- 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: 12th Grade Girls Are Far Less Likely Than Boys To Say They Want To Get Married Someday
Posted on 1/8/26 at 7:43 am to PonchaTiger
Posted on 1/8/26 at 7:43 am to PonchaTiger
quote:
This is what happens when women figure out they bring a lot more to marriage than men.
0
Posted on 1/8/26 at 8:09 am to 4cubbies
quote:
vague “research”
There are few things that I read here that are so ridiculous that they cause me to literally laugh out loud upon reading them, but this was one of them.
The research that shows that women are healthier, happier, wealthier, and live longer is "vague," huh?
Well, 3 out of those 4 are defined by hard numbers.
For the below, TLE is Total Life Expectancy and ALE is Active Life Expectancy.
quote:
Between 65 and 85 years, married men and women had a longer TLE and ALE than unmarried men and women. For example, at 65 years, TLE for married men was 18.6 years, 2.2 years longer than unmarried men, and ALE for married men was 12.3 years, 2.4 years longer than unmarried men. Similarly, at 65 years, TLE for married women was 21.1 years, 1.5 years longer than unmarried women, and ALE for married women was 13.0 years, 2.0 years longer than unmarried women.
That seems pretty specific to me. Please tell me what is "vague" about that.
Here's your citation, btw:
Life expectancy and active life expectancy by marital status among older U.S. adults: Results from the U.S. Medicare Health Outcome Survey (HOS)"
Haomiao Jia a, Erica I Lubetkin b,*
You should write to the authors and let them know that you deem this "research" instead of research. One works in the Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health and School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA and the other in the Department of Community Health and Social Medicine, CUNY School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
I'm sure they'll be impressed with your research credentials.
Let's move on to wealth.
I'm happy to cite the raw academic studies if you'd like, but I liked this trashy little real estate article instead because it told me something that I didn't even know.
Married Wealth gap
From the article: "Though it’s not surprising married couples have a higher net worth than singles, over the last decade, that gap has more than doubled and married couples are pulling out far ahead of singles."
And that's not just because home prices have skyrocketed, because women now own more homes than men due to divorce (the woman almost always gets the house).
So in the same time frame that forgoing marriage has accelerated, the financial advantages of it have skyrocketed. That doesn't sound like a rational, realistic evaluation of the situation ending in the conclusion that marriage is a bad deal. It sounds like working against one's own best interest due to indoctrination that causes one to have a distorted view of the situation.
Health. Well, that one was at least partially covered by the ALE referred to above, but I can post more raw citations if you'd like. They've been studying that one for a long time and there are lots of studies on it. And they are studying actual data points like longevity, number of heart attacks, strokes, incidence of cancer, etc., things that can be objectively quantified.
Happiness. If you'd like me to concede happiness because it's a subjective, self reported metric (albeit self-reported through the use of studied psychological measurement tools), that's fine.
But you realize that the chore inequality data is also self-reported, right? They don't set up cameras or send someone to people's houses who stand around with a clipboard and time the amount of time it takes husbands vs wives to do household chores. That data is also self-reported.
So we can do either/or, but you don't get to have it both ways. Either we declare both sets of data "research" on the basis of it being subjective and/or imprecise because it's self reported, or we declare both sets valid research.
You pick.
This post was edited on 1/8/26 at 8:19 am
Posted on 1/8/26 at 8:10 am to PonchaTiger
quote:
This is what happens when women figure out they bring a lot more to marriage than men.
Exactly how are underage children who have never been married figuring this out?
This post was edited on 1/8/26 at 8:20 am
Posted on 1/8/26 at 8:12 am to 4cubbies
quote:
My claims are reinforced by research. I’ve linked research that supports my claims in this thread.
Naw.
You've provided research that supports one of your claims. The one I never disputed to begin with.
This post was edited on 1/8/26 at 8:14 am
Posted on 1/8/26 at 9:42 am to crazyatthecamp
quote:
The wide disparity in kids outcomes from single moms vs single dad's alone by itself is a benefit that cannot be overcome
Of course it cannot be “overcome” in a society that consistently values men more than women. I know this won’t be well-received but our social, economic, and institutional systems are organized around male comfort, credibility, and success.
quote:
Is it true that men RISK more by marriage?
Risk what, exactly?
Men have consistently out-earned women since women entered the workforce. If someone earns more, then yes, they have more assets that could be divided if a marriage ends. That's a divorce risk, not a marriage risk.
What else are men supposedly risking by marrying that women are not?
quote:Specifically what are men being asked to risk that women are not being asked to risk by getting married? Please name it.
\Modern society is asking men to risk wayyy more and
quote:
Men see this and aren't playing this game anymore
This entire thread is about WOMEN opting out of marriage, not men.
Women are delaying or forgoing marriage because marriage has not reliably delivered safety, equity, or partnership for them. Framing this as men bravely refusing to “play the game” ignores the actual data and just lazily blames women for one more thing.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:22 am to 4cubbies
quote:The odd gender ascription is noted.
How masculine of you to totally dismiss my claim
Let's explore your claim though.
quote:The research is often methodologically skewed. Let's take the classic surveys showing "women are paid 83¢ on the dollar compared with men." Academics (often with zero private sector experience) note misogyny as causative and jump immediately to "research" origins of, and corrections for, said misogyny.
despite the research I’ve linked
See the problem?
The problem is misogyny in this instance is a simple assumption rather than the established majority contributor. That is how critical theory works.
The assumption is also paradoxical in a capitalist system where companies like mine pay women 100% on the dollar ... for equal work. If they could hire equally capable workers (women, men, or martians) to do equal work for 83¢ on the dollar, they'd do it in a heartbeat, as would any competitor out there. In fact, not doing so would comprise breach of fiduciary responsibility for corporate leadership.
Here's the confounding caveat though, women (e.g., Female MDs) in medical companies often do not earn what men do, on average.
So how can the two things (equal pay and unequal pay) be true at the same time?
After-hours, Emergency, Call, Weekend, and Holiday work is onerous.
Given their druthers, if unrecompensed, no one would volunteer for those tasks.
But they are necessary services.
So compensation is set accordingly.
Full-workload employees (FWEs) are paid disproportionately more than partial-workload employees (PWEs). In my situation, over time about 10% of our male employees moved to PWE status. About 70% of our female workers did (regardless of kids or marital status btw). So while the 30% of women who remain FWE's were paid identically to FWE males, women on average made 75-80% of what men made in the practice.
While academic researchers assign misogyny as the reason for the pay difference, in reality it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything of the sort.
quote:Without further addressing your contention, or dubious 'studies' (e.g., activities such as home repairs, mowing the lawn, shoveling snow, and home finances were not included in the research), there actually is some quality work and output in the arena. i.e., " The Cognitive Contradictions That Shape Who Runs the Household."
I’ve linked research that shows women married to men do more housework than single moms. Women married to men get to essentially raise them.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:25 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The driver of mating is intense pleasure. Procreation and kids are a secondary effect
theologians and many philosophers will disagree
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:26 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
If you don't relate to your own descriptor as oppressive, I don't know what to tell you
My claim is not that marriage is inherently oppressive. What I described was a patterned allocation of labor. Calling that “oppressive” is your interpretation, not mine. If an accurate description of a system feels indicting, the description is not to blame.
quote:
When confronted with nonconcordant facts or disconfirming evidence, instead of modifying the hypothesis, a critical theorist simply ignores contradicting facts, and casts aside such evidence.
This seems exactly like what you are attempting to do.
No single statistic you’ve cited actually contradicts my point. You’ve offered data about workforce participation and divorce prevalence. I’m talking about labor distribution, incentives, and perceived return on marriage. Data that doesn’t address a claim is orthogonal, not “disconfirming.”
quote:
I'd suggest that while you may be "using your own brain to synthesize your own experiences and the experiences of many couples in your orbit to draw your own conclusions," you are doing it (consciously or subconsciously) with CT methodology identical to that of pedagogy saturating your academic experiences.
Respectfully, you don't really know much at all about the pedagogy saturating my academic experiences.
Invoking “critical theory” here is rhetorical, not analytical. Labeling a line of reasoning as CT doesn’t refute it. It just signals that you’re uncomfortable with explanations that examine systems rather than individual intentions. You’re free to disagree with my conclusions, but dismissing them as “pseudoscience” without engaging the actual claims is not a serious rebuttal.
quote:
I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention "my own experiences and the experiences of many couples in my orbit" compared with yours are disjoint sets in a Venn diagram.
Your point about our “disjoint sets” of lived experience may well be true. But it cuts both ways. Your experiences don’t negate mine any more than mine negate yours. If anything, it suggests we should be more cautious about making sweeping claims about satisfaction, incentives, and outcomes based on a narrow slice of observation.
And if the claim is that marriage still delivers equivalent value to women on average, that argument needs to be made directly. Workforce participation rates and divorce prevalence, by themselves, don’t establish that case.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:36 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Just FYI, your stereotypic "husbands" comment is anecdotal and insulting.
Again, I'd be remiss if I didn't emphasize "my own experiences and the experiences of couples in my orbit" compared with yours are disjoint sets in a Venn diagram
I have no problem with vulnerability IRL. My husband deeply hurt my feelings a few months ago. During the fallout, I took my son to a baseball game and ran into a woman I worked with like 6 years ago. We were catching up and I said, "Marriage kinda sucks, doesn't it?" She looked at me and nodded in resignation. We shared some stories about how much work typical (or my perception of typical) marriages require from women. Actual work (physical, mental, emotional). "Commiserated" might be a better word. I had almost identical experiences talking with other female acquaintances in other settings around that time.
Perhaps it's a generational thing? I'm not sure.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:42 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The odd gender ascription is noted.
It was cheeky, but also seemed appropriate for this discussion.
quote:
Let's explore your claim though.
This also seems cheeky.
quote:
he research is often methodologically skewed. Let's take the classic surveys showing "women are paid 83¢ on the dollar compared with men." Academics (often with zero private sector experience) note misogyny as causative and jump immediately to "research" origins of, and corrections for, said misogyny.
So we are to disregard research I present that supports my claims while elevating research you present that supports yours?
Posted on 1/8/26 at 12:21 pm to 4cubbies
quote:Only when the research disregards commonsense facts.
So we are to disregard research
"Research" recording "chores" such as cooking, laundry, etc., while ignoring home repair, painting, lawn work, household finance, etc., are obviously skewed.
"Research" addressing increases in domestic work, while ignoring the fact those increases come with equivalent or larger work reductions outside the home, are obviously skewed.
Such poor study design is occasionally accidental.
But, when conducted in support of CT, inevitably, the errors are deliberate.
In most cases, funding sources are the tell.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 2:08 pm to 4cubbies
quote:Sorry to hear that.
My husband deeply hurt my feelings a few months ago. During the fallout, I took my son to a baseball game and ran into a woman I worked with like 6 years ago. We were catching up and I said, "Marriage kinda sucks, doesn't it?" She looked at me and nodded in resignation.
Our anecdotal experiences are different, Cubs.
MsNC and I were married very young. She had a full-ride scholly at Tulane. I'd just turned 20, and was in my first year of Med School. She dropped out of Tulane after year one, and went to work at a Day Care, then as a Medical Receptionist to keep our heads above water. Two years in, we'd put together enough savings to get her back in school (w/ another scholly).
She graduated 2 1/2 yrs later magna cum laude with degrees in accounting and finance, and went to work at an accounting firm. At that point, with me working 110 hrs/wk as an intern/resident, and her doing 60+ during tax season, there should have been a lot of stresses. There really weren't. We each did what we could. There was no particular expectation for one or the other of us doing 'chores.' We each just contributed where we could.
... and sometimes where we couldn't
Our first Thanksgiving, MsNC wanted to try to cook our first turkey. She invited a couple of friends to the apt to share the meal. Then on Wednesday (T-giving eve), our oven broke. She was really down. I went out and bought a dirt cheap charcoal smoker, and smoked the turkey for her. We've done that ever since. To this day, she's never cooked a turkey.
Once on her birthday, I was absolutely dragged. Hadn't slept in a while. We didn't have enough money to buy a cake, so I tried to make a double layer cake myself. I was disappointed there was only enough mix to fill one pan. So I figured WTH, a single layer would be OK. Didn't occur to this genius that cakes rise in the oven. It overflowed the pan, and made a terrible mess. The cake was particularly hideous, but it tasted good. When she got home, we laughed about it (it's the thought that counts, right?). I cleaned up the oven for an hour, then crashed. Later, MsNC gave me a hug and suggested I stay away from the oven in the future. I pretty much have.
I had similar experiences turning all our underwear pink in the laundry, and shrinking clothes. 100 stories like that. We worked it all out though, never with particular expectations, other than we each did our best.
By the time we had our first child, MsNC had switched from accounting to finance, which she enjoyed a whole lot more. We were late in my residency at that point. She decided she wanted to stay at home for a couple of years with the baby before returning to work. It was tight, but it's what she wanted, so we made it work. Couldn't afford disposable diapers or a diaper service. As one of us was changing the baby, the other would wash the dookie diaper in the toilet. Task relegation never occurred. We each just did what we could.
Fast forward a couple of years, we had a second child, and found out our first was "on the spectrum" which was a game changer (would not wish that on anyone). So MsNC gave up her plans to return to work ... we thought.
Turns out, she decided to work with our own finances, and was quite good at it. My career took off, which gave her funds to work with, and eventually a full-time, WFH job ... and we all lived happily ever after.
Anyway, I admittedly have a hard time visualizing marital partnership as your sources seem to relate it. In contrast to the undercontributory male stereotype, MsNC is one of just a few wives who worked in our circles. Most have major domestic help, and otherwise specialize in spending money, which is diametrically different to what you're describing.
This post was edited on 1/8/26 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 1/8/26 at 2:13 pm to NC_Tigah
In my generation (mid 30’s), I only know one married couple where the wife doesn’t work full time (she works part time and still has a kid in pre-school). Every other married couple around my age or younger has both spouses working full time, and often working multiple side hustles as well.
This post was edited on 1/8/26 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 1/8/26 at 3:32 pm to kingbob
quote:Right.
In my generation (mid 30’s), I only know one married couple where the wife doesn’t work full time
How many do you know who cannot afford disposable diapers, or would even consider that? We weren't living in great conditions.
In the end, it's a matter of lifestyle choices. Now, with social media, folks wouldn't dare risk the 'humiliation' of appearing "impoverished." If it's avoidable, it's simply not a consideration nowadays. That's not necessarily bad or good. It's just a difference, and it's across the spectrum, not only GenY-Z.
No question, MsNC continuing work would have made our lives a whole lot easier. Baylor pays their Fellows a whole lot more now than they did then. Her dropping work cut our income well over 50%.
In the end though, it was a blessing. With our son's disability eventually surfacing, had she gone back to work, we'd have always questioned if there was something else we could have done in a stay-at-home situation.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 4:15 pm to NC_Tigah
I think the difference between our experience hinges on children. Although we dated for almost 4 years before we got married, I got pregnant with our first kid 7 months after the wedding (on purpose). We didn't have much time together married without the focus of our lives shifting to kids.
Adding an unexpected third child at a time when our existing kids were finally capable of some level of independence also threw a wrench in things. He's very much loved and wanted but boy does the baby's presence make things tough at times. He'll be 15 months old next week.
Thanks for sharing your perspective and experiences
Adding an unexpected third child at a time when our existing kids were finally capable of some level of independence also threw a wrench in things. He's very much loved and wanted but boy does the baby's presence make things tough at times. He'll be 15 months old next week.
Thanks for sharing your perspective and experiences
Posted on 1/8/26 at 4:31 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
We didn't have much time together married without the focus of our lives shifting to kids.
you should really look up Catholic theology on marriage. Both of the examples that yall provided on life experiences with marriage and children would be good for you to see how the moral/theology/philosophy of the process works.
What I will say is that, when you get married the expectation is to produce children, help your spouse and children be saved, and grow the Church by raising Catholic kids.
The idea of getting into a marriage and not producing offspring goes against natural law. However, the Church does mention things (as well as reasonings) for what happens when approaching marriage without the prospect of kids.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 5:02 pm to gaetti15
quote:
you should really look up Catholic theology on marriage.
You’re speaking my language. We were married in the Church. My husband converted right after our oldest was born. We attend mass as a family every Sunday. We’re active in our parish and the kids attend PSR at a neighboring parish where I volunteer teach catechism to 7-10 graders. I’m all in. Professional giver. Life of service. But I still have expectations of how I should be treated by my husband that certainly don’t contradict Catholic teaching. No one is perfect.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 5:06 pm to NC_Tigah
My daughter claims that he has no interest in boys. Well, one of them anyway. I dont know what the issue with her is, but apparently this is closer to the norm nowadays.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 5:19 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Men have consistently out-earned women since women entered the workforce.
Depends on what you mean by that.
The "gender wage gap" has been debunked six ways from Sunday, so if you're talking about that, you're perpetuating a known myth.
If you are referring to the fact that men and women make a variety of career choices that together end up resulting in men out-earning women, then you kind of have another problem.
If women voluntarily make choices that lead to them being able to provide less to the household financially, it's not such a federal crime if they do more unpaid chores around the house, is it?
Posted on 1/8/26 at 5:24 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I know this won’t be well-received but our social, economic, and institutional systems are organized around male comfort, credibility, and success.
Super vague statement, and I know I'm jumping in in the middle of this. I'm not sure you can say "male comfort," is at the center when men taking a exponentially higher proportion of "low comfort" jobs than women. Like significantly so.
Additionally, throwing terms like "credibility" and "success" out there without strict definition is haphazard. There are two spheres that you are talking about here: 1) Work Outside the House and 2) Work Inside The House.
On the second point, how do you measure "credibility," and "success," in a way that is publicly relevant or shown? Like I get the point, but the whole thing with Home life is that it is private. You, and many progressives, devalue what women can do in the home because you overvalue what happens outside of the home. And because "success" in the home isn't as monetarily rewarding as success outside of the home (but you know, it actually is, but that's a longer discussion and more esoteric), this is the way you've decided to frame the entire marriage and "human excellence" idea or whatever you want to call achievement.
The only thing that matters is "achievement" whatever that definition is. And that is only measured by earnings, "credibility," and influence. And nothing more.
It's the wrong measuring stick for marriage.
quote:
Women are delaying or forgoing marriage because marriage has not reliably delivered safety, equity, or partnership for them. Framing this as men bravely refusing to “play the game” ignores the actual data and just lazily blames women for one more thing.
You do realize that a large part of how we frame safety, equity and partnership is driven by culture's need to upend marriage?
This is less the fault of men, and more the fault of a culture that really wants one of two things:
1) Completely single, and isolated loners who will be easy to manipulate consumers. And that's all they will do, make and spend money
or
2) 2-Working Parent households with unstable children with a complex home environment
Culture, and progressives, are completely uninterested in what marriage really is. This is why when you get to some of the studies above about happiness in marriages, especially in single working parents messages or conservative families, that ALL of the data is in the positive direction. People are happier, they live longer, kids are more well adjusted. The data is SUPER clear on stable, 2-parent traditional marriages.
The problem is you aren't looking at the collective success of the family, and you aren't looking at things like male heart disease, stress, etc. You simply isolate this to "women do more household chores and don't get public recognition for it," and that's why marriages are bad.
Page 10 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News