Toothpicvic
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,801
- Reaction score
- 462
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The New York Times, which based its report on an analysis of census results, said 51 percent of women in 2005 reported living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.
Married couples are the majority in the US. The statistic are referring to the number of couples with legal marriage licenses. Marriage has been around for hundreds of years, even before legal marriage licenses were created."Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits," the newspaper said.
It said that several factors are behind the shift including women marrying at a later age and living with partners for more often and for longer periods. Women are also living longer as widows and once divorced, often opt to stay single, the report said.
Well yeah, in the early 1900s, a woman could be married at 10 years old to a much older man (and forced marriages were common). So if that's the "traditional family structure" that you mean, then I'm glad we've long done away with that type of degeneracy.
The majority of US women are living with a spouse. The article only refers to legally recognized couples.
We aren't. Both those statistics have significantly improved on the whole.What is this invisible factor that is leading us down a path of single people, single mothers (voluntary ones at least), dead-beat fathers, etc.? What is it? Why are we seeing less married people and broken or disjointed families more and more?
I guess that means you enjoyed it than. lol when you're ready to brush up on history, please get back to me. I yawned after reading the first sentence because this thread was so ignorant of reality.Yes, this is an extension of the last thread, so for all of you that can't fathom reality to save your life, this should be fun.
Society doesn't hate familes. "Family values" orgs just hate real families and society itself.
Toothpicvic said:Those statistics don't have anything to do with women living without a spouse. They have to do with whether or not the women have a legal marriage license. So it doesn't really mean anything.
Married couples are the majority in the US. The statistic are referring to the number of couples with legal marriage licenses. Marriage has been around for hundreds of years, even before legal marriage licenses were created.
It said that several factors are behind the shift including women marrying at a later age and living with partners for more often and for longer periods. Women are also living longer as widows and once divorced, often opt to stay single, the report said.[/COLOR][/I]
Well yeah, in the early 1900s, a woman could be married at 10 years old to a much older man (and forced marriages were common). So if that's the "traditional family structure" that you mean, then I'm glad we've long done away with that type of degeneracy.
The majority of US women are living with a spouse. The article only refers to legally recognized couples.
We aren't. Both those statistics have significantly improved on the whole.
I guess that means you enjoyed it than. lol when you're ready to brush up on history, please get back to me. I yawned after reading the first sentence because this thread was so ignorant of reality.
Society doesn't hate familes. "Family values" orgs just hate real families and society itself.
The OP was designed to create conversation regarding the role of families. The article itself was nothing more than the spark. Your attitude, and as far as I have seen so far, your debating skills, are pathetically mundane. :2razz:
You information was flawed. You based your "claim" on marriage license statistics only, not on the number of actual couples in the US, the length of their relationships, etc.Toothpicvic said:The OP was designed to create conversation regarding the role of families. The article itself was nothing more than the spark.
You didn't post anything worth debating. Just a meaningless legal statistic which says nothing of the quality of American families (along with ignorant stereotypes).Your attitude, and as far as I have seen so far, your debating skills, are pathetically mundane. :2razz:
Originally posted by Toothpicvic
You information was flawed. You based your "claim" on marriage license statistics only, not on the number of actual couples in the US, the length of their relationships, etc.
You didn't post anything worth debating. Just a meaningless legal statistic which says nothing of the quality of American families (along with ignorant stereotypes).
Other than stereotypes based on select evidence, your claim is based on nothing else (so it's baseless).Actually, I base my claim off of much more than that...
I've posted plenty of counter evidence to your claims - for example in the earlier 1900s, a girl could be married at age 10 and forced marriages were common. I guess by your standard that would be considered a "good family arrangement" as long as the girl never left her husband. :roll:I have posted on and off for 18 pages... :lol:
Other than stereotypes based on select evidence, your claim is based on nothing else (so it's baseless).
I've posted plenty of counter evidence to your claims - for example in the earlier 1900s, a girl could be married at age 10 and forced marriages were common. I guess by your standard that would be considered a "good family arrangement" as long as the girl never left her husband. :roll:
You are falling into the assumption trap. My claim has base, and look out, Ten is thanking you and that isn't a good sigh in this discussion.
You are falling into the assumption trap. My claim has base, and look out, Ten is thanking you and that isn't a good sigh in this discussion. Your arranged marriage scenario is ridiculous, not to mention a completely abnormal age to be married off. Provide evidence that this was ever a norm... good luck.
The Nuclear Family Model has worked for thousands of years...
Mother - Children - AND Father
There is no argument that can justify that a good mother and mother can be superior to a good father and mother, all things being equal.
The fact that people will not be married but be together and have kids is one thing...
The fact that women will get divorced and be forced to be a single mother is another...
The fact that women will knowingly seek out artificial means to have a child without a father in a Lesbian relationship shows that there is no respect for family or men, and the fact that people will support a woman in her selfish desire, not support an "Oooops" but support the whole structure that Knowingly puts kids into a fatherless situation and tries to justify this decision as if it is healthy... to raise a child out of balance...
Just wait until they come up with the technology to allow a man to inseminate an egg in an artificial womb that will see it grow and develop into a healthy baby that is "Born" to a single father with no deed of a nagging wife... Oh Boy!
Researchers from Northwestern University and the University
of Michigan reported that children of fathers who were involved in
parent-teacher associations complete more years of schooling
and have higher wages and family incomes as adults than children
whose fathers were not involved in school activities.
Researchers from the Urban Institute reported that, contrary to
popular opinion, most unmarrried fathers in their mid- to late-20s
and early 30s maintain a close relationship with at least one of
their children.
A team of researchers from Washington State University, the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Brigham Young University
reported that children in families headed by single mothers exhibit more
behavioral problems and have lower math and reading abilities than children from married-couple families.
A University of Pennsylvania researcher who has studied urban families
reported that when fathers are not present in their children’s lives, their sons are more likely to become fathers themselves when
they are teenagers and to live apart from their children.
A University of North Carolina researcher found that daughters whose
fathers have warm, close relationships with them and spend time with them in shared activities were less likely to engage in early sexual activity.
Surely this isn't really only "Part Two"?
You've had six or seven sequels to your danged "Why does Society Hate Families" thread over the years. This must be Part Eight or so.
Look, Bodhi; the dynamic of this forum has changed in the interim.
It's no longer comprised largely of bored stay-at-home moms, defensive housewives, and conservative fundamentalists with two-digit IQs.
It's become steadily more progressive over the years, and I don't think you've noticed because you haven't been around much for the past year and have only been around sporadically for the past several years.
I'll answer your question once more, definitively, and that should be the end of the matter, and the last we see of these baiting threads.
Society doesn't hate "families". Society hates conservatives who claim that the traditional, nuclear family structure is the only valid or legitimate type of family. Society hates them because they insult and attempt to invalidate all that is dear to the vast majority of Americans today.
As I've told you many many times over the years, darling, society doesn't "hate families".
It only hates your family.
Actually, all manners of families have worked for thousands of years. Mother, mother, mother, father and children. Mother, father, children, aunts, uncles, grandparents. Mother, children. In fact, I believe the only broad conclusion is that the best families provide love and support. Of course, even that has been incredibly short lived as far as families go. Children have historically been seen as property and a source of labor, but that's a different topic.
I don't know that anyone's saying one manner of a family is superior to another.
I don't see how that action passes any judgement about families (since I'm sure if you asked, the lesbian couple would consider themselves a family), or men. Other than showing that they are not including a male in their family, of course.
They do have this technology. It's called adoption. Plenty of gay male couples do it.
What this shows is that fathers who are not interested in their children are harmful to their children. It makes no conclusion about if there is no father.
LOL! This statistic reminds me of how many people claim they vote in the elections or go to church. I imagine most dads would claim they had a close relationship to their children. That still doesn't mean that a nuclear family is the superior form.
Not surprising. But not indicative that the second partner must be male. Kids are hard for one person to handle.
Again, this is looking at broken families and showing the negative side affects. It says nothing about a same-gender family.
See above.
I don't know; nobody really seems that interested anymore.
Most of them have probably just written you off as some kind of extremist fruit loop, at this point.
Nothing in there indicates that the traditional mother, father and child family is not the most balanced and most healthy for the child...
What is this invisible factor that is leading us down a path of single people, single mothers (voluntary ones at least), dead-beat fathers, etc.? What is it? Why are we seeing less married people and broken or disjointed families more and more?
That isn't a "traditional" family, Bodhi.
You don't really grasp the broader historical scope, here.
That's a nuclear family; it's only been considered "traditional" since the 1950s.
Before that, "traditional" families meant many generations of extended family living and working together.
It made sense in an agricultural society; not so much, now. .
irresponsibility.
Nothing in there indicates that the traditional mother, father and child family is not the most balanced and most healthy for the child...
Right, I should be saying "nuclear", not traditional. Since that is the case, I do understand the broader historical scope. Having a mother, father and child is the best and including the extended family is even better. :2razz:
Actually, it's a byproduct of women's liberation. Women aren't dependent upon men for their livelihood. The family doesn't have to stay in tact nor are shotgun weddings the norm anymore. I'm not saying that women shouldn't be liberated. It's a factor though. It's a major change in our society.
Originally Posted by Kelzie
That's not really a fair post. Nothing indicates that they are. I rebutted your entire post and that's all I get?
Originally Posted by Jackboot
The family is falling apart, especially in the poor neighborhoods, where I grew up. I was so jealous of my friends that still had fathers, it still chokes me up to this very day. I don't care how much people spin these facts, children do so much better with two parents, even if they are gay, that is accepted today, believe it or not.
Originally Posted by 1069
Seeing as how you concede that we're talking about a nuclear family structure, rather than a traditional one, I see no evidence that it is "superior" to anything else humanity has come up with, either before or since.
Only one generation of children- the Baby Boomers- were really raised in this societal structure; it was really only the norm from immediately after WW2 until the civil rights/ women's lib movement of the 1960s.
Less than 20 years.
And those were 20 of the most profitable and affluent years our nation has ever known. Nearly everybody could afford to leave both cities and farms, and move to the suburbs.
And a large percentage of the population did just that.
They had an unprecedented amount of belongings, an unprecedented amount of leisure time.
Still; I see no evidence that the Baby Boomers are "healthier" or happier or more successful than anyone else, either older or younger.
Anyway, they're only middle-aged, so I guess we're really going to have to wait until they're all dead to evaluate how their lives went and determine if the nuclear family structure truly was the stunning success you claim it to be.
Actually, all manners of families have worked for thousands of years. Mother, mother, mother, father and children. Mother, father, children, aunts, uncles, grandparents. Mother, children. In fact, I believe the only broad conclusion is that the best families provide love and support. Of course, even that has been incredibly short lived as far as families go. Children have historically been seen as property and a source of labor, but that's a different topic.
I don't know that anyone's saying one manner of a family is superior to another.
I don't see how that action passes any judgement about families (since I'm sure if you asked, the lesbian couple would consider themselves a family), or men. Other than showing that they are not including a male in their family, of course.
They do have this technology. It's called adoption. Plenty of gay male couples do it.
What this shows is that fathers who are not interested in their children are harmful to their children. It makes no conclusion about if there is no father.
LOL! This statistic reminds me of how many people claim they vote in the elections or go to church. I imagine most dads would claim they had a close relationship to their children. That still doesn't mean that a nuclear family is the superior form.
Not surprising. But not indicative that the second partner must be male. Kids are hard for one person to handle.
Again, this is looking at broken families and showing the negative side affects. It says nothing about a same-gender family.
Hey Bodhisattva,
Long time no chat eh?
Here's my two cents. The Gen y generation saw their parents divorce in extremely large numbers in extremely awful ways. Some of the lessons learned there is that you cannot rely upon one person for your happiness and that marriage is highly overrated. Apparently several studies have confirmed that a sizable number of people in the 44-18 age group feel that happiness comes from yourself and you shouldn't rely upon someone else. That manifests IMO in the relatively lower marriage rates and high singles rates.
Hey Bodhisattva,
Long time no chat eh?
Here's my two cents. The Gen y generation saw their parents divorce in extremely large numbers in extremely awful ways. Some of the lessons learned there is that you cannot rely upon one person for your happiness and that marriage is highly overrated. Apparently several studies have confirmed that a sizable number of people in the 44-18 age group feel that happiness comes from yourself and you shouldn't rely upon someone else. That manifests IMO in the relatively lower marriage rates and high singles rates.
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?