51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse

New York Times ^ | 16 January 2007 | Sam Roberts

[shrinkermd]

For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.

In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

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.

Several factors are driving the statistical shift. At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods. At the other end, women are living longer as widows and, after a divorce, are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom.

In addition, marriage rates among black women remain low. Only about 30 percent of black women are living with a spouse, according to the Census Bureau, compared with about 49 percent of Hispanic women, 55 percent of non-Hispanic white women and more than 60 percent of Asian women.

In a relatively small number of cases, the living arrangement is temporary, because the husbands are working out of town, are in the military or are institutionalized. But while most women eventually marry, the larger trend is unmistakable.

[river rat]

Wow...I should have paid more attention to the user name...
Congratulations on choosing a fine career.

I owe a lot to Navy Corpsmen and Navy Surgeons..

You're welcome -- folks like you made it worthwhile -- in spite of all those who didn't...

Stay safe.

Semper Fi

[IslandJeff]

No hoops or grid on the teevee tonight, so I'm watching a Manchester City v. Sheffield Wednesday FA match replay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[GBA]

"Ah, but you're asking the wrong question. Do you think he'd find those women any more attractive if they were 20 years older if they weren't tattooed? Why is it the anti-tat nazis like to pretend that only those with tattoos age?"

"Anti-tat nazis"? Awesome command of the language, dude. You like tattoos, right? That's great. Have as many as you want, it's your body, do what you want to with it. To each, their own. That's about as "nazi" as I'm going to get.

To answer your question? I don't know what he'd think. I can only speak for myself, but I don't even put bumper stickers on my truck or wear t-shirts with some company's name or logo.

Decades later, I would find them more attractive without the Rorschach Inkblot "guess what it used to be?" tattoo(s), especially when I'm comparing them with other 40 or 50 year olds without tats...or younger women who are also completing for men's attention.

I've seen some nice tattoos and have dated women with and without. I would not avoid a woman simply because she had a tattoo, but I don't see them as an enhancement. To me, they are more like self inflicted damage, like body piercings, or that the person was prone to following fads. Tattoos have been around forever, but their popularity changes with the times. If those thoughts make me a "anti-tat nazi", sieg heil.

[Scotswife]

"I looked around at the folks I know, not a one is "looking elsewhere" for a wife...I wonder about guys that need to "look elsewhere", I suspect something wrong with them..."

and you would be right

[Scotswife]

"Why do all these threads become anti-woman.."

the same reason breast feeding threads become anti-women...the same reason threads about career women become anti-women...the same reason threads about stay-at-home moms become anti-women...the same reason threads about female politicians become anti-women...

you get my drift.

[Scotswife]

"How unfair it is with all the hidden expenses, late nights doing laundry, staying up with sick kids,,, trying to find reliable baby-sitters so they can work...all the while Mom is only having to pay that child support but is free to go on with her life. Dating? Forget it... there isn't time.

Sound familiar? Shoes on the other foot might be a bit tight. *chuckle*"


A friend of ours is a dad who wound up with the kids.
You just described him to a "t"

[JamesP81]

Look how many men are looking elsewhere for a wife..

Or not at all.

[JamesP81]

By the age of 25, and usually much earlier, most of them have asked 2 or 3 single women to marry them

LOL. I'm 25 and haven't seriously dated yet.

[JamesP81]

There is no shortage at all of attractive, young, quality women in the dating pool.

I disagree. Good ones are hard to come by, and it's difficult to sort the good ones from the bad ones. Not impossible, but difficult. It's why at 25 I haven't seriously dated in my life; when you date someone, it could become a serious relationship. With serious relationships the risk of ending up with the wrong kind of person is so high, that extreme caution is warranted.

[Hildy]

sometimes these things are blessings, and the fact you can see it that way is great. The same thing happened to my friend. He was in a terrible marriage. I really think the girls was a bit nuts. But he would have stayed. He truly is a nice guy. He wanted a family, but she didn't. She always got her way. Anway, about four years ago, she ran away with a younger guy and my friend was devastated. Everyone in the neighborhood knew but him. I kept telling him that when God closed one door, he opens another. Well, he fell for a family friend that he had known for awhile. She was much younger as well...and she had a kid. But it turned out great. He's married now, has another child with her and could not be happier.

The ex-wife? Living at home with her parents.

[GBA]

I love happy endings!

[SoCal Pubbie]

I find it interesting that 266 posts appeared before yours and only one of those questioned the validity of the study or challenged its implications. This IS the NY Times, after all, and according to Medved the piece is by the same writer that skewed the statistics on divorce rates.

As you wrote, the "study" includes females form the ages of 15 - 22, most of whom obviously are in high school, and many in college. These are not prime ages for marriage in today's education oriented society. The article itself indicates it includes married women who are not living with spouses temporally, which includes those with military spouses deployed overseas, others living overseas, and I would assume spouses of those incarcerated, and even married women whose spouses are in rest homes.

If you were to take out women under 18, and those over 65, and those women who will remarry within ten years, I'll bet the stats would look much different, but then that wouldn't fit someone's agenda.

[JamesP81]

I have much more to lose and less time to replace it. Plus, I've seen how good loving marriages can turn into the most vicious of battle fields with the only winners being the lawyers.

This is bad because when you see this going on around you, how are you ever going to be able to trust your wife? Can't have marriage without it.

[JamesP81]

Why is it women almost always outnumber men in churches, period? Not only in membership, but in clubs, duties, classes, everything? No, I have no numbers, but I've seen stats. And I, too, have "experienced" it.

Because the church has, I think unwittingly, become overly feminized. Notice all the 'Jesus is my boyfriend' type contemporary music we have now. Just another indicator.

[Theophilus]

you get my drift.

These threads should be misanthropic rather than misogynist. It seems like people of both sexes are getting more and more selfish, bitter, lazy, hard headed and hence, more lonely. Our culture, government and even some churches aren't helping but are making it worse. I fear for my children. I want them all to have good marriages, growing families - getting better all the time, like I have. Hopefully their spouses will be freepers.

[MEGoody]

Tattooed, half naked in public, jumping into the sack with at the drop of a hat and then burdened with the result of that "free and self expressive" life.

They're jumping in the sack with someone. Apparently, some guys find these types of women compelling - or at least attractive enough to sleep with.

Guys who sleep with any woman who will lay down for them need to take some small responsibility for the sluttiness of these women. Sexual immorality is sexual immorality, no matter the gender of the perpetrator.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I don't think that at all. The church has always had a reputation of being more appealing to women.

It was "the religion of women and slaves".

[the OlLine Rebel]

"Sexual immorality is sexual immorality, no matter the gender of the perpetrator"

Here here. Or hear hear.


Men who screw around are sluts. Amazing how all the words only apply to women, though.

[Richard Kimball]

No kidding. BTW, they're showing a replay of the Dolphins-Chargers overtime game on ESPN right now.