Posted on 04/10/2024 6:39:27 AM PDT by Enterprise
Charlie Kirk upset a lot of women last week. In a discussion on unmarried women preferring Democrats, he said that ladies in their 30s are past their prime and struggle to find a husband.
This is obviously true, but impolite to say. Kirk’s statement naturally inspired outrage among liberals, as well as among conservatives. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. Kirk’s opinion runs counter to the prevailing conservative narrative about the decline of marriage. Conservatives say it’s all men’s fault and we need to do more to shame males into stepping up.
But this male-focused answer isn’t correct. It’s true that men are falling behind in society and leaving college-educated women with fewer options. But that’s not because men are refusing to put down the video games and go to trade school. Rather, it’s because of social transformations that deprioritize men and traditional masculinity. Our economy is now centered around the service and information sectors, both of which are female dominated. More women go to college and graduate school than men. Male wages are in decline and more men than women report zero dating prospects. Women, in contrast, are the big winners of our new society. Many of them now think they have infinite choice when it comes to their life and relationships. This better explains the marriage crisis than men’s love of video games.
(Excerpt) Read more at highly-respected.com ...
This article makes sense in a lot of ways, but also presents these conclusions and opinions as fact, without footnotes or citations. I would argue with the statistical basis for a number of his points, but especially with his having treated as an afterthought the tattered civilizational remnant of expecting of our young a religious commitment to God to love and care for one’s partner in marriage.
The problem of family breakdown and marriage anarchy will no more be solved by pundits than it will by politics. It is an obligation of older people to help younger people understand that real rewards are in heaven; but the earthly ones need not just hard work, but a proper moral foundation.
Our nation is currently undertaking a massive project to undermine or completely outlaw tradlitional morality, especially Judeo-Christian morality. Colleges that might want to offer sex-separate dorms are being sued. Any establishements wanting a clear line of recognition that there are only two biological sexes are also subject to abusive lawfare. Don’t get me started on the schools, even religious schools, or on DEI in the schools and workplace.
Churches and denominations must once again take responsibility for educating children from infancy onward in the Biblical-based moral standards and behaviors that foster lasting marriage.
It's easier to be happy when you've already crashed and burned, then find someone compatible and employed whom you cannot have children with. Eighty percent of typical marital arguments are off the table right there when there is no stress over childrearing issues.
So as advice to the society wishing to further itself via progeny, it's of little interest; but good for you and I sincerely hope it helps heal the past hurts.
Sorry, but you just aren’t going to convince me in any way, that anyone who defines themselves, as a primary part of their existence and personal identity, by the political affiliation is not a psychotic, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on.
Everyone is free to handle their first dates however they like, but sorry if you think that’s is one of the most important parts of your being, you really really do need to seek professional help.
I don’t care if the woman I sat down for a date with matched my political ideology 100%, if that’s what is being discussed out of the gate at first meeting, that’s not a good sign, it’s not a sane of safe head space to exist in this world as.
All the beauty and complexity that is the human experience traveling through this world, you distill that down to your political affiliation is one of your core personal identities, you really really do need help.. and I don’t care which side of the aisle you sit on.
You are free to travel through this life however you like, you are free to make asking a date their political affiliation your #1 top priority before you even ask her name if you like... However, you are not going to convince me that anyone who defines their core self by their political affiliation is a sane and healthy individual, and I don’t care what side of the aisle they are on.
IF the first date conversation has to rely on political discussion to have a discussion, something is wrong, fundamentally wrong... A human being you have never met before and who has never met you before, and the most important place you need to see if you have common ground on is political ideology or philosophy?? Something is severely messed up with your internal compass.
Many of us who are mothers of sons have these same fears on their behalf, when we see what destruction selfish women, the “no-fault” bonanza for divorce lawyers, and Democrat family court judges have done to marriage, and to fatherhood.
For the record, please provide a citation for this claim. Preferably one that takes into account financial parity.
Couldn't agree more. Indicating your political leanings on a dating site is a self-protective measure for conservatives.
In my 20s, I once dated an older woman in her early 30s. Careerist, expected guys to be impressed with her job title, expected the full princess treatment on a date. Just one date with her.
Calling people “psychotic” who are interested in the fate of our country and how political policy is involved in that does not enhance your credibility. Some people like football or travel. Some are interested in policy; or they work in government and what gets done affects their livelihoods. Hardly “psychotic.”
As my extremely liberal niece says, “you conservatives just don’t get it, it has little to do with abortion, it’s all about a “WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOSE WHAT THEY DO WITH THEIR BODY NOT THE GOVERNMENT”.
My 6'3" son, a recent grad from a STEM university, started at nearly 100k in his first job. He chose the right subject to learn, and he learned it very well. I'm gobsmacked at what he's accomplished in less than a year's employment.
His school wasn't fertile grounds for finding a mate nor has he had luck in the working world. He isn't into the tattoo, piercing, colored hair, and those not sure if they're a boy or a girl scene. And, he has zero tolerance of those into grievance politics, DEI, climate change, etc.
His self-esteem has taken a bit of a bruising, but he'll eventually find someone. I tell him some females in his age group will grow up when reality bites them in the arse.
In the meantime, our property and possessions will be in a trust to minimize a potential mistake in his choice to marry (if he ever does).
False premise. I don't "identify" as a Conservative. In today's world, the fact that I am a Conservative does set me apart. Because lots of women I might date (without extensive prior research / without having friends in common) are, however, leftists, it saves time to "weed out" the undateables right at the start.
By the same token / analogously: I don't "identify" as White and/or I don't view it as a "core" or "essential" characteristic of my being. BUT, if thrown into a crowd of racists, I am FORCED to take that into account. (Maybe not a good example, since race is visually obvious - but you get what I mean.)
I don’t care if the woman I sat down for a date with matched my political ideology 100%, if that’s what is being discussed out of the gate at first meeting, that’s not a good sign, it’s not a sane of safe head space to exist in this world as.
My position on the Anschluß of Austria in 1938 by Hitler's Germany is likewise not a "core" component of my personality. But throw me into a crowd of German nationalists in the year 1938, and it suddenly becomes relevant. Rather than waste precious minutes "winnowing out" the chaff, why not get down to "brass tacks" at the onset and determine if my conversation partner can be dismissed "out of the gate?"
By the same token: Drop me onto a deserted tropical island amongst pre-contact South Sea Islanders, and my dating partner's positions on the national debt, the porose southern border, and Bitcoin suddenly become irrelevant!
It's all a matter of context.
Sure: If you are going on a first date with a thoroughly vetted girl - on the basis of a referral from your parish priest, who has known her since her baptism - then you might be able to forego such a checklist.
IF the first date conversation has to rely on political discussion to have a discussion, something is wrong, fundamentally wrong.
I don't have to rely on politics for a discussion; we could discuss Realism vs. Nominalism, String Theory vs. Quantum Loop Theory, or the Second Great Vowel Shift in Germanic languages.
I freely grant you that other "tells" might be equally efficacious: If the girl is all tatted up, has pierced septum, is wearing double facial masks, or casually uses profanity, I wouldn't even have to bother to ask her about her political affiliations.
A human being you have never met before and who has never met you before, and the most important place you need to see if you have common ground on is political ideology or philosophy?
Asking, right off the bank, about her political orientation is a quick, easy way to immediately eliminate the trash. In some milieux (e.g., San Francisco), the proportion of "woke" women might be so high as to make that a useful "knock-out" criterion. In rural Idaho, perhaps not. (It's important to "know your hunting grounds.")
Regards,
Dude, anyone who supports Biden in ANY way might as well have a flashing neon sign above them, “Satanic Moron! Satanic Moron!” Might as well weed out the severe crazies before spending a dime on them!
Might as well assume "testosterone parity." That would be equally invalid.
That which makes single fathers better parents and that which makes them better earners (if that is, in fact, the case) might easily be both due to the same, common root factor: Testosterone.
I guarantee that, if you "controlled" for testosterone, you'd find that single mothers are just as good as parents as single fathers. However, that finding doesn't weaken the argument / lessen the import of the statement: Single fathers are better parents.
Regards,
My former DIL walked out on my son and 2 kids so she could shack up. 2 years later she sued for joint custody - and got it. Among the things the court would not allow to be mentioned? That they IRS had nailed her for 2 years of claiming both kids on her tax return, along with claiming “stimulus” benefits. When my son got the IRS to finally check it out, they forced her to pay back the $$$ - and suddenly, she wanted joint custody.
Ph, and somehow the judge managed to arrange for my son to pay child support even though she was making $2K more a year than he was!
She also wanted the proceeds from the house, but even the woman judge couldn’t figure out how to do that SINCE THEY WERE RENTING!
Now she has the kids half of each year without doing anything to help with their education.
Every study I have ever seen on this topic shows the same pattern, children raised in a single parent home are far better off on every single measurable statistic if that single parent is their father.
They do better in school, are less likely to wind up in trouble with the law, etc etc etc... Every single study I have ever seen on this topic have all concluded the same things. While a 2 parent household is best, if a child is raised by a single parent, statistically they do better if that parent is their father, not their mother.
Here’s an article, that acts like this particular study is something news worthy, but its not, this pattern has been consistent in every study every done on the topic.
“Calling people “psychotic” who are interested in the fate of our country”
And you just proved my point, I didn’t say anything about anyones interest or lack of interest in the fate of our country anywhere in my statement. You have projected that your political philosophy equates that that meaning.... and that’s a psychosis.
If you define your core self, if someone puts a gun to your head and says TELL ME WHO ALBION WILDE IS OR I’LL KILL YOU, and one of the top answers you give is your political affiliation, well, you have a HUGE problem, huge.
If that is how you define your soul, how you define WHO YOU ARE, as your political ideology, then you have some very very serious issues. You have been given this precious, beautiful thing called a life, filled with all the gifts your creator has bestowed upon you, and you have determined your political affiliation is one of the most important things that makes you up, well you really, really need to get help... because not only is that psychotic, its pitiable.
I met my wife at a political event for Reagan.
I’m glad I’m old and married.
Today’s women are weird and I wouldn’t want to have to learn Taylor Swift songs .
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.