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.
Anybody can be healthy and happy, whether they're single or in a relationship. Don't fall for that myth that married people are only ones healthier and happier than singles.
Anybody can be healthy and happy, whether they're single or in a relationship. Don't fall for that myth that married people are only ones healthier and happier than singles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by West of Encino
LOL
C'mon, you can't argue that you guys are healthy and happy. And it's not a matter of married/single.
You really have to stop reading that women's studies "research". It's garbage.
I've repped NARN too much, someone give him some rep +!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Stop lying. Is that all you guys can do? Lie, b*tch and complain that you can't get a woman to put up with you, b*tch and complain about other men, b*tch and complain about money, b*tch and complain about everything. I provide links from psych literature, but none of you guys ever bother to read it. You're lazy and that's exactly why you are where you are. With that said, my links aren't even needed. Your posts show that you are not doing well on your own at all. Otherwise, you would not be b*tching and complaining.
ORLY? I find it interesting that this has gotten you so worked up. NARN made an observation, which indeed is quite different than a complaint (something that your post in the quote provides a great example of).
I read those articles that you posted a few pages back and I find the first one to be rubbish. I'm curious about the author who wrote it in particular. The first paragraph is pure projection of a woman's issue onto a man, which is quite common within this type of publication. There are nearly three paragraphs devoted to the positive and social outcomes of women who have never married. There's a small uncited reference concerning men within the first paragraph which is very telling of the authors contempt for men who choose to pass on marriage.
As for article 2, well it's more thinly veiled rubbish hiding behind the exterior of biased PHD. This author sets up his points but he doesn't develop his statements, he just meanders off to a different point of focus. There's lots of beating around the bush with regards to his arguments about unmarried cohabitation and if marriage benefits women more (he's throwing lots of rhetorical questions around). I find it quite telling that he cites Stepfathers and Boyfriends as high risk child abusers when it's documented that women incite half of domestic violence disputes against men (and boys). He clearly lets you know that he's a proponent of pro marriage situations. There's lots of things to pick apart with his article, pure propaganda.
-----
To each their own. This started out as a fun thread, with lots of shallow and sarcastic jokes that were taken seriously by a few other forum members (Fresno is still in the first layer of hell though).
If your for marriage then that's fine. At the end of the day no one can judge your relationship, especially not on an internet message board. I for one don't prescribe to that lifestyle but if it floats your boat then so be it.
ORLY? I find it interesting that this has gotten you so worked up. NARN made an observation, which indeed is quite different than a complaint (something that your post in the quote provides a great example of).
Actually, we have been through this before with the women's studies claims, which you are obviously unaware of. This is what he does. He doesn't read anything linked, he just cries women's studies when he knows I have never taken a women's studies class in my life. The complaining has been going on for years now and it's always the same. That's not an observation on his part. It's just plain asinine and when I see it I note it.
Quote:
I read those articles that you posted a few pages back and I find the first one to be rubbish. I'm curious about the author who wrote it in particular. The first paragraph is pure projection of a woman's issue onto a man, which is quite common within this type of publication. There are nearly three paragraphs devoted to the positive and social outcomes of women who have never married. There's a small uncited reference concerning men within the first paragraph which is very telling of the authors contempt for men who choose to pass on marriage.
I have no idea which points you are taking issue with. Is it the health comparisons, financial comparisons between married and single men? What? Would you like the census data, the vital statistics?
This is exactly what I get. Lazy arguments.
Quote:
As for article 2, well it's more thinly veiled rubbish hiding behind the exterior of biased PHD. This author sets up his points but he doesn't develop his statements, he just meanders off to a different point of focus. There's lots of beating around the bush with regards to his arguments about unmarried cohabitation and if marriage benefits women more (he's throwing lots of rhetorical questions around). I find it quite telling that he cites Stepfathers and Boyfriends as high risk child abusers when it's documented that women incite half of domestic violence disputes against men (and boys). He clearly lets you know that he's a proponent of pro marriage situations. There's lots of things to pick apart with his article, pure propaganda.
And here we go again. The author is talking about abuse of children, specifically, and you link something addressing domestic violence. That's not an argument against any point in the article. It's just a red herring. Why do that? Does it actually make sense to you? I'm really curious.
Quote:
To each their own. This started out as a fun thread, with lots of shallow and sarcastic jokes that were taken seriously by a few other forum members (Fresno is still in the first layer of hell though).
If your for marriage then that's fine. At the end of the day no one can judge your relationship, especially not on an internet message board. I for one don't prescribe to that lifestyle but if it floats your boat then so be it..
This thread is not about marriage. It started out addressing the reality of likes largely going with likes. On that point the OP and I agree. Any off topic discussion is what it is.
I'm curious about the author to the first article, if you can supply a name i'll list a more detail overview. Until then I don't really think these articles are worth spending time with. It has nothing to do with being lazy, its about not wasting time (that's what it comes down to reading these articles). I thought your temper tantrum was a little cute and I decided to indulge it. I don't need census data I can access that myself.
I went back and read through some more articles that the PHD wrote in other parts of that website, I noticed a pattern in his articles about marriage and domestic violence. No red herrings here, my link is context specific. To talk about healthy relationships and only mention one outcome in the spectrum of abuse is bias. I wonder if you read the link? I'm pretty certain that I could have linked this, this, or even this and your reply would be the same.
Instead of posting up an article, I'd like to see you actually take a stance and give more detailed responses as to why you chose them instead of two to three sentence blurbs.
This is derailing from the original and humorous (Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto...Hells Trifecta) thread. If you like to continue this send a DM.
I'm curious about the author to the first article, if you can supply a name i'll list a more detail overview. Until then I don't really think these articles are worth spending time with.
The article is not a publication. The website is in encyclopedia form. You can read about it here. You can find this article, and others like it, on other encyclopedia sites like encyclopedia.com. Here is the expanded article with bibliography.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with being lazy, its about not wasting time (that's what it comes down to reading these articles). I thought your temper tantrum was a little cute and I decided to indulge it. I don't need census data I can access that myself.
I think it's a bit of laziness, an inability to verify information online, and a lack of understanding of what data is. Clearly, it takes effort for you guys. As far as any tempter tantrum goes, geesh, you're quite the delicate flower. NRN has been making the same complaints for years. I call it out. Now, don't worry yourself about it. Or, perhaps you're playing white knight? How sweet.
Quote:
I went back and read through some more articles that the PHD wrote in other parts of that website, I noticed a pattern in his articles about marriage and domestic violence. No red herrings here, my link is context specific.
Those are two different issues. The first addressing child abuse. The second addressing domestic violence. What does one have to do with the other? So, it makes no sense to state "how can he say this about A when there is this thing about B". If you take issue with the assertion that child abuse is higher in step situations make the case with your own links.
Quote:
To talk about healthy relationships and only mention one outcome in the spectrum of abuse is bias. I wonder if you read the link? I'm pretty certain that I could have linked this, this, or even this and your reply would be the same.
You could, but what difference does it make to the statement? Anecdotes and one off's does not disprove the reported data for the population.
Quote:
Instead of posting up an article, I'd like to see you actually take a stance and give more detailed responses as to why you chose them instead of two to three sentence blurbs.
I was quite clear as to why I linked them and what my opinion is. Men remarry at greater rates because they do not do as well on their own. I can write about my anecdotes, but would anyone really give a rat's ass about my anecdotes? I think not. The literature holds more significance.
Quote:
This is derailing from the original and humorous (Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto...Hells Trifecta) thread. If you like to continue this send a DM.
No. A man started the conversation. The OP stated that he liked his analysis. I added my two cents. If you guys don't want women adding to the conversation then go to a male only site. Or, stop being so lazy and realize what you're actually saying.
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.
