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.
Of the more than 30% of men who aren't getting married now days, I'd estimate that 20 of the 30 are the type who were the bedrock of society 50 years ago. Working and reasonably successful, despite the fact that they are often lacking in the superficial attributes that women and employers crave. Solid family men, loyal and decent. Women call them nice guys and detest them now days.
Such men are not stupid. They don't have to get married to understand how it can often be a bad decision. They can read and and listen to others with experience. Like all successful people, they excell in learning from other's mistakes.
Perhaps women need to put their finger in the mouse trap to find out that it hurts but these men don't.
I'm impressed at how this is getting through to younger and younger men. At one time, guys were in their 30s before this information got to them. Obviously, the best looking specimens were all signed up by that time so it was mainly the less desirable men who learned in time. This made them an easy target for women to attack.
However, in the future, these men will include many more more poster boys for their cause. We'll get our version of "Gloria Steimem" to promote our agenda, very soon.
Repped!
I fall on that list, btw. I am a very good worker bee with a great job pulling in well over 100K, nice, smart, in shape, not too bad looking, etc... just sorta shy and not very confident (at one point). I was ignored except by sub prime women. I was expected to be the fall back position or the rescuer. Sorry, not interested. Other men are waking up to this and are determined to not be the last guy in line, the rescuerer or fufiller of the marital dream to a woman who ignored him for a long time. We especially do not want to expose ourselves to the financial and emotional devestation of divorce.
We are called bitter but really, we're kinda sad that society has turned out as it has. We'll be fine whether ignoring women, taking women as they come, learning to be pick up artists, or seeking foreign brides. Men are not the ones penning article after article how we at 38 can't find spouses for our affluent, well traveled, highly educated, and overall fabulous selves. Women are. They are becoming the bitter ones as they wake up from the dream that they can have it all to instead find the reality that choices and sacrifices must be made.
Thank you for stating the FACTS. And if you ask me, I would love to go to a matriarchal society, so take that robee70!
Gee, thanks for cutting me off there. BTW, you want matriarchy? When was the last matriarchal society of any note? That's right, they never existed. Egypt fell under the rule of Cleopatra. Sparta in many ways was a matriarchy and was ultimately conquered despite their skilled armies.
Patriarchy works which is why it exists. If you want matriarchy, look at Detroit where it's all single mothers and bastard children. Now take away those government checks....
And I am not? You think I spend 8 hours a day meticulously going through this. Last night I was trying to get my new born to sleep and had one arm free.
Again, I don't know what you're going on about. Did I say anything about you working or not? No. I was simply noting my situation because it was on my mind. You're inferring all over the place and I'm not sure why. I'll join in, tho, and question whether or not you have been getting enough sleep. Congrats on the new born, btw.
Quote:
You said this, and in the wrong context. Its like saying the gulf stream doesn't warm the water when it moves up north because its colder up north. His statistics only mine for marriage, not class. Marriage is irrespective of offspring. Its the wrong subject. So it started with an irritating note.
Hardly, you stated families. I think of family and children come to mind. I also made it clear that it was my thinking and offered your correction. Now, why you are irritated most likely has more to do with your current situation lending to your impulsive jumping all over the place, than my post. I noted class in response to your comments IRT the career that never began for the hypothetical woman. Since likes do marry likes, that statement of yours is off the mark. The stats are what they are.
"This doesn't make sense to me unless we employ class dependence. Even then, it's elusive. While using the term 'family' may be inappropriate on my part here, it's well known that that the impoverished breed at greater rates. So, if we decide to refer to this as the creation of families, these many men, perhaps the majority, are starting families without financial security. It's also understood that classes tend to mix with their own. The idea of the financially secure career driven male hooking up with a woman outside his class doesn't seem to be all that common. In reality, it's likely that likes (financially and otherwise) are doing their business in their own back yards."
Quote:
Insults again and personal attacks. And no, its not the place for it. Please point one of mine out.
You found my two point curve with R^2 of 1 to be an attack? I thought it was on point and quite funny. I'm dissapointed that you don't appreciate it given the lesson in scatter plots. Again, geesh. lol
Quote:
Where did I ever deny marriage was not causal for income?
It was the assertion, rather than a denial, in the original post of yours that I responded to...
"Its well known men start families when they have financial security and women tend to marry them."
And then you linked earning differences between singles and married folk as some kind of evidence to the point, which didn't make sense then and still doesn't make sense now.
Quote:
As a matter of fact ,I know it is since I subscribe to Maslow's hierarchy of need. A married man will have more material need considering children, yet so will a woman. What explains single women making more?
Now, that's an interesting question.
Quote:
It does not exclude the other main effect that attractiveness usually means more money for men but less so for women since it creates two paths to prosperity.
The twin study involving men disagrees with this. And I don't know if unattractive single women make more than attractive single women. I've read that beautiful people tend to be more successful in general. Attempting to make any correlations right now is pushing it. Again, we need to flesh out the data first.
Quote:
So I agree post married men benefit. The data we need is just before marriage but that takes time to find.
It does and it's not easy to find. But, census does note similar debt between the genders when they marry. I'm not sure of income levels. I would look for it right now, but...and don't read into this lol, I'm sitting in my car and it's not a convenient time (hence all the typos I'm sure).
Quote:
My original objection was, and still is, that that demographic is skewed. Is that fair enough? I can withdraw comment that the study was nonsense. Its just not my point. Why did you state you point originally in opposition to mine?
I stated why above. I can go into it more when I get home.
Quote:
A man can attract a woman initially just by the way he stands.
This result suggests that marriage really does have a causal impact on wages. Of course, it is not conclusive. After all, maybe the married twin really is different in some way from his brother, and that difference is important to both potential spouses and employers. Still, it is suggestive evidence
Of course the notation is there, as any author worth his salt will include. I think it's key that you note this. We must always allow room to be incorrect in our assumptions, depsite how invested we may be. Lesson to be learned here.
Quote:
So clarify, do you think that the post marriage causation study represents 100% of the difference?
Of course not. I don't believe in 100% of anything. How could I or anybody? As I stated, you may not be wrong here and I'm sure you are correct in some instances (regarding this particular argument), but A. the data isn't supporting the argument and B. it obviously cannot be generalized (with meaning).
Quote:
There is nothing clever or original about it. This is done everyday in reseach psychology. That was my point, nothing personal.
This I believe! But, my point is that you were straying (author bio, lions, grandpa) rather than discussing the data on the table.
Interesting points on the other stuff but because women vote and has a lesser sense of justice as I commented before, politicians are able to woe female voters with anti-male laws even as some men think that maybe those laws are actually just. Men, especially manginas, do share some blame.
That said, we can still hold to task people who commit evil. If I am able to break into someone's house because they unlocked the door, am I less evil even though the other person is partially to blame? No.
Lastly, all you men who put the "highest market value" on young women in their prime breeding years, need to ask what you think is fair compensation for a women who loses those years while raising children, caring for her houselhold and supporting her husband, only to later be cheated on or left for a younger woman?
Cute strawman arguement. I don't think anyone has prorposed your above scenario. Instead, what we want is that if the wife is the cheater or files without cause, that she not be rewarded as the current systems allows with alimony, child custody and support, at least half the assets even if she did not a thing to earn them, etc...
I agree that the exact history of marriage gets cloudy after you hit the CE/BC barrier, but here's a quote from an old Discovery magazine article I came across, concerning the Na hunter/gatherer peoples in ancient China...
"The Na of Yunnan Province in China, for example, have a female-centric society in which husbands are not part of the picture. Women grow up and continue to live with their mothers, sisters, and brothers; they never marry or move away from the family compound. As a result, sisters and brothers rather than married pairs are the economic unit that farms and fishes together. Male lovers in the this system are simply visitors. They have no place or power in the household, and children are brought up by their mothers and by the mothers' brothers. A father is identified only if their is a resemblance between him and the child, and even so, the father has no responsibilities toward the child. Often women have sex with so many partners that the biological father is unknown. "I have not found any term that would cover the notion of father in the Na language," writes Chenese anthropologist Cai Hua in his book A Society Without Fathers or Husbands: The Na of China. In this case, women have complete control over their children, property, and sexuality."
And, of course, we all know the tremendous boons that the Na have given the world...
See, there's one benefit of the women's movement- women discovered their O and enjoy sex just as much as a man because of it.
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.
