else. """
SO !??????? We have the RIGHT to pursue happiness and why would anyone have to sacrifice their's's?????? YOU say we should all be unhappy so we have a stable society??? NUTS to that!
"""Personally, I support the Republicans' view that the family (composed of more than one parent) is the foundation of a moral and successful society. But even they are too afraid to openly oppose those who have children outside of marriage or those who engage in the excessive casual sex.
HOW do yo "oppose" having children outside of marriage?
HOW do you "oppose" casual sex?
This is the United States....isn't it the land of the FREE?
YOU want BIGGER government interferring in people's sex lives????
YOU want a Moral Utopia run by whom? You? The government? Some $@!*^# preacher??
Why? If boys were taught from birth that women are equal to men it wouldn't take "Dad" but any parent or mentor.....they would have respect for the PERSON, the advice, not which sex gave it because that would be stupid...
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.
