Smith has a book coming out from Encounter Books entitled Male Strike: Society’s War on Men. The thesis of the book is that the deck is so stacked against men that they are “going Galt,” as Smith puts it. The term comes from Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged in which society’s productive members went on strike—led by John Galt—because they were being exploited.
...
...
The male strike can take the form of not marrying, not going to college or working at low-paying jobs and taking up hobbies to avoid paying into a system that uses state and federal programs to transfer men’s taxes to women. And taxpayer money doesn’t just go to what we regard as traditional welfare programs. Smith cites the Violence Against Women Act, which funnels taxpayer dollars to organizations staffed by activist women.
What's happening is that white middle class men, having run everything by right for the past few centuries, are getting peeved by the fact that they are now expected to compete with women and black people on a relatively even playing field.
It's interesting, especially considering who it's coming from. Reminds me of the somewhat inflammatory articles that were circling around about a year or so ago talking about how "men are boys nowadays" and rubbish like that. She does have a point in that it seems like, between a man and a woman, all that's required to convict and demonize the man is the word of the woman. I've heard enough horror stories on that to find it plausible.
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happening is that white middle class men, having run everything by right for the past few centuries, are getting peeved by the fact that they are now expected to compete with women and black people on a relatively even playing field.
That's... not the direction in which I would have interpreted the article, and it's curious that it was the one you did.
daedalus wrote: It's interesting, especially considering who it's coming from. Reminds me of the somewhat inflammatory articles that were circling around about a year or so ago talking about how "men are boys nowadays" and rubbish like that. She does have a point in that it seems like, between a man and a woman, all that's required to convict and demonize the man is the word of the woman. I've heard enough horror stories on that to find it plausible.
The book is called "Man Up!"... and yeah, it's rubbish.
There's articles galore our there about men not marrying too... even though I had a favorable divorce, if someone asked me if they should marry... I'd only do it for one of two reasons:
1) to have kids
2) religous beliefs
Other than that... don't do it.
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happening is that white middle class men, having run everything by right for the past few centuries, are getting peeved by the fact that they are now expected to compete with women and black people on a relatively even playing field.
That's... not the direction in which I would have interpreted the article, and it's curious that it was the one you did.
Pffft. Yeah. Come back to me when income equality is anywhere near happening and when high level positions are equally staffed. Men don't have it rough. Far from it.
Probably the only aspect that sucks for guys is the custody courts, but come on. The stats are their for anyone to find.
daedalus wrote: It's interesting, especially considering who it's coming from. Reminds me of the somewhat inflammatory articles that were circling around about a year or so ago talking about how "men are boys nowadays" and rubbish like that. She does have a point in that it seems like, between a man and a woman, all that's required to convict and demonize the man is the word of the woman. I've heard enough horror stories on that to find it plausible.
The book is called "Man Up!"... and yeah, it's rubbish.
There's articles galore our there about men not marrying too... even though I had a favorable divorce, if someone asked me if they should marry...
Young(er) soldiers used to ask me this a lot, probably because my face looks likes its been through two divorces. I always council that marriage is a last resort, or "only marry her if you are prepared to hate her." My wife is less than amused.
Manchu wrote: So, men who are losers are really just on strike because they are besieged by women.
Typical Randian fantasy.
To paraphrase xkcd: I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Rand says up until every sentence ended with "...therefore, you should be a donkey-cave to everybody."
daedalus wrote: It's interesting, especially considering who it's coming from. Reminds me of the somewhat inflammatory articles that were circling around about a year or so ago talking about how "men are boys nowadays" and rubbish like that. She does have a point in that it seems like, between a man and a woman, all that's required to convict and demonize the man is the word of the woman. I've heard enough horror stories on that to find it plausible.
The book is called "Man Up!"... and yeah, it's rubbish.
There's articles galore our there about men not marrying too... even though I had a favorable divorce, if someone asked me if they should marry...
Young(er) soldiers used to ask me this a lot, probably because my face looks likes its been through two divorces. I always council that marriage is a last resort, or "only marry her if you are prepared to hate her." My wife is less than amused.
The interesting thing is that most of the men and women I know ran out and got married just out of college (or even high school) simply because it was what you did.
It takes two to get married, so surely men and women are getting married less than before? I put it down to a trend towards more individualism in society. People are less willing to compromise on their goals and so on than they used to be, perhaps.
Manchu wrote: So, men who are losers are really just on strike because they are besieged by women.
Typical Randian fantasy.
You're a loser if you don't get married?
Frankly, with the divorce statistics as high as they are, and having witnessed two separate good friends get married right out of college and winding up divorced before 30, I'm not entirely sure I see the benefit - or the point - to the enterprise. I have yet to date a girl that I'd actually want to forsake all others for.
- not marrying,
- not going to college
- working at low-paying jobs
- taking up hobbies to avoid paying into a system that uses state and federal programs to transfer men’s taxes to women.
To me, this is the quintessential loser. For crying out loud, he's only interested in his hobbies as a way to hypothetically hurt the women that he didn't meet in college, aren't impressed with his low-paying job, and will never marry.
Smith has a book coming out from Encounter Books entitled Male Strike: Society’s War on Men. The thesis of the book is that the deck is so stacked against men that they are “going Galt,” as Smith puts it. The term comes from Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged in which society’s productive members went on strike—led by John Galt—because they were being exploited.
...
...
The male strike can take the form of not marrying, not going to college or working at low-paying jobs and taking up hobbies to avoid paying into a system that uses state and federal programs to transfer men’s taxes to women. And taxpayer money doesn’t just go to what we regard as traditional welfare programs. Smith cites the Violence Against Women Act, which funnels taxpayer dollars to organizations staffed by activist women.
It sounds stupid...BUT:
-Men aren't getting married.
-Men make up less than 55% of undergrad students now (and falling).
-Out of wedlock births are increasing rapidly among most US ethnicities.
I don't know about the cause and effect here. These events are happening though and are a cause for conern.
Da Boss wrote: It takes two to get married, so surely men and women are getting married less than before?
Yeah, but it's the man's job to propose to the woman, so obviously it's their faul.... woah.
WAR ON MEN REALIZED.
She Who Must Be Obeyed Proposed to me. By that I mean I was walking along and she hit me with a pipe from behind. As I lay unconsciuous she said silence was acceptance.
The next thing I know I'm saving for kids' college. What the???
I haven't read the book, and I doubt things are either as extreme as the author claims, or for the reasons she thinks.
That said, many rational men need to take a hard look at the system before making some big decisions. You can wind up paying huge child support on a child you can only see occasionally and at your own time and cost. A lot of states will only consider awarding custody to a father if the woman is a complete wreck.
The point is: marriage doesn't offer much to men these days. Modern conveniences reduce the need for a housewife, and nobody needs to be married to have sex. This isn't about loss of love, this is about loss of financial security.
Does that make it a war on men? Well, one that men, for the most part, are still winning. But divorce and custody laws have made mothers the de facto heads of household.
- not marrying,
- not going to college
- working at low-paying jobs
- taking up hobbies to avoid paying into a system that uses state and federal programs to transfer men’s taxes to women.
To me, this is the quintessential loser. For crying out loud, he's only interested in his hobbies as a way to hypothetically hurt the women that he didn't meet in college, aren't impressed with his low-paying job, and will never marry.
Sounds more like the "Slacker" of the previous 2 decades.
I wouldn't place this as some kind of "randian" thing though. It is the way society has been evolving.
Boys are no longer "expected" to push for success. They are being taught that just participation is a mark of success.... no losers, only 'winners'. Everyone gets a trophy even if they finish last.
No real work ethic either which goes back to the previous point. Just show up and get paid. You don't have to try, just do the basics and you get paid. Share the load, and don't work harder than you have to. Everyone still gets credit for a job well done.
I see this kind of attitude from the younger guys I work with.
Half of them cannot even change a tire. They never learned because they were taught that someone else will do it for them. So why try?
That reminds me of a time I saw 5 guys standing around a Jeep with a flat tire on the side of the road just kind of milling about. If I could have read their minds, they were probably thinking something along the lines of "Ah man, no amount of popping our collars is gonna get us out of this one, brah.."
Of course, then I recall the time I had to go drive to meet a (male) friend who couldn't change a tire, and I get kind of bummed out. He's an English professor though, so that kind of makes sense. Still depressing though.
As a divorcee I can kinda see where the decline in marriage is coming from. Between statistically more and more people coming from broken homes, and how likely you are to see at least one messy and painful divorce amongst your friends before you graduate college why would you want to expose yourself to that?
Allegedly we're getting more and more selfish as a culture as well, so why would you want to submit yourself completely to the needs and desires of another?
Polonius wrote: The point is: marriage doesn't offer much to men these days. Modern conveniences reduce the need for a housewife, and nobody needs to be married to have sex. This isn't about loss of love, this is about loss of financial security.
Boom, headshot.
I chose to get married and have a family, which I am the sole provider for. I've been married for less than 5 years. I can list off 5 1-off financial decisions, as the result of my marriage, that have cost me about $30,000. My family costs me, average, somewhere in the ballpark of an additional $1700 per month. That puts the financial impact to me, personally, in the ballpark of $100,000 in four years, or about $25,000 per year.
An incremental $25,000/year (after taxes) is generally enough to change lifestyles.
Given that sex outside of marriage is common, you can gain access to a lot of relatively hassle-free [not the miniatures company] [feminine companionship] [edited by moderator] for $2k/month.
Coming from Europe I think that a lot of marital problems come from the casual approach to marriage here. People date for a couple of months, get engaged, and 3 months later they get married. I am comfortable saying that a majority of people that I know who get married know each other less than a year.
Divorce is just a stepping stone in the thing we called Life. Of course the males get stuck with all the run up credit cards might make one end a life.
So, there are some situations that are unfair towards men. Like divorce and that kinda stuff. That being said, women face a lot more discrimination then men do. Furthermore, that book referenced Atlas Shrugged seriously. In terms of literary quality, Atlas Shrugged is on par with a screenplay for an Adam Sandler movie. In conclusion, the book was written by an idiot and by reading it you might decrease your intelligence.
So, there are some situations that are unfair towards men. Like divorce and that kinda stuff. That being said, women face a lot more discrimination then men do.
Discrimination against women will never be truly fixed if discrimination against men is allowed...it will just perpetuate it.
daedalus wrote: Of course, then I recall the time I had to go drive to meet a (male) friend who couldn't change a tire, and I get kind of bummed out. He's an English professor though, so that kind of makes sense. Still depressing though.
I'm sure it's going to go over really well around here, but I don't have a lot of respect for a guy who doesn't know how to do that sort of thing.
If I called any of my male friends or relatives to help me change a tire I'd deserve all of the scorn that they gave me. And boy, would they.
Manchu wrote: You're all giving good reasons why marriage is in decline but it's not in the words that you're posting.
Ok, Frazz, What if its just more women going to college.
Also So what if men arent getting married, Maybe being tied down your whole life feeding 90% of money you made to shoes.
Also Divorces arent higher then they ever been, They got their Highest in the 80's and teetered down from there.
So basically this thread has shown how the "war on men" is merely another salvo in the war on women.
the war on women is no more real than the war on men, so yes.
I once knew a woman who almost made the shoes stereotype real. She had an entire bedroom filled with nothing but shoes. Beautiful girl too, smart, into latex, absolute firecracker in the sack....but the shoes thing was too much for me.
So basically this thread has shown how the "war on men" is merely another salvo in the war on women.
the war on women is no more real than the war on men, so yes.
I once knew a woman who almost made the shoes stereotype real. She had an entire bedroom filled with nothing but shoes. Beautiful girl too, smart, into latex, absolute firecracker in the sack....but the shoes thing was too much for me.
So basically this thread has shown how the "war on men" is merely another salvo in the war on women.
I dunno man, sometimes it's ok to let hyperbole slide. Especially when the writer by his own admission, has about as much experience with women as I do racing formula one.
So thats why i heard a bloodcurdling scream of rage from up here in Canada....
My two cents for this topic is: Well im goin to probably parrot what a bunch of people have already said but hell i know i probably wont get married for a very long time, gota find that "perfect" girl and by perfect i mean ruffly into the same things as myself and can put up with my ...."quirks" ei horrendous snoring. But ive seen to many of my friends get knocked up/ knock a girl up right when they are out of high school (or in some cases while still in high school) they have absolutely no custody of their kid, and loose about 80% of what they earn to go to the mother of their kid, or some of my female friends who got knocked up were ditched by the afther who hoped the border or moved across the country.... That and the one girl i was goin to mary decided to sleep with a good friend of mine a few weeks after i proposed to her..... fun times
So basically this thread has shown how the "war on men" is merely another salvo in the war on women.
I dunno man, sometimes it's ok to let hyperbole slide. Especially when the writer by his own admission, has about as much experience with women as I do racing formula one.
Marriage as a whole has been in decline in the US for years, If I recall only about 25% of households are you traditional married mom and dad + kids household. The issue is not the decline of marriage but that there is serious discrimination against non married families
youbedead wrote: Marriage as a whole has been in decline in the US for years, If I recall only about 25% of households are you traditional married mom and dad + kids household. The issue is not the decline of marriage but that there is serious discrimination against non married families
How do you figure?
I'm single now... I have my boyz every other week... and I haven't seen/felt any discrimination towards me...
When I went through with the divorce, I realized how helpless I was and how my ex could really screw me... it was not a fun time for me.
I think the article rather badly lacked for content, to be honest. There's a vague idea that women use more health resources (but little recognition that much of those resources are being used to produce children, something in the interest of both sexes), and then this vague idea that men are looking at this society that's apparently stacked against them and choosing to reject that society.
But there's no effort to substantiate any of that, and that's a big problem, because the idea that men are suddenly so hard done by that they're opting out of high paying future careers is a wild claim, and one that needs to be substantiated. That it isn't makes the article very dubious indeed.
daedalus wrote: It's interesting, especially considering who it's coming from. Reminds me of the somewhat inflammatory articles that were circling around about a year or so ago talking about how "men are boys nowadays" and rubbish like that. She does have a point in that it seems like, between a man and a woman, all that's required to convict and demonize the man is the word of the woman. I've heard enough horror stories on that to find it plausible.
Actually, the odds of securing a conviction in a 'he said she said' case are fairly close to zero. It's pretty unusual for it to make it to trial, actually. So much so that it's said every man has one free rape, because the odds are so stacked against conviction they won't even take it to trial unless there's prior allegations.
I once knew a woman who almost made the shoes stereotype real. She had an entire bedroom filled with nothing but shoes. Beautiful girl too, smart, into latex, absolute firecracker in the sack....but the shoes thing was too much for me.
I have a shoe closet. Granted, its mostly full of old running shoes I'm too lazy to throw out and various cleats for various surfaces, but I still have one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: I have not experienced a war on men. I make 10-20% more than my mammary gland enhanced counterparts.
But 10-20% less than those with enhanced mammary glands.
whembly wrote: uh... then how do you explain men marrying less than ever before?
Declining social expectation to get married.
You know if men are getting married less than before then women are too. You need one of each to make a marriage, so it's kind of a mathematical constant.
whembly wrote: uh... then how do you explain men marrying less than ever before?
Declining social expectation to get married.
You know if men are getting married less than before then women are too. You need one of each to make a marriage, so it's kind of a mathematical constant.
whembly wrote: uh... then how do you explain men marrying less than ever before?
Declining social expectation to get married.
You know if men are getting married less than before then women are too. You need one of each to make a marriage, so it's kind of a mathematical constant.
Mr Hyena wrote: Why marry, when the odds are stacked unfairly against men when it goes wrong irregardless of who was at fault?
Uh, the UK has no fault divorce, so none of that makes any sense.
Not familiar with UK laws...
But "no fault divorces" means that even if the ex-wife had an affair, they're still entitled to half of her ex's earnings, house, car, retirement, alimony, child support and custody... and then some.
I just went thru this... *I* know.
Like I said earlier, don't get married unless:
A) you want kidz
or
B) because of your religion
youbedead wrote: Marriage as a whole has been in decline in the US for years, If I recall only about 25% of households are you traditional married mom and dad + kids household. The issue is not the decline of marriage but that there is serious discrimination against non married families
How do you figure?
I'm single now... I have my boyz every other week... and I haven't seen/felt any discrimination towards me...
When I went through with the divorce, I realized how helpless I was and how my ex could really screw me... it was not a fun time for me.
But, now?
I'm on a PROWL!
Here's a relatively short article on the matter, of the changing family, it's from 2005 but still quite relevant
Spoiler:
SPECIAL OFFER: - Limited Time Only!
(The ad below will not display on your printed page)
2 FREE YEARS of Parents® Magazine plus a FREE GIFT! That's 24 issues absolutely FREE. Order NOW to take advantage of this great offer! Get 3-full years (36 issues) for just $12! Plus you get our new Ultimate Birthday Party Planner absolutely FREE! HURRY this offer won't last! (U.S. orders only)
Email:First Name:Last Name:Address:City:State:Zip:
« Back | Print
The Changing American Family
Fewer than 25 percent of American households are made up of a married man and woman with their children. So what do families look like now?
By Cris Beam from American Baby
Shifting Demographics
If all you did was watch television commercials for minivans, you might think that the traditional All-American family was still intact -- Mom, Dad, dog, and the 2.5 kids buckle up and drive off every day on TV. But ads (depending on your perspective) are either selling aspirations or guilt: This is the family you're supposed to have, supposed to want.
In real life, in big cities and in smaller towns, families are single moms, they're stepfamilies, they're boyfriends and girlfriends not getting married at the moment, they're foster parents, they're two dads or two moms, they're a village. In real life, in 2005, families are richly diverse.
And are only getting more so.
In fact, the very definition of "family" is changing dramatically. The year 2000 marked the first time that less than a quarter (23.5 percent) of American households were made up of a married man and woman and one or more of their children -- a drop from 45 percent in 1960. This number is expected to fall to 20 percent by 2010.
Why the Changes?
The change in the makeup of the American family is the result of two primary factors, says Martin O'Connell, chief of fertility and family statistics at the U.S. Census Bureau, which collects such figures every 10 years. First, more babies (about a third) are now born out of wedlock, and second, divorce rates continue to climb so that nearly half of all marriage contracts are broken.
What's Normal Now?
The overall attitude toward relationships and commitment has shifted. More than half of female high school seniors say that having a child outside of marriage is acceptable, according to a recent poll from the University of Michigan Survey Research Center. And census data shows that 26 percent of all households are made up of a single person, living alone (as opposed to 13 percent back in 1960).
While a good portion of these singles are likely senior citizens, others are younger career folks who don't feel yesteryear's societal pressure to rush into partnerships.
"In 2002, the median age for a woman's first marriage was 27," says O'Connell. That's five years older than it was even in 1980. Sometimes young singles establish their individual identities so solidly that they never marry, even if they have children. These couples may partner up -- but without the papers.
Adoption, no marriage: Such was the case with Steve Wilson and Erin Mayes, a couple in their mid-30s living in Austin, Texas. They've been together for 10 years, own a home together, and though they've talked about it, have decided it isn't necessary to get married. Still, they wanted a family and, last June, adopted a baby boy.
Wedding after baby: Another example is Jared and Lori Goldman, of San Mateo, California. Their relationship was relatively new when Lori got pregnant in 2000. They agreed to raise the child together but didn't get engaged. But not long after their daughter was born, Jared proposed. "Reverse order worked better for us," he says. Lori agrees: "Our wedding felt more meaningful happening on its own time instead of on the traditional schedule. What girl wants a shotgun wedding?"
Single moms on the rise: Of course, because currently one-third of all babies are born out of wedlock, it's no surprise that many mothers remain single. When she got pregnant, Pam Hansell says her boyfriend initially seemed supportive. Then he began dodging her phone calls and e-mails, and eventually cut contact. Deeply hurt but determined to give her child a good life, Hansell moved in with her parents, outside of Philadelphia, and gave birth to a daughter in March. "When I realized I couldn't count on the father, it was devastating. I'm so thankful that family and friends have stepped in," Hansell says.
Two dads: Finally, Dean Larkin and Paul Park are living out another common-in-today's-world scenario. They live together in Los Angeles, and Larkin has a 21-year-old daughter from a previous marriage. Now he and Park are planning a second child, via a surrogate mother. They'd like to marry, but gay marriage is not legal nationally.
Reactions from the Trenches
Perhaps no one has a better ringside seat to all these untraditional family setups than those involved in the childbirth industry. "I've seen unmarried couples come in, lesbian couples, mothers who have been here with one father and then come in with a new father -- the family dynamics and structures have changed a lot over the past 25 years," says Barbara Hotelling, president of Lamaze International and a long-time childbirth instructor.
Based in Rochester Hills, Michigan, Hotelling probably sees a good cross section of American families and, while she doesn't ask the marital status of her students, estimates that around 20 percent are unmarried, compared with maybe 5 percent when she first began her career.
Hotelling has shifted her language with the times. She says she used to call her students moms and dads, but now, "I say 'moms and partners' and hope nobody screams."
The Marriage Advantage
According to 1999 figures from the Population Resource Center, families in which the mother is the head of the household are, by and large, living on less. Because of the wage gap, female-headed households earn, on average, $26,164 a year; male-headed households earn $41,138 per year; and married households earn $56,827 per year.
Then, there are the more than 1,100 federal benefits that married households can take advantage of during a lifetime. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, married partners can take leave from work when their spouse gets sick; unmarried partners cannot. Federal Medicaid laws permit only married couples to keep their homes when one partner needs nursing home care; an unmarried partner can lose the house. When a married person dies, the spouse inherits Social Security benefits; an unmarried partner gets nothing.
All told, according to the Los Angeles-based American Association for Single People and cited in an October 2003 Business Week article, with health benefits, retirement, and so on, married families can "earn" 25 percent more than unmarried ones.
Marriage Penalties
How does this stack up with the so-called "marriage penalty" that people complain about at tax time? Two of the major tax penalties were eliminated in 2003, says Fred Grant, a senior tax analyst at Turbo Tax, a corporation that produces electronic tax preparation programs.
Used to be, married couples filing jointly had a lower standard deduction than two singles living together, and married couples (in the lowest two income brackets) got bumped into a higher tax bracket on a combined income, thus paying more taxes overall. Now, only the richest three tiers pay more as marrieds than as cohabiters.
There are a few other penalties married couples face (for example, they need a lower combined income to qualify for a $1,000 per-child tax credit), but, Grant warns, taxes are such a complex soup incorporating home ownership, itemizations, and more, it's almost impossible to state assertively which type of family comes out ahead tax-wise.
Money, Marriage -- and Children
What is safe to say is that the kids of untraditional families can wind up penalized. Of course, there are many possible scenarios. In the best cases, kids living with, for instance, only their mother also receive financial support from a father. But as many single moms will tell you, not all fathers pay their full share of childcare costs.
Statistics also show that there are many kids lacking basic health insurance -- at last count, about 8.4 million, according to the U.S. Census. All told, there are 11 million children (16 percent) living at or below the poverty line, and while that's not broken down into the number of kids with married or unmarried parents, it's a sure bet that many impoverished kids are in untraditional families.
Single and Satisfied
Though a growing number of couples are fine with never getting married, the vast majority of cohabiting relationships change into either marriage or separation after an average of 18 months, says Susan Brown, PhD, associate professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University's Center for Family and Demographic Research and a contributor to the 2002 collection of essays and studies Just Living Together. She says that according to some research, there may be a psychological cost to raising a family without the mental safety net of marriage.
"I've found that cohabiters are more depressed than married people, and it seems to be because of relationship instability," Brown says. That means most unmarried parents who live together get married eventually -- or break up and seek other potential spouses.
The Growth of Gay Families
According to the Urban Institute, 2 in 5 gay or lesbian couples live in a house with children under age 18. But because the U.S. Census Bureau doesn't figure same-sex relationships into their data, it's hard to pinpoint exactly how many children are living with gay or lesbian parents.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) places its bet between one and nine million children, which means somewhere between 1.4 percent and 12.5 percent of all kids. While the AAP issued a statement saying that children of same-sex couples deserve two legally recognized parents, no state can grant federal marriage benefits to these couples, and only these states -- California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont -- allows state rights, such as the guarantee that unmarried parents can visit a child in the hospital.
Two moms, one donor: One couple, Sue Hamilton and Christy Sumner, used a sperm bank when they decided to have a baby. While the couple isn't able to marry in their home state of California, Hamilton recently adopted their daughter, which is legal there. Negotiating state laws puts extra stress on gay and lesbian families, but Hamilton and Sumner have encountered a few sympathizers. "One of the hospital workers fell in love with our family," Hamilton says.
"She thought it was nutty that birth certificates have to read 'mother' and 'father,' and typed up a mock certificate that just has our names on it."
Can Your Employer Help You?
Some large employers are scrambling to catch up to how families are changing. Traditionally, companies required workers to be married if they wanted benefits for household members. But now, "in order to attract and retain quality employees, the benefits need to be more flexible," says Kevin Marrs of the American Society of Employers, an organization that tracks information for firms in the Detroit area. He concedes, however, that because domestic partner benefits can cost a company more money, many small independent businesses don't yet offer them.
Families, Privileges, and the Law
Few laws protect untraditional families. In fact, at this point federal laws don't prohibit discrimination based on marital status, so unmarried families can and do face discrimination in these key areas:
housing
employment
adoption
insurance
child custody
hospital visitation
the ability to make a decision for a partner or child in an emergency
Wilson and Mayes are lucky -- their decision to not get married is made easier by the fact that their state, Texas, permits common-law marriage status. Declaring that lets them enjoy joint health coverage through Mayes's employer, and it smoothed the adoption process. If all states had such laws, a great many people would benefit. But only 16 states recognize common-law marriage -- and three of those require couples to prove they've been living together since the '90s, according to Nolo Press, which publishes plain-English legal information.
Why Aren't Laws Catching Up to How We're Living?
To many politicians, pushing for marriage is easier than changing laws. President Bush proposed spending $1.5 billion over five years on a Healthy Marriage Initiative to encourage couples (especially in poor communities) to marry. The money hasn't been approved, but the Department of Health and Human Services is running the program.
"Bush [advocates] marriage among low-income populations as a way to ameliorate poverty. But I'm not sure that's the answer," Brown says.
Daniel Lichter, a sociology professor at Ohio State University, goes even further. In his 2003 study, "Is Marriage a Panacea?" he shows that poverty rates for disadvantaged women who marry and then divorce are actually higher than for women who never marry in the first place. (One thought is that the loss of financial stability as a direct result of divorce -- which costs money in itself -- may set women back.) So getting married doesn't always ease the financial burden of raising kids, and it certainly doesn't help open the rigid boundaries of what "counts" as a family.
The answer probably lies in making sure all families -- whether Mom and Dad drive the minivan to soccer practice or Mom piles her stepkids onto the city bus -- receive the same kinds of rights, benefits, and treatment. Access to affordable childcare and living wages are also more direct solutions.
Discrimination against unmarried families is still real. But those families also have the love and courage it takes to press for change. Says Hamilton, "It really doesn't matter what kind of relationship the parents are in -- what matters is the love they have for their child. That is what makes a family."
Cris Beam is a writer in New York City.
Originally published in American Baby magazine, May 2005.
youbedead wrote: Marriage as a whole has been in decline in the US for years, If I recall only about 25% of households are you traditional married mom and dad + kids household. The issue is not the decline of marriage but that there is serious discrimination against non married families
How do you figure?
I'm single now... I have my boyz every other week... and I haven't seen/felt any discrimination towards me...
When I went through with the divorce, I realized how helpless I was and how my ex could really screw me... it was not a fun time for me.
But, now?
I'm on a PROWL!
Here's a relatively short article on the matter, of the changing family, it's from 2005 but still quite relevant
Spoiler:
SPECIAL OFFER: - Limited Time Only!
(The ad below will not display on your printed page)
2 FREE YEARS of Parents® Magazine plus a FREE GIFT! That's 24 issues absolutely FREE. Order NOW to take advantage of this great offer! Get 3-full years (36 issues) for just $12! Plus you get our new Ultimate Birthday Party Planner absolutely FREE! HURRY this offer won't last! (U.S. orders only)
Email:First Name:Last Name:Address:City:State:Zip:
« Back | Print
The Changing American Family
Fewer than 25 percent of American households are made up of a married man and woman with their children. So what do families look like now?
By Cris Beam from American Baby
Shifting Demographics
If all you did was watch television commercials for minivans, you might think that the traditional All-American family was still intact -- Mom, Dad, dog, and the 2.5 kids buckle up and drive off every day on TV. But ads (depending on your perspective) are either selling aspirations or guilt: This is the family you're supposed to have, supposed to want.
In real life, in big cities and in smaller towns, families are single moms, they're stepfamilies, they're boyfriends and girlfriends not getting married at the moment, they're foster parents, they're two dads or two moms, they're a village. In real life, in 2005, families are richly diverse.
And are only getting more so.
In fact, the very definition of "family" is changing dramatically. The year 2000 marked the first time that less than a quarter (23.5 percent) of American households were made up of a married man and woman and one or more of their children -- a drop from 45 percent in 1960. This number is expected to fall to 20 percent by 2010.
Why the Changes?
The change in the makeup of the American family is the result of two primary factors, says Martin O'Connell, chief of fertility and family statistics at the U.S. Census Bureau, which collects such figures every 10 years. First, more babies (about a third) are now born out of wedlock, and second, divorce rates continue to climb so that nearly half of all marriage contracts are broken.
What's Normal Now?
The overall attitude toward relationships and commitment has shifted. More than half of female high school seniors say that having a child outside of marriage is acceptable, according to a recent poll from the University of Michigan Survey Research Center. And census data shows that 26 percent of all households are made up of a single person, living alone (as opposed to 13 percent back in 1960).
While a good portion of these singles are likely senior citizens, others are younger career folks who don't feel yesteryear's societal pressure to rush into partnerships.
"In 2002, the median age for a woman's first marriage was 27," says O'Connell. That's five years older than it was even in 1980. Sometimes young singles establish their individual identities so solidly that they never marry, even if they have children. These couples may partner up -- but without the papers.
Adoption, no marriage: Such was the case with Steve Wilson and Erin Mayes, a couple in their mid-30s living in Austin, Texas. They've been together for 10 years, own a home together, and though they've talked about it, have decided it isn't necessary to get married. Still, they wanted a family and, last June, adopted a baby boy.
Wedding after baby: Another example is Jared and Lori Goldman, of San Mateo, California. Their relationship was relatively new when Lori got pregnant in 2000. They agreed to raise the child together but didn't get engaged. But not long after their daughter was born, Jared proposed. "Reverse order worked better for us," he says. Lori agrees: "Our wedding felt more meaningful happening on its own time instead of on the traditional schedule. What girl wants a shotgun wedding?"
Single moms on the rise: Of course, because currently one-third of all babies are born out of wedlock, it's no surprise that many mothers remain single. When she got pregnant, Pam Hansell says her boyfriend initially seemed supportive. Then he began dodging her phone calls and e-mails, and eventually cut contact. Deeply hurt but determined to give her child a good life, Hansell moved in with her parents, outside of Philadelphia, and gave birth to a daughter in March. "When I realized I couldn't count on the father, it was devastating. I'm so thankful that family and friends have stepped in," Hansell says.
Two dads: Finally, Dean Larkin and Paul Park are living out another common-in-today's-world scenario. They live together in Los Angeles, and Larkin has a 21-year-old daughter from a previous marriage. Now he and Park are planning a second child, via a surrogate mother. They'd like to marry, but gay marriage is not legal nationally.
Reactions from the Trenches
Perhaps no one has a better ringside seat to all these untraditional family setups than those involved in the childbirth industry. "I've seen unmarried couples come in, lesbian couples, mothers who have been here with one father and then come in with a new father -- the family dynamics and structures have changed a lot over the past 25 years," says Barbara Hotelling, president of Lamaze International and a long-time childbirth instructor.
Based in Rochester Hills, Michigan, Hotelling probably sees a good cross section of American families and, while she doesn't ask the marital status of her students, estimates that around 20 percent are unmarried, compared with maybe 5 percent when she first began her career.
Hotelling has shifted her language with the times. She says she used to call her students moms and dads, but now, "I say 'moms and partners' and hope nobody screams."
The Marriage Advantage
According to 1999 figures from the Population Resource Center, families in which the mother is the head of the household are, by and large, living on less. Because of the wage gap, female-headed households earn, on average, $26,164 a year; male-headed households earn $41,138 per year; and married households earn $56,827 per year.
Then, there are the more than 1,100 federal benefits that married households can take advantage of during a lifetime. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, married partners can take leave from work when their spouse gets sick; unmarried partners cannot. Federal Medicaid laws permit only married couples to keep their homes when one partner needs nursing home care; an unmarried partner can lose the house. When a married person dies, the spouse inherits Social Security benefits; an unmarried partner gets nothing.
All told, according to the Los Angeles-based American Association for Single People and cited in an October 2003 Business Week article, with health benefits, retirement, and so on, married families can "earn" 25 percent more than unmarried ones.
Marriage Penalties
How does this stack up with the so-called "marriage penalty" that people complain about at tax time? Two of the major tax penalties were eliminated in 2003, says Fred Grant, a senior tax analyst at Turbo Tax, a corporation that produces electronic tax preparation programs.
Used to be, married couples filing jointly had a lower standard deduction than two singles living together, and married couples (in the lowest two income brackets) got bumped into a higher tax bracket on a combined income, thus paying more taxes overall. Now, only the richest three tiers pay more as marrieds than as cohabiters.
There are a few other penalties married couples face (for example, they need a lower combined income to qualify for a $1,000 per-child tax credit), but, Grant warns, taxes are such a complex soup incorporating home ownership, itemizations, and more, it's almost impossible to state assertively which type of family comes out ahead tax-wise.
Money, Marriage -- and Children
What is safe to say is that the kids of untraditional families can wind up penalized. Of course, there are many possible scenarios. In the best cases, kids living with, for instance, only their mother also receive financial support from a father. But as many single moms will tell you, not all fathers pay their full share of childcare costs.
Statistics also show that there are many kids lacking basic health insurance -- at last count, about 8.4 million, according to the U.S. Census. All told, there are 11 million children (16 percent) living at or below the poverty line, and while that's not broken down into the number of kids with married or unmarried parents, it's a sure bet that many impoverished kids are in untraditional families.
Single and Satisfied
Though a growing number of couples are fine with never getting married, the vast majority of cohabiting relationships change into either marriage or separation after an average of 18 months, says Susan Brown, PhD, associate professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University's Center for Family and Demographic Research and a contributor to the 2002 collection of essays and studies Just Living Together. She says that according to some research, there may be a psychological cost to raising a family without the mental safety net of marriage.
"I've found that cohabiters are more depressed than married people, and it seems to be because of relationship instability," Brown says. That means most unmarried parents who live together get married eventually -- or break up and seek other potential spouses.
The Growth of Gay Families
According to the Urban Institute, 2 in 5 gay or lesbian couples live in a house with children under age 18. But because the U.S. Census Bureau doesn't figure same-sex relationships into their data, it's hard to pinpoint exactly how many children are living with gay or lesbian parents.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) places its bet between one and nine million children, which means somewhere between 1.4 percent and 12.5 percent of all kids. While the AAP issued a statement saying that children of same-sex couples deserve two legally recognized parents, no state can grant federal marriage benefits to these couples, and only these states -- California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont -- allows state rights, such as the guarantee that unmarried parents can visit a child in the hospital.
Two moms, one donor: One couple, Sue Hamilton and Christy Sumner, used a sperm bank when they decided to have a baby. While the couple isn't able to marry in their home state of California, Hamilton recently adopted their daughter, which is legal there. Negotiating state laws puts extra stress on gay and lesbian families, but Hamilton and Sumner have encountered a few sympathizers. "One of the hospital workers fell in love with our family," Hamilton says.
"She thought it was nutty that birth certificates have to read 'mother' and 'father,' and typed up a mock certificate that just has our names on it."
Can Your Employer Help You?
Some large employers are scrambling to catch up to how families are changing. Traditionally, companies required workers to be married if they wanted benefits for household members. But now, "in order to attract and retain quality employees, the benefits need to be more flexible," says Kevin Marrs of the American Society of Employers, an organization that tracks information for firms in the Detroit area. He concedes, however, that because domestic partner benefits can cost a company more money, many small independent businesses don't yet offer them.
Families, Privileges, and the Law
Few laws protect untraditional families. In fact, at this point federal laws don't prohibit discrimination based on marital status, so unmarried families can and do face discrimination in these key areas:
housing
employment
adoption
insurance
child custody
hospital visitation
the ability to make a decision for a partner or child in an emergency
Wilson and Mayes are lucky -- their decision to not get married is made easier by the fact that their state, Texas, permits common-law marriage status. Declaring that lets them enjoy joint health coverage through Mayes's employer, and it smoothed the adoption process. If all states had such laws, a great many people would benefit. But only 16 states recognize common-law marriage -- and three of those require couples to prove they've been living together since the '90s, according to Nolo Press, which publishes plain-English legal information.
Why Aren't Laws Catching Up to How We're Living?
To many politicians, pushing for marriage is easier than changing laws. President Bush proposed spending $1.5 billion over five years on a Healthy Marriage Initiative to encourage couples (especially in poor communities) to marry. The money hasn't been approved, but the Department of Health and Human Services is running the program.
"Bush [advocates] marriage among low-income populations as a way to ameliorate poverty. But I'm not sure that's the answer," Brown says.
Daniel Lichter, a sociology professor at Ohio State University, goes even further. In his 2003 study, "Is Marriage a Panacea?" he shows that poverty rates for disadvantaged women who marry and then divorce are actually higher than for women who never marry in the first place. (One thought is that the loss of financial stability as a direct result of divorce -- which costs money in itself -- may set women back.) So getting married doesn't always ease the financial burden of raising kids, and it certainly doesn't help open the rigid boundaries of what "counts" as a family.
The answer probably lies in making sure all families -- whether Mom and Dad drive the minivan to soccer practice or Mom piles her stepkids onto the city bus -- receive the same kinds of rights, benefits, and treatment. Access to affordable childcare and living wages are also more direct solutions.
Discrimination against unmarried families is still real. But those families also have the love and courage it takes to press for change. Says Hamilton, "It really doesn't matter what kind of relationship the parents are in -- what matters is the love they have for their child. That is what makes a family."
Cris Beam is a writer in New York City.
Originally published in American Baby magazine, May 2005.
Okay... there is *some* truth to that... but, it ain't THAT bad.
The only one I think young men need to be aware of, is this...
When interviewing for a JOB... wear a ring on your wedding finger. Just don't say anything about it, and when asked, be cryptic.
Trust me.
Then, if you're hired, take it off and play dumb when asked about it later.
This actually worked for a friend of mine a couple of years ago and he swore it helped (I guess being married means you're more likely to be reliable???)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I like that CHeesecat. Women marrying each other...even Sebster to....but...what if we can't watch?
I'm sure it's going to go over really well around here, but I don't have a lot of respect for a guy who doesn't know how to do that sort of thing.
If I called any of my male friends or relatives to help me change a tire I'd deserve all of the scorn that they gave me. And boy, would they.
Oh don't get me wrong, he got scorned. He has a tough time managing which end of the screwdriver to use, and I have no problem pointing it out when it happens. He'd never actually had to do it before, and to be fair, now that he's seen it done, I'm sure (I hope) he could do it if he had to.
He was coming over to my apartment to chill out anyway, and he bought me a six pack for my trouble, so I consider it the price for fixing stupid.
Besides, I don't think I can abide ANYONE changing a tire with that piddly little excuse people call a scissor jack. I keep a hydralic jack, jack stands, and 4-way lug wrench in my car at all times. I don't feth around on the side of the road.
whembly wrote: But "no fault divorces" means that even if the ex-wife had an affair, they're still entitled to half of her ex's earnings, house, car, retirement, alimony, child support and custody... and then some.
Err, no. No-fault divorce means that you CAN get a divorce even when neither spouse has harmed the other, it doesn't exclude the ability to get a divorce in response to the other person's actions. And it certainly doesn't require an even split in everything no matter who is guilty.
No Fault divorce would make marriage more preferable, because the state won't lock you into it if you realise it's a mistake.
I'm no convinced the princess thing is really any larger a phenomenom than the extended adolescence you see among boys, both groups are extending their youth, and having kids in their 30s rather than their 20s. There's good parts to that (travel, career freedom) but negatives as well (29 year old girls who think the most important thing in the world is a new pair of shoes, 29 year old boys who say brah).
I think the biggest factor in declining marriage rates begins and ends with people no longer expecting or judging others for not getting married.
And no fault divorce means the state will not require a reason for a couple to get divorced. It used to be that you had to establish in a court of law that one party had done something horrible, or that both parties had made serious attempts at bridging their differences but it was not possible, before the court would grant a divorce. No fault means that no longer exists.
And no, moral failings do not determine how property is distributed. Why should it? You get back what you put in, and you split the stuff acquired during the marriage down the middle.
Oh, and I've recently gotten married myself. And yeah, it was in part because we wanted to have kids. But it was really because we both wanted to spend the rest of our lives together, and wanted to have one day to tell our friends and family that. To me, that's reason enough. For lots of people that isn't much of a reason, and fair enough to them.
Honestly all the fussing about declining marriage rates misses a simple principle - people are free to do as they please. Marriage rates used to be higher because people were pressured into marriage, and now that isn't the case. Surely more personal freedom is better?
Any human being in possession of a car should be able to do basic maintenance on said car. Up to and including checking all fluids, changing one's oil, rotating and changing tires, etc. That's not a "man" thing, or at least it shouldn't be. That should be a "basic survival in the real world" thing.
whembly wrote: But "no fault divorces" means that even if the ex-wife had an affair, they're still entitled to half of her ex's earnings, house, car, retirement, alimony, child support and custody... and then some.
Err, no. No-fault divorce means that you CAN get a divorce even when neither spouse has harmed the other, it doesn't exclude the ability to get a divorce in response to the other person's actions. And it certainly doesn't require an even split in everything no matter who is guilty.
Er... no... that's not right.
It simply means, you can divorce without penalty (no matter what either party has done). That's what it really means...
Dividing marital asset is determined by state laws...
In my state, my ex was entitled to a minimum of 1/3rd of my earnings if she asked for it, as I made more than 2/3rds more than she did... (among other things... not in this thread).
whembly wrote: In my state, my ex was entitled to a minimum of 1/3rd of my earnings if she asked for it, as I made more than 2/3rds more than she did... (among other things... not in this thread).
I'll agree with you that alimony is a pretty fethed up concept in this day and age. Women are free to get jobs now, so they should do just that if they get divorced.
No Fault divorce would make marriage more preferable, because the state won't lock you into it if you realise it's a mistake.
I don't think you truly understand the impact of this:
is a divorce in which the dissolution of a marriage does not require a showing of wrong-doing by either party.
Therefore, the impacts are, among others:
- No – fault divorce has given more power to Family Court Judges in deciding issues such as custody, splitting marital assets and spousal support.When there is no one at fault, A judge’s decisions are based on his feelings and feelings are not always objective.
- Where once the Family Court Systems allegiance was with the institution of marriage, it is now with the institution of divorce. Family Courts used to put effort into protecting the sanctity of marriage. Now the main concern is to make divorce quick and easy and get it off the docket.
I'm no convinced the princess thing is really any larger a phenomenom than the extended adolescence you see among boys, both groups are extending their youth, and having kids in their 30s rather than their 20s. There's good parts to that (travel, career freedom) but negatives as well (29 year old girls who think the most important thing in the world is a new pair of shoes, 29 year old boys who say brah).
It's definately a phenomenon...
I think the biggest factor in declining marriage rates begins and ends with people no longer expecting or judging others for not getting married.
whembly wrote: It simply means, you can divorce without penalty (no matter what either party has done). That's what it really means...
It means you CAN divorce without penalty. You used to have to prove in court that the other person had done something before you could get a divorce at all, no-fault divorce laws just give you the OPTION to simply agree to end the marriage. It does NOT mean that you are required to get a no-fault divorce and give up the ability to demand appropriate compensation for the other person's actions.
In my state, my ex was entitled to a minimum of 1/3rd of my earnings if she asked for it, as I made more than 2/3rds more than she did... (among other things... not in this thread).
Then your state laws suck, but that has nothing to do with no-fault divorce.
whembly wrote: In my state, my ex was entitled to a minimum of 1/3rd of my earnings if she asked for it, as I made more than 2/3rds more than she did... (among other things... not in this thread).
I'll agree with you that alimony is a pretty fethed up concept in this day and age. Women are free to get jobs now, so they should do just that if they get divorced.
Yeah... my attorney went out of her way to warn me this... that if my ex asked for this, the judge would rule against me. For what its worth, my ex didn't pursue this... so, kudos to her.
whembly wrote: It simply means, you can divorce without penalty (no matter what either party has done). That's what it really means...
It means you CAN divorce without penalty. You used to have to prove in court that the other person had done something before you could get a divorce at all, no-fault divorce laws just give you the OPTION to simply agree to end the marriage. It does NOT mean that you are required to get a no-fault divorce and give up the ability to demand appropriate compensation for the other person's actions.
Oh... I gotcha... sorry, misread what you said earlier... my bad.
I think that's the problem, it's too easy to get divorce. Traditionally, you either worked on your marriage, or had to SHOW why want the divorce. Nowadays, it's too easy to get the divorce, rather than to work on the marriage.
In my state, my ex was entitled to a minimum of 1/3rd of my earnings if she asked for it, as I made more than 2/3rds more than she did... (among other things... not in this thread).
Then your state laws suck, but that has nothing to do with no-fault divorce.
News flash, most states work like this...
And yeah, it DOES have something to do with no-fault D... under the old system, you can get divorce, but you can say That person had an affair, or that person spent all my money on gambling, or whatever "fault"... the remaining assets are taken into account will divving up the marital assets.
whembly wrote: I don't think you truly understand the impact of this:
is a divorce in which the dissolution of a marriage does not require a showing of wrong-doing by either party.
Therefore, the impacts are, among others:
- No – fault divorce has given more power to Family Court Judges in deciding issues such as custody, splitting marital assets and spousal support.When there is no one at fault, A judge’s decisions are based on his feelings and feelings are not always objective.
- Where once the Family Court Systems allegiance was with the institution of marriage, it is now with the institution of divorce. Family Courts used to put effort into protecting the sanctity of marriage. Now the main concern is to make divorce quick and easy and get it off the docket.
I can't help but read that last part but think that's how it should be. It is no place of a judge or any court to make me stay with my partner if I don't want to be. If we want to invest more time and effort into our marriage, then we will do so, but having a judge go over our failed relationship won't help any of that.
I also simply do not agree that divorce hearings are based on a judge's feelings. There is simply no scope for personal feeling in the divorce, because unlike past divorce proceedings there is no scope for personal judgement on the part of the judge. It's about the dissolution of assets and the assignment of custody rights.
I once knew a woman who almost made the shoes stereotype real. She had an entire bedroom filled with nothing but shoes. Beautiful girl too, smart, into latex, absolute firecracker in the sack....but the shoes thing was too much for me.
I have a shoe closet. Granted, its mostly full of old running shoes I'm too lazy to throw out and various cleats for various surfaces, but I still have one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: I have not experienced a war on men. I make 10-20% more than my mammary gland enhanced counterparts.
But 10-20% less than those with enhanced mammary glands.
Whole bedroom, racks on the walls racks in the middle. Labeled organized by type and color. She told me she had lost count but there were literally hundreds. It was quite the sight.
What many feminists do not realise is that they are not men. They cannot have the same expectations as men do because they are not men.
Initially marriage protected women - if someone got you pregnant marrying him sorted out the problem making him legally and financially responsible. The decline in marriage is inevitable since without it women still have the same protections under the law.
That being said, women face a lot more discrimination then men do.
Really?
Women have cheaper insurance
more likely to retain custody of children
less likely to die violently
have more public money spent on them in terms of healthcare and education
not draftable
Phototoxin wrote: What many feminists do not realise is that they are not men. They cannot have the same expectations as men do because they are not men.
If feminists who possess s aren't men, then what are they?
Initially marriage protected women - if someone got you pregnant marrying him sorted out the problem making him legally and financially responsible. The decline in marriage is inevitable since without it women still have the same protections under the law.
It "protected" women at the cost of making them property, not people.
And fortunately we've now invented this thing called abortion to deal with unwanted pregnancy. I think it's a much better idea than being forced to live with someone for 18+ years to avoid suffering the hardship of being a single mother.
Women have cheaper insurance
more likely to retain custody of children
less likely to die violently
have more public money spent on them in terms of healthcare and education
not draftable
Err, lol? I mean, really, what else do you say to someone who thinks that women (as a whole) have a better position than men? It would be a less shocking display of ignorance if you were to claim that 1+1=4.
Manchu wrote: You're all giving good reasons why marriage is in decline but it's not in the words that you're posting.
Damn, that was priceless.
This thread has been a really hilarious read, and glimpse into the nerdy male mind. Enlightening.
There is also a new book of rubbish out called "The End of Men" that would probably get alot of you guys wound up. Almost makes me wnat to have a Dakka book club.
Misandry and the denigration of men is quite pervasive in western media these days, and for the moment seems to be institutionally accepted. Men are waking up to this, but I don't see how this can be pinpointed as the cause for any drop in marriage rates as opposed to other factors in our rapidly changing society, especially as men are often quite culpable when it comes to anti-male attitudes and inequalities.
The draft thing's an interesting point, especially with more and more females serving in positions outside the FOB or other relatively "safe" environments. With all female contact teams, the Marine Corps Lioness program, female officers joining the Submarine community, female pilots including attack helos, a lot of traditionally male military roles are having females fill them and succeed in them... depending on who you ask any way. YMMV on some of the former there.
That said I can see no good or legal reason that prevents women from having to register for selective service alongside their male counterparts. Not that any one in the US military /wants/ a draft... talk to a 'Nam vet or a fella from the 80s about the post draft military, crap was a bloody nightmare.
On a side note how do you all define equality? For me I define it as "Having equal responsibility, equal standing and equal legal protection in the eyes of the State and society." the latter of the two being the more difficult to achieve...
Ok, In all seriousness, No i do not think there is a literal war on men.
Men do tend to get the shaft on some things. For example, Child Care and Alimony(Can someone explain me how someone is entitled to the earnings of someone they have just left?)
Also Kramer Vs. Kramer comes in, where the court decides the wife(who left the kid and husband) gets custody because they think by default women are better suited.
I think this is a reaction to the more equal opportunity that is out there, those that grew up thinking they will be better off because they are men are now finding themselves disarmed of that advantage.
Whole bedroom, racks on the walls racks in the middle. Labeled organized by type and color. She told me she had lost count but there were literally hundreds. It was quite the sight.
Damn. It would have been more the conscious organization that threw me.
Phototoxin wrote: What many feminists do not realise is that they are not men. They cannot have the same expectations as men do because they are not men.
There is truth in this, and the various waves of feminism are evidence, but I suspect there is more gender bias here than rational consideration of sexual distinction.
- not going to college - working at low-paying jobs - taking up hobbies to avoid paying into a system that uses state and federal programs to transfer men’s taxes to women.
To me, this is the quintessential loser. For crying out loud, he's only interested in his hobbies as a way to hypothetically hurt the women that he didn't meet in college, aren't impressed with his low-paying job, and will never marry.
Is it me, or is this judgement upon an entire generation of men is completely counter-factual? I know for a fact that men still make up most of the high paying jobs, now, higher education I'm not sure, but most of the teacher in my fac are men. And are we really equating hobbies with mysoginy? Hobbies are based around center of interest, from birth man and women are educated toward different interests. I doubt there's ever been a time in history when man didn't have hobbies that seemed stupid to women.
And under-achievers have always existed, ever since there's been a a concept of social success. How can she tell that there's more loser today than a generation ago?
I don't think there's a war against men, unless you count the relatively few extreme feminists who are actually anti-men as a big enough group to wage that war (I don't).
I'm curious about the custody issue though. It seems that statistically, mothers are more likely to get custody of the children, but is that because the mothers are more likely to get the children just because they are the mother, or because fathers are less likely to pursue custody for whatever reason, like not actually being that interested in having their kids that much, or that maybe they just assumed the mother would get custody so they didn't push for it?
I've certainly known a lot of divorced dads who barely ever get to see their kids, but all of the divorced dads I know who are competent parents who actually wanted to see their kids were pretty easily able to get close to 50% custody or generous visitation rights. For example, my brother and his ex-wife are both perfectly capable parents, and when they were getting divorced the judge basically said that there was no reason to give him less than 50% custody if that's what he wanted.
So I guess what I'm wondering is, is part of the reason men are less likely to get custody of their children because men are less likely to actually want custody to begin with?
Also, from what I've seen (anecdotally) most of the guys who make a big stink (and start blogs and "pro-men" websites) about how unfairly they were treated by the family court are transparently enormous donkey-caves, so if the court didntt see fit to give them 50% custody, it doesn't exactly look like a shocking injustice.
Not that some men aren't genuinely mistreated in custody disputes, but the idea of a war on men is mostly whining from guys who wish it was the 50s and are deluding themselves into believing that if it was, they'd be Jon Hamm on Mad Men.
Misandry and the denigration of men is quite pervasive in western media these days, and for the moment seems to be institutionally accepted.
I don't think that's true at all. Men are certainly the butt of a lot of jokes in TV and film, but that's mostly because writers of general-audience fare probably find that it's safer to poke fun at people who have more power in society, which men still do. It's like how words like "honkey", or "cracker" aren't as hurtful or hateful as the equivalent words aimed at minorities. White guys still are the folks in power, and words have less ability to denigrate and hurt us.
The only real issues I have within this sphere are as follows - a man and a woman get together and bone. This leads to a pregnancy - the woman wants to keep the child and the man does not - the man is financially obligated to support the child, if the woman so desires it. If the woman wants to terminate and the man wants the child, then the child is done for. There is no good or easy solution to this sort of situation that doesn't abrogate the rights of one party. Hopefully in the not too distant future we can create an artificial womb or something, but until then, it is a sticky wicket.
My second major issue is that I am of the opinion that the shift in education over the last few decades has directly hurt dudes in favor of helping chicks - the whole kindness, positivity, gentle encouragement nonsense doesn't work with teenage boys. You have to beat civility into the heads of those little monsters to make them into productive members of society. I am about at the point where I think classes ought to be segregated by gender, because we all just learn in different ways. Boys need discipline to turn us into bridge building continent subduing badasses. Kind words and telling us that failing is just as good as passing just makes us not give a gak, because we take that sentiment at face value.
Bromsy wrote: The only real issues I have within this sphere are as follows - a man and a woman get together and bone. This leads to a pregnancy - the woman wants to keep the child and the man does not - the man is financially obligated to support the child, if the woman so desires it. If the woman wants to terminate and the man wants the child, then the child is done for. There is no good or easy solution to this sort of situation that doesn't abrogate the rights of one party. Hopefully in the not too distant future we can create an artificial womb or something, but until then, it is a sticky wicket.
My second major issue is that I am of the opinion that the shift in education over the last few decades has directly hurt dudes in favor of helping chicks - the whole kindness, positivity, gentle encouragement nonsense doesn't work with teenage boys. You have to beat civility into the heads of those little monsters to make them into productive members of society. I am about at the point where I think classes ought to be segregated by gender, because we all just learn in different ways. Boys need discipline to turn us into bridge building continent subduing badasses. Kind words and telling us that failing is just as good as passing just makes us not give a gak, because we take that sentiment at face value.
Exalted and quoted for truth. I'm all for equality but the genders are still pretty different in how we do business. Gender segregation in classes doesn't sound like a bad thing either, you'd probably get both sexes to focus a little better if they weren't dealing with the usual hormone rush in the teenage years telling them to ignore the math's lecture and peek down Becky's blouse all class instead.
Bromsy wrote: The only real issues I have within this sphere are as follows - a man and a woman get together and bone. This leads to a pregnancy - the woman wants to keep the child and the man does not - the man is financially obligated to support the child, if the woman so desires it. If the woman wants to terminate and the man wants the child, then the child is done for. There is no good or easy solution to this sort of situation that doesn't abrogate the rights of one party. Hopefully in the not too distant future we can create an artificial womb or something, but until then, it is a sticky wicket.
My second major issue is that I am of the opinion that the shift in education over the last few decades has directly hurt dudes in favor of helping chicks - the whole kindness, positivity, gentle encouragement nonsense doesn't work with teenage boys. Maybe the whole gentleness thing was a way to HELP women in school. TBH i think. you are wrong. I know many of men who are kind and succesful in school.
Why shouldnt we encourage that failure is okay? It teaches you to persevere. I just failed my drivers test for the 4th time, not even making it out of the parking lot, sure i talked about not doing it again, but i didnt mean it, im going to keep taking the test till i get it.
Bromsy wrote: The only real issues I have within this sphere are as follows - a man and a woman get together and bone. This leads to a pregnancy - the woman wants to keep the child and the man does not - the man is financially obligated to support the child, if the woman so desires it. If the woman wants to terminate and the man wants the child, then the child is done for. There is no good or easy solution to this sort of situation that doesn't abrogate the rights of one party. Hopefully in the not too distant future we can create an artificial womb or something, but until then, it is a sticky wicket.
My second major issue is that I am of the opinion that the shift in education over the last few decades has directly hurt dudes in favor of helping chicks - the whole kindness, positivity, gentle encouragement nonsense doesn't work with teenage boys.
Maybe the whole gentleness thing was a way to HELP women in school. TBH i think. you are wrong. I know many of men who are kind and succesful in school.
Why shouldnt we encourage that failure is okay? It teaches you to persevere. I just failed my drivers test for the 4th time, not even making it out of the parking lot, sure i talked about not doing it again, but i didnt mean it, im going to keep taking the test till i get it.
Failing is not the problem...
QUITTING is...
Failing implies that you're trying and if you fail, you do whatever to overcome.
Why shouldnt we encourage that failure is okay? It teaches you to persevere. I just failed my drivers test for the 4th time, not even making it out of the parking lot, sure i talked about not doing it again, but i didnt mean it, im going to keep taking the test till i get it.
1.you have provided the perfect example of why we shouldn't encourage that failure is OK.
2. Do yourself a solid and move to a city with an excellent or at least acceptable public transportation system and buy a bus pass.
Partial kidding aside accepting failure without encouraging actual failure is perserverance which Im pretty sure is considered a virtue.
Why shouldnt we encourage that failure is okay? It teaches you to persevere. I just failed my drivers test for the 4th time, not even making it out of the parking lot, sure i talked about not doing it again, but i didnt mean it, im going to keep taking the test till i get it.
1.you have provided the perfect example of why we shouldn't encourage that failure is OK.
2. Do yourself a solid and move to a city with an excellent or at least acceptable public transportation system and buy a bus pass.
Partial kidding aside accepting failure without encouraging actual failure is perserverance which Im pretty sure is considered a virtue.
Failure is Ok aslong as we dont let our failure Control us. When i star teaching im not just going to fail a student and give him an F. Ill fail him, pull him aside when i can to tell him why he failed and how to better yourself.
We dont get anywhere without failure.
Hordini wrote: I don't think there's a war against men, unless you count the relatively few extreme feminists who are actually anti-men as a big enough group to wage that war (I don't).
Though I do think that there exists a disproportionately large group of men that believe such a war exists, for various (mostly unflattering) reasons. This is mostly based on gender expectations. I wrestled with a guy in high school that was terrified of wrestling a girl, because she was definitively better than him at that league and weight (23-4 v. 12-11). And he never lived down the fact that he lost despite being a man.
The stigma was from his fellow men, not from the women. And I'll admit I stupidly participated, but the problem is with our gender not their's.
I'm curious about the custody issue though. It seems that statistically, mothers are more likely to get custody of the children, but is that because the mothers are more likely to get the children just because they are the mother, or because fathers are less likely to pursue custody for whatever reason, like not actually being that interested in having their kids that much, or that maybe they just assumed the mother would get custody so they didn't push for it?
That is an interesting question that I've not looked into, I may do so.
So I guess what I'm wondering is, is part of the reason men are less likely to get custody of their children because men are less likely to actually want custody to begin with?
I think its certainly part of the question, but there are further issues to consider:
1: How is receiving custody rights consider? To men that never claim custody rights get counted into the total of men who get custody rights?
2: Obviously, do mothers receive favoritism? My guess is that they do, but I would wonder if there exists a 'why' dimension.
1: How is receiving custody rights consider? To men that never claim custody rights get counted into the total of men who get custody rights?
2: Obviously, do mothers receive favoritism? My guess is that they do, but I would wonder if there exists a 'why' dimension.
Based on my superficial understanding of family law, custody is based solely on "the best interests of the child."
That means the court will look at who can provide care, where the kid will be happier, where the kid will be more stable, etc.
And, yes, in the majority of cases it's in the child's best interests to live with his mother, while his dad pays child support, simply due to earning potential, interest, and often, who cared for the child before. Add in the knee jerk "mom's are better caregivers" reaction in most people, and the split isn't hard to understand.
A. I LIKE this lady, she speaks a lot of sense no?
B. I think this video might be more relevant to the thread
edit:
So I watched a couple more of her videos
This is pretty disturbing...
The comment at 10:57 is especially disturbing to me as my wife did try to kill me with a cast Iron skillet. I also am not as paranoid or silly as to think these views are common, this like "Men Going There Own Way" are similar nutcase outliers.. still pretty disturbing though.
Yes but there's a reason for it and it's not simply because they're female.
Holy info-graphics batman!
That guy couldn't be any more misleading if he tried. He immediately conflated educational field with job placement. There is no gender gap in educational field choice, there is a huge gap in job placement. That's not entirely the result of discrimination, much of it is about normalized gender roles*, but people that want to defy those gender roles do find themselves having a difficult time.
If you want a pop culture example that doesn't relate to hiring, watch Meet the Parents.
*Which is to say he isn't entirely wrong about differing choices between men and women, but his argument is still misleading.
dogma wrote: There is no gender gap in educational field choice, there is a huge gap in job placement. That's not entirely the result of discrimination, much of it is about normalized gender roles*, but people that want to defy those gender roles do find themselves having a difficult time.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with the video, my observations from college reflect that there is a MASSIVE gap in the educational field choice. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find the six women that were in the computer science program to back my story. Contrast this with when I was taking English, Philosophy, or Economics classes, and in the Business/Liberal Arts buildings where there was about 60-70% women.
At my present place of employment, about 35% of the people in the highly technical team I work for are female. I'm unsure of their actual credentials as far as college goes, but as I got in without completing a degree, it's easily plausible that they don't have relevant degrees either.
Anyway, that's my anecdote, but I'm stickin' with it.
When it comes to computers and engineering there is deffinately a huge gendergap. My sister is currently taking her masters in Comp Sci, but when she was doing her undergraduate she was one of only 6 girls out of a class of over a hundred.
Every engineering course I've been to has been at least 2/3rds male if not better.
Many guys seem to have serious motivational issues or just a complete lack of intelligence (or they are just off doing fething idiotic crap like smoking weed). Seriously, I am in 3 AP classes, and I am one of the only two guys in all three. I have to admit, females do seem to have more motivation/regard for their future.
Also, that is quite odd how males totally outnumber females in engineering. Of all things, that seems like the one thing that would be equal among both sexes. But I hope there are at least a few nerdy girls in engineering college . (I plan on being an Aerospace engineer. Space FTW!)
Hordini wrote: I'm curious about the custody issue though. It seems that statistically, mothers are more likely to get custody of the children, but is that because the mothers are more likely to get the children just because they are the mother, or because fathers are less likely to pursue custody for whatever reason, like not actually being that interested in having their kids that much, or that maybe they just assumed the mother would get custody so they didn't push for it?
Courts today are under instruction that the default position is a 50-50 split. If for whatever reason there needs to be a primary home, the gender of the parents is not a factor a court should consider in its judgement.
Exactly how that works in practice is a little more complicated. There's plenty of reason to figure that gender stereotypes do continue to play a role. For example, if a man claims the woman's home is not suitable for children because she goes out until late and and drinks too much, it is perhaps less likely to be believed than if the woman claims the same about the man. Whether it actually works out that way is unclear. We certainly have lots of claims of such from men, but their evidence tends to consist of the 'I think I was hard done by in my judgement', which is hopelessly subjective and not evidence of anything. Actual studies of the issue at large don't seem to exist, because it is so hard to seperate out cases where the couple agreed to the mother taking full or majority custody.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: My second major issue is that I am of the opinion that the shift in education over the last few decades has directly hurt dudes in favor of helping chicks - the whole kindness, positivity, gentle encouragement nonsense doesn't work with teenage boys. You have to beat civility into the heads of those little monsters to make them into productive members of society. I am about at the point where I think classes ought to be segregated by gender, because we all just learn in different ways. Boys need discipline to turn us into bridge building continent subduing badasses. Kind words and telling us that failing is just as good as passing just makes us not give a gak, because we take that sentiment at face value.
I think there's a fair case for splitting up classes by learning style and disciplinary needs, but I suspect gender may be too superficial an approach. There's plenty of girls who are just as much trouble as boys, and plenty of boys who are very conscientious. Nor do the various styles of learning (audio-visual, kinetic and all the rest) line up all those closely by gender.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: Without agreeing or disagreeing with the video, my observations from college reflect that there is a MASSIVE gap in the educational field choice. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find the six women that were in the computer science program to back my story. Contrast this with when I was taking English, Philosophy, or Economics classes, and in the Business/Liberal Arts buildings where there was about 60-70% women.
I think that's part of the issue, but the thing is, if you broke it down to qualified people in a specific field, then studies show women still get paid less than men. A lot of that can be explained by family (women overwhelmingly take on the role of primary carer, which places a hold on their career advancement, even if they continue to work part time), but even that isn't enough to explain the problem, as studies have shown that even in really specific positions (so where the qualification, experience required and level of authority and responsibility is the same) the woman will still get paid less than the man in general.
Now, that can't be explained by an employer saying 'you're a woman so I will pay you less', but something more subtle is going on. Part of it might be down to woman not placing as heavy an emphasis on salary as men, and instead choosing career satisfaction, or proximity to home or other factors.
But it's near impossible to sensibly dismiss some notion of patriarchy entirely.
Now, that can't be explained by an employer saying 'you're a woman so I will pay you less', but something more subtle is going on. Part of it might be down to woman not placing as heavy an emphasis on salary as men, and instead choosing career satisfaction, or proximity to home or other factors.
Actually, there was a study on this that I remember listening to over the radio several years back. (Woot! CBC) It seemed to indicate that women actually undervalue themselves when it comes to negotiating salary with their employer, and men, in comparison, overvalued themselves. This led to a salary gap of about 7-10 percent if memory serves.
But I still think it's not systemic discrimination that makes womens average income lower than that of males.
Then there is also the joke, "Women always want to be equal with men, never better. Which seems to me like a lack of ambition. Which is why men are better."
Ratbarf wrote: When it comes to computers and engineering there is deffinately a huge gendergap. My sister is currently taking her masters in Comp Sci, but when she was doing her undergraduate she was one of only 6 girls out of a class of over a hundred.
Every engineering course I've been to has been at least 2/3rds male if not better.
There is a large gender bias and engineering education, but when looking at general STEM the genders are roughly equivalent.
One of the issues is actually how you analyze the major choice data. Because majors, at least in the US, are often highly specific it becomes a question of how to construct categories.
Ratbarf wrote: When it comes to computers and engineering there is deffinately a huge gendergap. My sister is currently taking her masters in Comp Sci, but when she was doing her undergraduate she was one of only 6 girls out of a class of over a hundred.
Every engineering course I've been to has been at least 2/3rds male if not better.
There is a large gender bias and engineering education, but when looking at general STEM the genders are roughly equivalent.
One of the issues is actually how you analyze the major choice data. Because majors, at least in the US, are often highly specific it becomes a question of how to construct categories.
Is general STEM including the social and political sciences
Well I'm from Canada and we don't really have that issue here. Anyways, in Canada the ratio of females to males in engineering is about 1 to 5, and in fact, female enrollment is going down in every discipline except for biomedical.
Overall however, there is about a 2.5 to 1 gap in the favour of males for these high earning degrees.
So I'm assuming that if we cut out social and political science that STEM is just a massive sausage fest. It's kind of depressing when I see a very intelligent teenage girl act like an idiot because that's what her peers expect of her.
Ratbarf wrote: Actually, there was a study on this that I remember listening to over the radio several years back. (Woot! CBC) It seemed to indicate that women actually undervalue themselves when it comes to negotiating salary with their employer, and men, in comparison, overvalued themselves. This led to a salary gap of about 7-10 percent if memory serves.
But I still think it's not systemic discrimination that makes womens average income lower than that of males.
But it's never that simple is it? I mean, can we definitively say "women undervalue themselves because it's part of their inherently womenly natures" or can we consider that possibly the way woman and men interact might lead women to undervalue themselves?
Note that I'm not calling for government action or anything, but it does seem an interesting issue to continue to research and discuss.
youbedead wrote: So I'm assuming that if we cut out social and political science that STEM is just a massive sausage fest. It's kind of depressing when I see a very intelligent teenage girl act like an idiot because that's what her peers expect of her.
Its more like cutting the S and M out STEM (harr harr). There are plenty of women in majors that involved science and math. They are out numbered by men, but not by much. The major gap is in technology and engineering.
The study was done by both male and female interviewers if I recall, and men still ended up with a higher salary even when there was a women interviewing, and females still ended up with a lower salary when hiring was done by a female.
Not sure if that's what you meant but there ya go.
Ratbarf wrote: The study was done by both male and female interviewers if I recall, and men still ended up with a higher salary even when there was a women interviewing, and females still ended up with a lower salary when hiring was done by a female.
Not sure if that's what you meant but there ya go.
Its been argued that women tend to be less assertive in negotiations with unknown parties, and so do not push for higher salaries.
s aren't men, then what are they?
