Ok fine, I see your point, anal is an option then...I don't like gold diggin' women, they aren't even good enough for anal...
WTF is wrong with you? And that' a serious question.
Seek help.. you need it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ok fine, I see your point, anal is an option then...I don't like gold diggin' women, they aren't even good enough for anal...
WTF is wrong with you? And that' a serious question.
Seek help.. you need it.
With no hook....erCandy, it's a bait thread.
1). Society is changing. Women are working now because THEY HAVE To. There is less time to raise kids so many working women make the choice not to have them. Why is this bad? Conservatives rail for self responsibility and being responsible enough to make the choice not to get married and have kids is honorable and responsible... birthrates declining be damned.
2). Raising a family on one salary is no longer feasible except for a small percentage of people. With wages stagnating, this will result is less families. People are choosing to get a house, nice cars, ec. That's their choice and not a sign of society declining.
There are 4 young couples in our neighborhood. Only 1 out of the 4 has kids. The other 3 are choosing to focus on their careers. They don't want kids. Again its their choice and if that's what they want then how is it bad? They are both working and don't have time to raise the kids so they choose not to have them. Again this is not a sign of decline.
Smaller families are a good thing. People making the choice to have no kids or only 1 child are courageous and honorable and responsible.
men marry women because they need them for sex.Read this compilation of statistics from Bloomberg. Nothing is heading in the right direction. Hey, let's cheer Gay Marriage because that's all that's important.
Most of this can be laid at the feet of liberals. The solutions to reverse the indicators pretty much require we destroy the embedded liberal values we operate under.
Look at this starting fact:
A decline in wages of young men has resulted in fewer good candidates for women to choose as partners, University of Minnesota professor Steven Ruggles found in a paper on marriage, family and economic opportunity in the U.S. since 1850 to be presented this month at a Pennsylvania State University conference.Women's economic empowerment creates a crowding out effect and depresses wages in the labor market. Women are hypergamous so this reduces the pool of men that they find marriageable. Women have traded away a stable marriage culture for a women must work culture. What falls out from this?
The proportion of men ages 25 to 29 able to support a family of four at the poverty line dropped from 78 percent in 1970 to 47 percent in 2012, according to Ruggles’s research. Even with the rise of dual-income households, this has had an effect, he said.
“The primary reason for the decline of marriage since 1975 is the decline of economic opportunity, especially for young men and especially compared with their fathers,” Ruggles said in an interview. “I project that marriage will continue to decline for at least 15 years, based on projections of the patterns of young adults.”
About 23 percent of men 25 years and older and 17 percent of women have never married, a recent Pew Research Center analysis finds. That gap is widening: in 1960, it stood at 10 percent of men and 8 percent of women.Marriage is delayed, women's biological clicks start winding down, more women end up as spinsters and the birth rate declines.
When today’s young adults reach their mid-40s to mid-50s, a record high share -- 25 percent -- is likely to have never been married, according to Pew’s projections.
Age at first marriage has also climbed, Pew found. Men, who can reproduce longer, have long married later, yet economics is likely playing a role in delaying nuptials for both genders.
The findings “suggest that never-married women place a high premium on finding a spouse with a steady job,” the report states. “However, the changes in the labor market have contributed to a shrinking pool of available employed young men.”
Postponing marriage has contributed to a drop in the number of births in the U.S., which has fallen 8.3 percent to 3.96 million in 2013 from 4.32 million in 2007, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The number of births declined to a record 62.9 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44.All of the factors listed in the article play off each other. Change one variable and it affects another variable, which in turn affects yet another variable, or multiple variables. You should read the article to get the full picture. These liberal reforms to how we construct society and now paying off and the outcomes are disastrous. That home that you have and plan on selling when you downsize, who is going to buy it if fewer young people are in the market because they're not marrying and starting families at the traditional rate?
“Most births still occur within marriage so the birth rate is expected to decline further as age at marriage increases,” said demographer Mark Mather, associate vice president for U.S. programs for the Population Reference Bureau in Washington.
Fewer marriages are leading to less home ownership, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Liberals never seem to understand that unintended consequences always undermine their airy-fairy plans.
You seem to be railing against women working and being educated, specifically citing their economic empowerment as the root cause of the drop in marriage rates. Are you then arguing that liberals support women working and being educated while conservatives oppose this?