- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Shortage of economically attractive partners for unmarried women to marry
Posted on 12/7/19 at 8:09 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/7/19 at 8:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that sociological gap is a ticking time bomb, but for another thread
I'd be curious to find out what you think the sociological consequences are going to be both short term and long term.
I'm guessing you're mostly concerned that it creates a permanent ruling class and a permanent under class? Where the kids born to wealthy parents have such a significant advantage even at birth (never mind during the school years) that kids born to working class parents don't have a chance?
This post was edited on 12/7/19 at 8:11 am
4
Posted on 12/7/19 at 8:17 am to TheFirstSaints
quote:It's kinda hard to tell for sure.
I'd be curious to find out what you think the sociological consequences are going to be both short term and long term.
But, the simple fact is, partner searching is a matter of fishing for a limited number of fish in whatever pool you're searching.
Women, over the last 4-5 decades have become more affluent which, that's great for them. But, they really haven't changed a single thing about what they look for in a man as they've done it.
So, that means there are increasing numbers of women partner searching in the pools with the fewest men.
Moreover, at precisely the same time, those male pools are actually shrinking(due to competition from women). Again, that's great for women economically, but, not so great if they keep their same partner search criteria.
Meanwhile, like any supply and demand system, the men in these smaller pools are confronted with copious choices for arse at precisely the same time that legally speaking, choosing poorly can totally frick you.
So, what do the men do? Simple. Treat these women as disposable depreciating commodities.
Now, women complain incessantly about this, but, the thing is, the men didn't change. The women did. They need to look in the mirror.
Posted on 12/7/19 at 8:20 am to TheFirstSaints
quote:I can see why some might think this is a possibility.
I'm guessing you're mostly concerned that it creates a permanent ruling class and a permanent under class? Where the kids born to wealthy parents have such a significant advantage even at birth (never mind during the school years) that kids born to working class parents don't have a chance?
But, what I see is a society where women become more and more disposable in terms of partnerships and paradoxically, as they become more affluent themselves, they become essentially ONLY good for one thing to men...………...fricking.
It's funny. Women decided the reasons men used to be attracted to them and want them as partners were all bad...……..so, they've set about eliminating those reasons...…...leaving only the pussy remaining.
What exactly did sociologists looking at this think would happen?
Posted on 12/7/19 at 8:20 am to TheFirstSaints
LINK
Clark suggests that mobility doesn’t really exist. Not in the way we thought.
It takes several generations to see any actual mobility. And that has a lot to do with inherited genetic advantages, and the culture that is passed down to us as children.
He found that government intervention had no effect on rates of social mobility, mobility rates are the same in the US and Sweden.
India, with the caste system, had absolutely zero social mobility.
quote:
Clark examines and compares surnames in such diverse cases as modern Sweden and Qing Dynasty China. He demonstrates how fate is determined by ancestry and that almost all societies have similarly low social mobility rates. Challenging popular assumptions about mobility and revealing the deeply entrenched force of inherited advantage, The Son Also Rises is sure to prompt intense debate for years to come.
Clark suggests that mobility doesn’t really exist. Not in the way we thought.
It takes several generations to see any actual mobility. And that has a lot to do with inherited genetic advantages, and the culture that is passed down to us as children.
He found that government intervention had no effect on rates of social mobility, mobility rates are the same in the US and Sweden.
India, with the caste system, had absolutely zero social mobility.
This post was edited on 12/7/19 at 8:53 am
Posted on 12/7/19 at 8:37 am to TheFirstSaints
quote:
I'd be curious to find out what you think the sociological consequences are going to be both short term and long term.
creating different classes of people with wildly divergent potential/futures
kids from 2-parent homes DOMINATE kids from 1-parent/broken homes in terms of outcome. creating a cultural divide between economic/class differences in accepting marriage is going to severely reinforce these differences and expand the gap
quote:
Where the kids born to wealthy parents have such a significant advantage even at birth (never mind during the school years) that kids born to working class parents don't have a chance?
on the meta level? yes
especially with how difficult (and now expensive) the gatekeeping functions will be. strapping the small population of 1-parent kids to insane debt to get a college degree creates a double disadvantage that makes any climb out of that sociological abyss less likely
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News