Posted on 12/11/2003 7:55:35 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
A pair of magazine articles recently revealed some intriguing facts about marriage and singleness in America. U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT notes that Americans are getting married later in life. And, according to reporter Michelle Conlin in BUSINESS WEEK, "The U.S. Census Bureau's newest numbers show that married-couple households . . . have slipped from nearly 80 percent in the 1950s to just 50.7 percent [of the population] today. That means that the U.S.'s 86 million single adults could soon define the new majority . . . What many once thought of as the fringe is becoming the new normal."
As a result, the way we view many things -- singleness, marriage, friendships, and institutions -- is changing dramatically. For instance, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT's article focused on the so-called "Tribal Culture," in which single friends form highly organized groups that serve as a kind of substitute family. One such group, in Denver, has 110 members. But that number pales in comparison to some of the groups that are forming online at websites like Friendster.com where literally thousands of people meet to form social networks.
The existence of these "tribes" and these statistics tell us something about ourselves, the way we're wired. We are social beings: We need family and community -- even in a culture that prizes autonomy above all things. But BUSINESS WEEK's reporter sees a quite different meaning in the trend she calls "the new normal." Conlin argues that benefits like insurance and Social Security, which have always gone to married couples, should also be extended to singles, cohabiting couples, and homosexuals living together. She writes, "Just because matrimony is good for society doesn't mean that outmoded social benefits are."
Now, first let me say that it's important for Christians, when examining this trend, to avoid pointing fingers or acting as if singles are somehow inferior to married people. Surrounded by a culture fearful of commitment and more interested in "hooking up" than dating, even those who are interested in getting married often have a hard time finding anyone who shares their interest. Also, as Paul teaches in the New Testament, not everyone is called to be married.
However, there's a genuine cause for concern when people cite widespread singleness as an excuse to promote policies that denigrate traditional families. The benefits we give to two-parent families should have nothing to do with how many families there are. It's a recognition of the great importance of a stable family structure to our society, in all kinds of areas -- the strength of the workforce, the emotional health of kids, and even the physical health of adults. These benefits are one way that we encourage standards that reflect the way we were designed to live -- standards like lifelong faithfulness to one person and a committed mother and father for every child. The more we insist on ignoring these standards, the weaker our culture becomes.
Marriage already has enough strikes against it in a culture that largely considers it just one more "lifestyle choice." We don't need to discourage it even more. "The new normal" so-called may change a lot of things, but it shouldn't change the way we look at a God-ordained, time-tested institution. Tribes may have their place in the chaos of postmodern culture, but they are no substitute for marriage and the family.
His prior articles that I've read convinced me intitially that he's a dunce, and this one convinced me that he's still a dunce. To whit:
However, there's a genuine cause for concern when people cite widespread singleness as an excuse to promote policies that denigrate traditional families.
Promoting policies to families outside the traditional, orthodox form of families doesn't 'denigrate' those families that remain traditional.
Which one? :)
Yes, I am. Because a stereotype is usually based on a fundamental truth. That is why it is a stereotype; it's a generalization that 'generally speaking' is true.
It may come as a surprise, but intelligent, mature women look for a HELL of a lot more in a guy than his looks and wallet.
Sure, let's look around us. How many rich men do you notice with dumpy, fat wives? How many rock stars are in relationships with unattractive women? I don't make the rules, I just report what I see with my own eyes. And typically, the attractive women want to be around men they perceive to be wealthy and powerful. Consider Bill Clinton and his list of conquests. Is Bill Clinton in any way remarkably attractive, or is the power and wealth he commands?
Most sentient women past their mid-20s have gotten over the "bad boys" and gravitate to real men.
Good point. After these women have 'had their fun', but now realize that their looks are on the decline, and gravity has come into play; opt to settle for the 'good guy' they wouldn't have given a second though to a few years earlier .... gee, thanks.
If you don't want to pay for children, then just go ahead and get the vasectomy and marry someone who has been sterilized. Just remember when you die you can't take your money with you.
I like them too, scary, but inspiring. I see that marriage is going to be lots of work and risk, but the older I get, the less I care about possessions. But, I still have to worry about what the cats will think.
Yes, I am. Because a stereotype is usually based on a fundamental truth. That is why it is a stereotype; it's a generalization that 'generally speaking' is true.
Sheesh! Why do you even bother if this is such a universal truth?
It may come as a surprise, but intelligent, mature women look for a HELL of a lot more in a guy than his looks and wallet.
Sure, let's look around us. How many rich men do you notice with dumpy, fat wives? How many rock stars are in relationships with unattractive women? I don't make the rules, I just report what I see with my own eyes. And typically, the attractive women want to be around men they perceive to be wealthy and powerful. Consider Bill Clinton and his list of conquests. Is Bill Clinton in any way remarkably attractive, or is the power and wealth he commands?
You think Clinton's conquests are attractive?! And as for all those questions, turn them around and switch the genders.
Most sentient women past their mid-20s have gotten over the "bad boys" and gravitate to real men.
Good point. After these women have 'had their fun', but now realize that their looks are on the decline, and gravity has come into play; opt to settle for the 'good guy' they wouldn't have given a second though to a few years earlier .... gee, thanks.
ROFLMCO! You *really* think that women in their mid-20s are on the decline, lookswise? Is your name Woody Allen? R Kelly?
And just what do you have to offer -- besides your obvious charm -- to women, that you can be so picky and refer to women in their mid-20s as over the hill, in terms of looks? And have you always been so mature and deep in terms of what you look for in a woman?
And I can't think of any couple that I have ever known who went into the marriage not trusting their partner. However, there are several marri Just remember when you die you can't take your money with you.ages that ended because the trust was misplaced.
Just remember when you die you can't take your money with you.
I list cases of fraud, where a man is forced to pay money based on lies, deception and deceit; and your response is 'you can't take it with you'? Aww, heck then, I'm sure you wouldn't mind too much if I took half of what you own today, and a chunk of what you make the rest of your life, plus 25% of what you earn for the next 18 years for my kids (even though you had nothing to do with creating them). After all, you can't take the money with you.
This is not personal for me...you are the one who thinks that women are out to trap you into becoming a father.
The LAWs as they are presently written, support women regardless of the condition in which the woman finds herself to be pregnant. The husband, without regard to whom the father is, or without regard to his desires to procreate is FORCED to comply with 'the best interests of the child'.
What do you mean the laws as they are presently written? It has always been that way- men who get married are presumed to have agreed to have children with their wives. The marital presumption is a common law rule- we didn't have DNA tests back in the 19th century, remember?
The fact that he may have taken an active role in preventing the pregnancy from occuring have no legal weight. The fact that he may not be the father of the children is inconsequential to the court.
Name a time in history when men could get out of paternity within marriage by claiming that they were "tricked". How would they prove it anyway, since no form of birth control is 100%?
There are cases where a wife obtains frozen sperm that her husband had put away before his vasectomy. Now, before serving her husband with divorce papers; she obtains the frozen sperm and impregnates herself. Thus, she has secured 25% of her husband's income for the next 18 years. The husband has NO ROLE in this.
How many times has this happened, once? If you don't want any more children, you don't freeze your sperm and you certainly don't let someone else have access to it.
Now, what part of this do you not understand?
The part where you think that every woman is some conniving b.... just dying to have your baby by any means neccessary. And that even then a man would be completely blind to her true personality prior to marriage.
Not all of them, but the appeal of a willing 20-something year old to a 50+ year old is there. If you take a list of his conquests while Gov. of Arkansas, they include former Miss Ark, various playboy models and actresses.
You *really* think that women in their mid-20s are on the decline, lookswise?
Ummm, your sentence I was replying to is this: "Most sentient women past their mid-20s have gotten over the "bad boys" and gravitate to real men."
So, actually the answer is "Yes, after the mid-20's women generally lose thier 'cuteness' and 'perkiness'". Gravity is a harsh mistress.
And just what do you have to offer -- besides your obvious charm -- to women, that you can be so picky and refer to women in their mid-20s ....
now you are just plain attacking. My points are that "Good guys finish last", because they are the scraps that are finally picked up when the attractive women find that they haven't snagged the rich husband. If it were otherwise, hard working guys would be snatched up, over the alpha-males. The fact remains that women go after the alpha-male, and the alpha-male is not a nice guy. They tend to be aggressive, arrogant, pushy and self-centered. More examples? Mick Jagger, David Bowie, or reverse the point Nicole Smith, Pamela Anderson. Consider members of just about any band. Are the girls after them because these are just darn nice boys?
That's a series concern ... we got our cat when two of our friends who already had cats got married. Our Agnes insists on being the only animal in the home - she even dipped one of our fish out of the bowl and ate him!
She also had a nervous breakdown when our first child was born, and the vet had to tranquilize her for a couple of months while she got used to it. She's maintained an armed truce with all the kids since then; she bites them if they annoy her, and we say, "Serves you right!"
But for real ... marriage is worth the work, and provides extra people to nurture the cats :-).
No, I simply stated that the laws on the books are patentily unfair. And that is at least a contributing factor why many men are refusing to get married.
How would they prove it anyway, since no form of birth control is 100%?
You are side-stepping the point. Lies, deceit and deception are weapons that have, are and will continue to be used against men. The laws are not concerned with these in the least. If roles were reversed, say if a husband fathered a child out of wedlock with a mistress; the reversal would find the jilted wife paying 25% of her income to the mistress's child; regardless of whether her marriage ended in divorce or not.
How many times has this happened, once?
How many times it occured is not the issue. The fact that it occurred is the issue. Whenever a system is in place that allows one party to deceive and defraud another party, without redress; the system is broken. Whether the system abuses one person, or a hundred million; the system remains broken.
Darn straight! At least men have the option of importing brides to get a more feminine wife than anything available here in the U.S. If you women try to import a husband you'll bet treated worse than you ever imagined, and he'll probably end up running off with your kids to a foreign country!
I guess feminists are basically doomed to a life of "soup for one," and occasional one night stands. Tisk-Tisk
The law is not perfect- it is hard to keep up with technology and the many ways humans seek to hurt other humans. Some responsibility is on you to protect yourself.
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.