No need to say anything else sexist.
People don't really change very much as a whole. Silly ideas come and go, that people of the same gender can really be married for instance, but sooner or later, Reality and Human Nature reassert themselves, without mercy.
No need to say anything else since you are repeatedly wrong. Here is you one more clue--People who go to law school take LSAT's, not GRE's.
People in law school call it law school not grad school.
Here is another hint--some people do joint degrees like JD/MBA's so "law school" is only half the equation. Hope you are taking notes :2wave:
Reality is women are and want to be professionals and 80% are not in grad school looking for a sugar daddy.
In 1980, the effect of education on both “Current” and “Ever” is negative and highly
significant. The coefficients correspond to marginal effects of -.0031 and -.0028, respectively,
indicating that each additional year of education is associated with about a 3.1 percentage point lower
likelihood of being currently married at, and a 2.8 percentage point lower likelihood of having been
married by, age 40-44 in 1980. The two measures of education produce virtually identical results.
In 1990, the coefficient of education on “Current” is not significantly different from zero,
while the comparable coefficient on “Ever” is still negative and significant. In both cases, the
coefficients are significantly smaller (t=9.31 for “Current”, t=6.77 for “Ever”) than in 1980.
The significantly positive coefficient of education on “Current” in 2000 corresponds to a
marginal effect of .0063, indicating that each additional year of education is associated with a 0.63 a
percentage point increase in the likelihood of being married (t=11.54); this also effect is significantly
different than the effect in 1990 (t=9.62). The effect of education on “Ever” is not significant, but is
significantly greater than the 1990 coefficient (t=6.25).
Overall, these results suggest that a significant success penalty existed in 1980, but fell
significantly in each of the subsequent two decades. The 2000 results suggest the existence of a
success premium for the outcome currently married, and no significant relationship between education
and having ever been married.
well golly seems you have nothing left for the topic.
Do they?
The truth is many of these degreed women are in fact never going to marry.
You seem to have had nothing to start with. Here is a final clue for you: "Lots of women husband shop in grad school!!!"
You mean single people look for a mate? Well duh. That was not the point of 80% of females attending. It is still sexist.
How do you define "human nature" ?
How does "human nature" impact on educated women's opportunities for finding a husband?
How will "human nature" reassert itself in relation to same sex marriage?
Do you think that "human nature" will reassert itself and take us back to times when legislation precluded married women from owning property, and domestic violence will again become acceptable as the best way to deal with a wife who fails to please you?
how do you define it?
Tell that to Josie. She has boobies and verified that some women go to college to husband shop. Why would grad school be any different? Here is a clue: It is not. Geez, do I need to buy you the Spark Notes on the human condition?
I do notice a lot of single degreed women, even pretty ones, in their twenties and thirties. It's sad because I don't think with the careerist mindset they have that they will ever find a man that earns more than them.
That's what I notice. A ton of degreed, 24-35 women making 35-50k a year thinking they're going to find a 30-35 year old guy making 60-150k+. It just isn't going to happen and they don't see it. It really is out there. There's tons of it. These women have been lied to. There are more degreed women now among under 40's than there are men and those women don't realize that the ratios aren't 1:1. The reality is a lot of these women will never marry because they wait until 28-35 and then realize Mr. 95k a year isn't there and it's too late. Men their own age won't marry them because they don't earn what they earn or they earn the same so they want a woman who earns less and is less careerist, and the irony is these women, even after these facts, still often cannot accept being with men that don't earn significantly more than they do.
The truth is many of these degreed women are in fact never going to marry.
Reality is women are and want to be professionals and 80% are not in grad school looking for a sugar daddy.
Tell that to Josie. She has boobies and verified that some women go to college to husband shop. Why would grad school be any different? Here is a clue: It is not. Geez, do I need to buy you the Spark Notes on the human condition?
Why, by looking to the way people now, and always have behaved. To do otherwise might make one a good Marxist, but requires a divorce from Reality.
Just in the ways so clearly described in my other posts on the topic.
Well, for one thing, human Nature is real, while same sex "marriage," is a perverse fantasy.
That said, form time to time in history, homosexual practitioners attempt to gain acceptability for their little peccadilloes. While they sometimes gain limited success in elites and rarely in militant classes, in short order they are once again suppressed by more vital classes, societies countries or conquerors. It is a recurring pattern, across many times and cultures and thus likely an expression of natural tendency. In the case of out own society, the casual and dispassionate historical observer will note the revival of Traditional Militant Islam worldwide, and its homicidal suppression of overt homosexuality. What will likely be written on the next page of history on this sordid topic is not terribly hard to imagine.
No. Those issues are cultural and societal, obviously. The interested student is referred to a study of the rule of women in modern, wealthy and vital Islamic nations.
However, assuming at least a great amount of time in the future of Humanity, it is hard to imagine that just about any form of society that has occurred in the past will not recur in the future.
How wonderful then that I never suggested that they were.
(Hint: reading comprehension is key)
I am with you man. Women don't deserve the education. None have been smart enough to say they aren't just whores so they must be whores.
Opinion - devoid of facts.
This means nothing.
OK ...
I understand the basis for machismo fundamentalism, and don't take such opinions seriously.
To clarify.... I don't think the majority of women go to college to find a man.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?