Not necessarily, a very large number of those men are simply dead.
Posted on 01/23/2007 7:11:06 AM PST by shrinkermd
My mistake what=want.
Notice how a lie is treated as the truth, because it was in the NYT! The times played with the numbers to get them to come out so that they could say that MOST women are unmarried.
The figures included 15 year olds and of course widows!
The Titans? All in all a pretty good year after a lousy start. Vince Young rocks!
Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?
You have a better idea of what nasties might be in the milk.
I agree. Humans haven't changed, technology, systems, and environments have changed. Just two generations ago people grew up in one town, got a job, married, and died in that town. They had a network of extended family and life-long friends. Now, the extended family is near non-existent for most people. Friends are those you've made in the last 4-5 years, and chances are they'll all move away. Not to mention the alienation and anti-social structure of suburbia.
Not necessarily, a very large number of those men are simply dead.
To 34...powdered milk comes to mind..
There's a direct correlation between the drop in the marriage rate and the advent of sports bars and big screen TVs.
well, I hear there is a whole lot of unattached wimmin out there
You've got to love the term "no fault divorce". It's deceptive left wing legal mumbo-jumbo for "it's always the man's fault".
They used girls 15-19 in their statistics as unmarried.
How far back are they looking for comparison? Not long ago in our nation's history, 15-19 year olds were the prime demographic to be married. If we're looking at 51% of women as being an unmarried anomaly, then is that taking that historical fact into account?
In other words, if you're going to compare long term trends, you need to keep a stable set of factors to compare it to.
"Society is better off if people marry and have kids."
How on earth do you figure from that statement that I hate people who can't have kids?! Can you at least show me that the statement is false?
Lighten up, Francis.
This reminds me of a similar study done about 20 years ago that was actually debunked on Designing Women. I recall that it claimed that women over a certain age were more likely to be killed by a terrorist than marry. It was total bunk, too.
"Playing House" is the preferred state today. If we can't commit to a spouse, how in the world are we supposed to commit to a war for our country?
I remember when it passed in MA. I was on Senate staff at the time, and it made no sense to me. How can there be no fault in a divorce? I recall that the NOW lobbyist was real excited about it. Yup. She was an odd looking person.
Actually, it's more that while women pay an emotional price for a marriage gone wrong, for men it's a financial meltdown.
What's the going rate on the remarriage market for men who have been wrecked financially? I hear a lot of bitter men here on freerepublic and I can understand why.
Glad you brought that up. I know many women near my mother over the age of 80 that are widowed. Plus several women younger that husband died early. Wonder what percentage of widows make up their numbers?
Hey, lots of men don't speak too highly of women either, just watch Free Republic. :~\
Most folk, though, are just doing the best they can in this life, it ain't always Leave it to Beaver, and it ain't really Desperate Housewives either.
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.