Sign up and join the discussion. Instant Activation Click here to register in a few simple steps.
Sign up and join the discussion. Instant Activation Click here to register in a few simple steps.
Sign up and join the discussion. Instant Activation Click here to register in a few simple steps.

Thread Contributor: forever_incelIt’s starting boyos...
#81
(06-08-2018, 04:36 AM)Towie Wrote: Had a look around and found this literature review:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5021537/

Much more detail than I should go into here, but it appears that the effect of wives' income on divorce has become significantly less pronounced since the 60s and 70s.
This is like a case study in using the same stats to say two different things. This is the "97% of tax payers will get a tax cut" versus "But only half of Americans will get a tax cut". Yes, both are simultaneously true.

Quote:Turning to wives who earn between 50 and 69 percent of total couple earnings, the relative risk of divorce is very high in the earliest cohort (70 percent higher than for couples in the 0 to 9 percent range) and significantly higher than for wives who earn 10 to 49 percent of total couple earnings (p = 0.021). The risk for this group declined across cohorts, however, and the magnitude of this change was statistically significant between 1968 to 1979 and 1990 to 1999 (p = 0.032). Finally, the risk of divorce for couples in which wives earn 70 percent or more of total earnings is elevated among cohorts married in the late 1960s through the 1980s but is lower than the risk among those earning 50 to 69 percent (though these differences are not statistically significant). The large drop in the relative risk of divorce for wives earning 70 percent or more of total couple earnings between the 1968 to 1979 and 1990 to 1999 marriage cohorts is marginally significant (p = 0.054).
So divorce risk is 70% higher when the woman earns more than the man. This number is now lower than it used to be, but isn't exactly what I'd call low or a weak association. 

I also notice in her entire paper that's designed with the explicit goal of saying "This isn't as big a deal as commonly believed" she ignores a woman's absolute earnings impact. So I have to assume that those numbers remain virtually unchanged.

So the more money a woman earns absolutely, the higher her divorce risk - regardless of her husband's income. And the more money she earned relatively, the higher her divorce risk - with a lone exception. For women making 30-50% the risk is lower than women making 10-30%.

And it's not too complicated to figure out
Quote:First, they show that wives’ relative earnings among couples in which husbands are in the bottom third of the earnings distribution are not positively associated with marital dissolution for either cohort. Thus, for couples in which wives’ earnings are the most economically necessary, we see no negative association with marital stability across the entire period.

Quote:the lessening association between spouses’ relative earnings and divorce were concentrated among wives with some college or less education and appear to be more persistent for wives with a college degree.
So what are we finding here?
When the woman earns more because it's needed just to get by, it makes no impact. But when she makes more, because she just wants more money - the divorce risk shoots up. And holds especially true for women who hold college degrees and beyond. 

Quote:Our results show that if there ever was a positive association between outearning one’s husband and marital dissolution, it has diminished across cohorts and is now small and statistically insignificant
Lol. A 70% divorce increase is "if ever" and "statistically insignificant". 
It's good thing she's a sociologist interpreting existing data research and not a primary medical researcher.

Some of her other research:
https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~cschwart/crs_cv.pdf

Here's a good one that @BombsAway will be relived to read
 “The End of Hypergamy: Global Trends and Implications.”

TransistorBass-303 Wrote:I need Fat Acceptance because the alternative is self improvement.

Reply
#82
(06-08-2018, 02:03 PM)TheGreatCornholio Wrote: That's a biological assumption - and it's true. It's literally your #1 purpose in life. Survival is actually just a means to spread your genes.

Maybe I need to explain this in terms of hierarchy.
Woman's preference for having children
1. Children with long-term partner
2. Children without long-term partner
3. No children

A man's preference for having children
1. Children with long-term partner
2. No children
3. Children without long-term partner

So the #1 is the same. But note the difference for #2. A man would prefer to not have children than have them with a woman who will not be there long term. Though a woman would prefer to have children with a long-term partner, she'll have them with a random sperm donor rather than skip kids.

Very few men want kids. They want a family. Without a family, they don't want kids.

Women also prefer a family. But they still want kids if that's all they can get. They don't require a family.

Again, you make up preferences out of thin air. This may be the case for your girlfriend or for conservative American women in general, it is not the case for me and many other women. And don't mansplain my biological raison d'etre to me, there's a good boy.  Btw - who is 'a man'? I've never met 'a man'. I've met men who wanted kids and men who didn't. These are culturally coloured assumptions, not absolute truths.
Reply
#83
It's a 70 % increase in some age cohorts and for some specific pay disparity. 
You reject the lit review conclusions because they focus on the aspects of the study that confirm a left wing bias. Not surprisingly, you have zoned in on the opposite ones (e.g. in citing the 90 % divorce rate for cases where the woman earned 3 times as much - for how many people would the disparity be that large?) and attempted to discredit the researcher. 

Also, the initial discussion about whether women in such marriages would be unhappy (JustBeRyanWhatshisface's point)  is in no way related to the divorce rate. (Not a point you made, but I'd emphasize that being forced to remain != happy marriage)
I'd also be curious to see stats on how marriages fare when people take turns leaning into the job and family life, which happens more frequently than cases where women consistently outearn men. I know quite a few couples that have relied on one income for a bit while a partner upskilled or changed jobs, the two people in the couple took turns being the main breadwinner. 

In right wing circles, you'd use the divorce rate findings to argue that traditional marriages are 'happier'. I'd see it as an indication of societal pressure on non-conforming couples - bi-racial couples have a higher divorce rate as well - 
and as no good argument to not keep all options on the table.
Reply
#84
I hope Russia starts WW3 and we all die

Life is an endless series of trainwrecks, with brief, commercial like breaks of happiness. - Deadpool
Reply
#85
(06-08-2018, 07:48 PM)Towie Wrote: And don't mansplain my biological raison d'etre to me, there's a good boy.
That's a rather low IQ reply, cupcake.


That's the biological purpose of ALL living things.

Here are some fat vagina having people with Phds in their respective fields who will tell you the same thing
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/c...8/20151529
http://people.oregonstate.edu/~rosenbed/...tegies.pdf

Apparently biological evolution and natural selection are just additional layers of patriarchal oppression  Rolleyes

(06-08-2018, 07:48 PM)Towie Wrote: Btw - who is 'a man'? I've never met 'a man'. I've met men who wanted kids and men who didn't. These are culturally coloured assumptions, not absolute truths.
Lol. You're not even trying with this troll at this point. How many times have you attempted the "But more and less doesn't mean ALL" reply. Yes, I get it. You don't understand when someone says "more" that means "> 50% and < 100%". You're actually rather sure "More do, though some do not" in fact means "ALL DO".

Ok. I can only have a discussion with educated people who can read, and have common sense. If you are incapable of debate without deliberate strawmaning, that is your problem, not mine.

(06-10-2018, 10:11 AM)BombsAway Wrote: I hope Russia starts WW3 and we all die
Mitt Romney tried and failed. Hilary Clinton tried and failed.

Every election we get one who wants it. 2020 will be no different unless the Democratic base finally stops listening to the dumb asses in charge and put Sanders up. But considering they're actively rigging the primary for Harris ATM, I think the odds on that are not good.

TransistorBass-303 Wrote:I need Fat Acceptance because the alternative is self improvement.

Reply
#86
(06-10-2018, 05:47 PM)TheGreatCornholio Wrote: That's a rather low IQ reply, cupcake.


That's the biological purpose of ALL living things.

Here are some fat vagina having people with Phds in their respective fields who will tell you the same thing
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/c...8/20151529
http://people.oregonstate.edu/~rosenbed/...tegies.pdf

Apparently biological evolution and natural selection are just additional layers of patriarchal oppression  Rolleyes


I'm trying to explain this to you gently, but it seems hard to break through the layers of willful stupidity. It is not only short sighted, but insulting to insinuate that women just follow their biological impulses.
By saying that women prefer to have children even without a father in the picture to not having children at all
(which you completely failed to prove, btw), you are trying to 'prove' (by repeating the same assertion louder) that most of us do just that. Because ovaries, apparently.

Let me try again: you can obviously break out the percentage of people that end up having children at some point in their lives, which is presumably still high. But you cannot infer from that that all or even MOST of the men in these couples simply went along with the idea and the women would have done it even as a single parent. (Link to a representative study that found that more male singles wanted children than their female counterparts: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/heal...43219110/1

PS - for someone who prides himself on his intelligence, you can't seem to stop yourself calling me fat or low IQ (I'm neither, sweetcheeks)  as soon as you run out of arguments. Arguments != reposting the same data and jumping to a conclusion that is not necessarily supported by the data set, because it supports your Trump voting world view.
Reply
#87
Just imagining brutal hatesex between Cornello and Towie rn

Would be so hot

Lebensmüde
Reply
#88
(06-11-2018, 08:36 PM)Pencil_Neck_Chad Wrote: Just imagining brutal hatesex between Cornello and Towie rn

Would be so hot

LOL

well looksmax.net has convinced me that my SMV is out of this world so off to bang teenage aryan chads. 

xOxo, Maria 58
Reply
#89
(06-11-2018, 08:27 PM)Towie Wrote: It is not only short sighted, but insulting to insinuate that women just follow their biological impulses.
Of course they do. It's why 90% of women over age 40 in America have a BMI over 23. I'm very confident none of them reasoned it would be logically beneficial to pack on 20+ lbs(and often 100+ lbs of body fat).

I've been 30 lbs too fat. It degrades your entire quality of life - quite horribly. I can only imagine how bad 100+ lbs must be.

Why do people over eat? Biological impulses.

Quote:By saying that women prefer to have children even without a father in the picture to not having children at all

(which you completely failed to prove, btw), you are trying to 'prove' (by repeating the same assertion louder) that most of us do just that. Because ovaries, apparently

Yes, in the absence of a man, most women just go ahead and get knocked up by a baby daddy.
[Image: chamie-chartPicture2-500x.png]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_12.pdf

So it's already 40% in absolute terms. I think it's fair to say some of the those married women would also opt for the single motherhood route if they couldn't secure a husband. And that trend is headed up - not down. It also(not too coincidentally) closes matches the rise in BMI charts

[Image: 0601.bariatric_chart1.gif]

Who's the most obese? Black and Hispanic women(in that order). Followed by whites, and then Asians. Only 1/4 as many Asians are obese as blacks. And they have 1/4 the number of single mothers.
https://stateofobesity.org/inequity-obesity/

(06-11-2018, 08:27 PM)Towie Wrote:  for someone who prides himself on his intelligence, you can't seem to stop yourself calling me fat or low IQ (I'm neither, sweetcheeks)
You're the one who started with the "mansplaining" stuff, cupcake. I use very different verbiage for normal people debating honestly, and for the woke resistance crew.

Go find a place where I was condescending or belittling to you, before you fired the first volley. Disagreement and assertiveness, are very different from condescension which is epitomized by this:
Quote:And don't mansplain my biological raison d'etre to me, there's a good boy.
We can respectfully disagree, or go tit-for-tat on clippy jabs. I'm good with either.

Quote:jumping to a conclusion that is not necessarily supported by the data set
I've supported my statements with a lot more research than you have. You posted one study on marriage that showed a 70% gap and waived it away as "statistically insignificant". My positions are buttressed by the data, and you've offered nothing that points in the opposite direction. The closest was saying the degree was less than what my study found.

My positions are reasonable within the context of the data. And the data points in the direction I have indicated.

Quote: Arguments != reposting the same data and jumping to a conclusion that is not necessarily supported by the data set, because it supports your Trump voting world view.
Trump has indeed proven to have a much better grasp of both economics and foreign policy than either Obama or Clinton, that's certainly true. Obama never saw sub 4% unemployment, 3+% GDP growth, the eradication of ISIS, or denuclearization of Korea. 

Pretty amazing that Trump has accomplished more in 18 months than Obama did in 8 years. And Obama was a good president. Trump's making a strong case for a fifth head on Rushmore.

TransistorBass-303 Wrote:I need Fat Acceptance because the alternative is self improvement.

Reply
#90
(06-11-2018, 09:43 PM)TheGreatCornholio Wrote: Yes, in the absence of a man, most women just go ahead and get knocked up by a baby daddy.
[Image: chamie-chartPicture2-500x.png]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_12.pdf

So it's already 40% in absolute terms. I think it's fair to say some of the those married women would also opt for the single motherhood route if they couldn't secure a husband. And that trend is headed up - not down. It also(not too coincidentally) closes matches the rise in BMI charts

Errr, nope. This is pretty central to your argument, so try to follow.

You said:

Quote:Woman's preference for having children
1. Children with long-term partner
2. Children without long-term partner
3. No children

Preference. You cannot then wave a statistic about single mothers and infer all of these people are all single mothers by choice.

Here's the problem. Within that statistic, you have 
- the widowed
- the divorced
- all the people that started out in LTRs that went south when they had a baby
- those who may not have wanted children, but did not get an abortion and were left holding the can.

You cannot say that these women all chose that status. The two numbers that you want to compare are
 - % of women freely choosing to get knocked up by a sperm donor (typically wealthier, older women)
- % of women freely choosing to stay childless (hidden in the number of women childless by choice, for medical reasons or because they didn't find the right partner).

You stayed away from the argument about men and their preference for children entirely because you must have correctly figured out that the numbers that you presented make no clear statement about real preferences. 
Yes, when birth control fails and women don't get abortions, yeah, you most likely wind up with a single female parent. That's an entirely different argument. 

Try to understand why that assumption about preferences annoys me. This sort of folds into your broad brush statements about how women get everything they want in a marriage, while the men are forced to adopt a lifestyle they don't want. 

For a woman like me - good job, nice hobbies, good marriage - having children feels like a huge risk, because women in any employment situation and in any social status wind up with far over 50 % of the work in rearing children, which can destroy our social lives and earning potential for 10+ yrs. That is why many women in that group opt out of children or only have one. 

You hang on to the idea that a man would prefer to live like a single 20 year old indefinitely. I know that living off the grid or in a shabby bachelor pad is a male fantasy, but I can tell you for a fact that most men past the age of 30 realize at some point they wouldn't do it even without a family.

Quote:Trump has indeed proven to have a much better grasp of both economics and foreign policy than either Obama or Clinton, that's certainly true. Obama never saw sub 4% unemployment, 3+% GDP growth, the eradication of ISIS, or denuclearization of Korea. 

Pretty amazing that Trump has accomplished more in 18 months than Obama did in 8 years. And Obama was a good president. Trump's making a strong case for a fifth head on Rushmore.

Obama was president during the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008 when the entire world economy was in the shitter. 
The eradication of ISIS was already underway when he was in office. The US has broadly done exactly what they did under Obama in that area. Russia did the heavy lifting and has de facto won the proxy war with the US.
NK will never give up its nukes. They know what happened to Libya. You know who did, sort of? Iran. Remember when Trump said he was non interventionist? That was before he hired John Bolton.


Trump has done more damage to democracy and the reputation of the US abroad than you can possibly imagine. The EU is rearming itself and gearing up for a trade war. You will permanently diminish your soft power abroad, for nothing. That's before I mention the corruption and kleptocracy he and his toadies have brought into the white house. 

I seriously hope you're hit heavily by the effects of climate change and the tariffs China and the EU will put on key industries. The US needs a reality check.
Reply
#91
(06-12-2018, 05:43 AM)Towie Wrote: You cannot then wave a statistic about single mothers and infer all of these people are all single mothers by choice.
I believe the rate of children conceived from rape is something like 0.2% - so yes, I can.

(06-12-2018, 05:43 AM)Towie Wrote: Here's the problem. Within that statistic, you have 
- the widowed
- the divorced
Um, no. Those are women who are single at the time they are giving birth. And I believe the number of child bearing aged widows is well, well below 1%

(06-12-2018, 05:43 AM)Towie Wrote: those who may not have wanted children, but did not get an abortion and were left holding the can.

You cannot say that these women all chose that status.
If she didn't get an abortion, yeah I can. If you don't want kids, you use birth control. Abortion is just birth control of last resort. That's why it's called "Choice". I suppose a handful of those women were so fat that one day she down on a toilet and a baby popped out. It's happened before, but it's very, very uncommon. Again, way less than 1%.

(06-12-2018, 05:43 AM)Towie Wrote: You stayed away from the argument about men and their preference for children entirely because you must have correctly figured out that the numbers that you presented make no clear statement about real preferences. 
In the highly scientific USAToday article you quoted, they lumped "wants kids" and "wants a wife" in together. Which is pretty much in line with what I said. But they simply didn't ask the question of "If your options were, no children, or single fatherhood - which would you choose". Which would be the only valid question.

Now I will grant, due to our misandric court system men aren't even allowed the option to be single fathers if the mother wants joint(or full) custody. So I suppose you may have a point. Just as single women are allowed to adopt children, while single men are not.

I still maintain this is within my original premise, but it is unprovable with our current culture.

(06-12-2018, 05:43 AM)Towie Wrote: This sort of folds into your broad brush statements about how women get everything they want in a marriage, while the men are forced to adopt a lifestyle they don't want. 
Nope, I think you guessed the opposite direction for one half of my argument. I never said women "get what they want" in marriage. They don't. Marriage probably makes women even more unhappy than it makes men on average.

But for some reason most women choose most of the those same misery making options even when single, while most single men do not. Why they do it, I have no idea.

(06-12-2018, 05:43 AM)Towie Wrote: Russia did the heavy lifting and has de facto won the proxy war with the US.
Sounds like they're doing some good things. We should bring them back into the G8. I don't care about Crimea.

(06-12-2018, 05:43 AM)Towie Wrote: I seriously hope you're hit heavily by the effects of climate change and the tariffs China and the EU will put on key industries. The US needs a reality check.
We're getting one right now. And the reality check is just how poorly our politicians handled world affairs for the last few decades. And just how smart it was to run America like a business. America is growing faster than any of our G7 allies. 

They employ far more tariffs and trade barriers than we do. Trump has asked them to *lift* tariffs and remove  trade barriers. But if not, we will match them. That's simply smart policy. 

That's why Trump is more popular now than he was on the day he was elected president - despite 24/7 negative media coverage and every single politician in Washington(including those in his own party) fighting him nonstop.

And Trump is right. The whole world is shifting in his direction. You can see this in elections everywhere from Poland, to Romania to Italy. Nationalism is on the rise, and with it will return domestic economic growth.

TransistorBass-303 Wrote:I need Fat Acceptance because the alternative is self improvement.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)